View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Groups, Goals, and Growth: How Peer Acceptance Shapes Student Development in Co-Curricular Activities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Groups, Goals, and Growth: How Peer Acceptance Shapes Student Development in Co-Curricular Activities
Language: English
Authors: Gregory Arief D. Liem (ORCID 0000-0003-2523-5095), Jennifer A. Fredricks
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2025 95(4):1134-1154.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Peer Acceptance, Student Development, Student Motivation, Extracurricular Activities, Elementary School Students, Foreign Countries, Goal Orientation
Geographic Terms: Singapore
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12753
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: Compared to the role of classmates on students' academic development, less research has focused on the role of peers in students' motivation and developmental outcomes in school-organized Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs). Aims: This study examined how perceived acceptance from CCA peers early in the school year (T1) is associated with changes in CCA outcomes at the end of the school year (T2), with T1 and T2 mastery and performance goals serving as a linking factors. Sample: Participants were 517 Primary-3 to Primary-6 students in Singapore (50.7% female; M[subscript age] = 10.58, SD[subscript age] = 1.08). These students took part in various CCA groups classified into Physical Sports (34%), Visual and Performing Arts (31%), Clubs and Societies (24.2%), and Uniformed Groups (10.8%). Methods: The same survey was administered at two time points within a school year, with an interval of 24-26 weeks between them. Results: Perceived CCA peer acceptance early in the school year was significantly related to changes in both academic and non-academic outcomes later in the year, primarily through mastery goals. Mastery goals were positively associated with gains across all developmental outcomes, including school belonging, educational aspirations, classroom engagement, lifelong learning, teamwork disposition, and leadership skills. In contrast, performance goals were linked to gains in leadership but slight declines in teamwork and lifelong learning. Conclusions: These findings have theoretical implications for researchers studying peer relationships in CCAs and their impact on children's academic and non-academic development, as well as for practitioners optimizing the benefits of school-based CCA involvement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1488563
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGlzceBDHlRUY2WitfN4VOkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIeUinv7QGK0Q6Bp7wIBEICBm2GbBl1u74blWPOaPTFdtPPcHgS8k8EJPa7CAs-EupPrGmudSrGXp9X5OBiT9BVPynJWVZ56eTJ4AIrDcMBL_C1R2GHL7WugQmTZi_SIpYJ-6Z85dPUr7sntQ3BXSS_v55psF3yFjlZDODn_DHYOOuukcqpJw3nfwntst58BO_2oIWjM7HQMhA4ZPoL91IjilSq8vAK69dGPuiyk
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189133026;6kx01dec.25;2025Nov10.01:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189133026-1">Groups, goals, and growth: How peer acceptance shapes student development in co‐curricular activities </title> <p>Background: Compared to the role of classmates on students' academic development, less research has focused on the role of peers in students' motivation and developmental outcomes in school‐organized Co‐Curricular Activities (CCAs). Aims: This study examined how perceived acceptance from CCA peers early in the school year (T1) is associated with changes in CCA outcomes at the end of the school year (T2), with T1 and T2 mastery and performance goals serving as a linking factors. Sample: Participants were 517 Primary‐3 to Primary‐6 students in Singapore (50.7% female; Mage = 10.58, SDage = 1.08). These students took part in various CCA groups classified into Physical Sports (34%), Visual and Performing Arts (31%), Clubs and Societies (24.2%), and Uniformed Groups (10.8%). Methods: The same survey was administered at two time points within a school year, with an interval of 24–26 weeks between them. Results: Perceived CCA peer acceptance early in the school year was significantly related to changes in both academic and non‐academic outcomes later in the year, primarily through mastery goals. Mastery goals were positively associated with gains across all developmental outcomes, including school belonging, educational aspirations, classroom engagement, lifelong learning, teamwork disposition, and leadership skills. In contrast, performance goals were linked to gains in leadership but slight declines in teamwork and lifelong learning. Conclusions: These findings have theoretical implications for researchers studying peer relationships in CCAs and their impact on children's academic and non‐academic development, as well as for practitioners optimizing the benefits of school‐based CCA involvement.</p> <p>Keywords: achievement goals; classroom engagement; co‐curricular activity; educational aspirations; leadership; lifelong learning; peer acceptance; school belonging; teamwork</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>While extensive research has explored the influence of classmates on students' academic development (Bukowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]), far less attention has been given to the role of peers in school‐organized Co‐Curricular Activities (CCAs) in students' activity motivation and their developmental outcomes (Knifsend et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref2">45</reflink>]). This gap is surprising given that CCAs are structured to offer more opportunities for peer interaction than traditional classroom settings (Fredricks & Simpkins, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]). Indeed, theorists have highlighted the critical role of peers in CCAs in fostering activity motivation and optimizing the developmental benefits of these activities (Rose‐Krasnor & Ramey, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref4">77</reflink>]). Scholars have also called for more research to clarify how CCAs promote positive developmental outcomes through social–motivational mechanisms (Kuperminc et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref5">46</reflink>]), particularly the role of peer relationships within these processes (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, most previous research on CCAs has focused on high school students in North American settings (Farb & Matjasko, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]; Fredricks & Simpkins, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref8">36</reflink>]). Studying activity involvement in middle childhood is crucial, as this is when children are first introduced to organized activities and these settings provide adult supervision, peer interactions, and opportunities for positive development. Key developmental tasks at this stage—such as building peer relationships, developing socially appropriate behaviour, achieving academically, and gaining a sense of competence (Erikson, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]; Masten & Coatsworth, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref10">57</reflink>])—can be supported through participation in organized activities. Furthermore, middle childhood acts as a gateway between childhood and early adolescence, a critical period when developmental trajectories, skills, and values begin to solidify. Understanding the impact of organized activity participation during this stage can offer valuable insights into strategies for fostering positive developmental pathways before adolescence (Oberle et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref11">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Drawing primarily on Achievement Goal Theory (AGT; Elliot & Sommet, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>]) and Self‐Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref13">78</reflink>]), we aim to test a process model examining students' perceived peer acceptance and the mastery and performance goals they pursue in CCAs. As CCAs are structured, achievement‐oriented settings involving regular participation, adult supervision, skill development, and performance feedback (Eccles & Gootman, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]; Mahoney et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref15">54</reflink>]), they provide opportunities for youth to <emph>develop</emph> and <emph>demonstrate</emph> competence—key aspects of mastery and performance goals, respectively (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref16">32</reflink>]). Of particular relevance to CCAs is mastery goals as they "facilitate interest‐based learning" (Sommet et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref17">81</reflink>], p. 107), aligning well with the purpose of CCA participation. While AGT has been widely applied to research on sports (Harwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]), further exploration of achievement goals within a broader context such as CCAs, many of which are also sports‐based, can deepen our understanding of student motivation in these unique contexts.</p> <p>Our study extends research on CCAs by examining students in Singapore primary schools. Recognizing that student motivation is shaped by sociocultural factors and must be understood within its context (Zusho & Clayton, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref19">86</reflink>]), this study offers insights into the pursuit of mastery and performance goals among young students in Singapore—an Asian setting characterized by a unique blend of collectivism, competitiveness, and academic intensity (Ng, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref20">66</reflink>]). Given the underrepresentation of non‐Eurocentric cultures in motivational research (Usher, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref21">83</reflink>]), our findings shed light on how local values of community and competition in Singapore shape the adoption and role of mastery and performance goals in a non‐academic setting, offering a distinct perspective on motivational experiences beyond the North American context.</p> <p>Finally, we examine how these social‐motivational factors relate to both academic outcomes (e.g., school belonging, educational aspirations, classroom engagement) and non‐academic attributes (e.g., lifelong learning, teamwork disposition, leadership skills). These non‐academic attributes are critical skills for success in the 21st century (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref22">70</reflink>]) and are emphasized as CCA‐desired outcomes (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref23">62</reflink>]). As Figure 1 shows, this study aims to test a hypothesized model that examines how perceived CCA peer acceptance early in the school year (Time 1) predicts CCA outcomes at the end of the school year (Time 2), with achievement goals serving as a linking factors. By doing so, the study contributes to our understanding of peer relationships and motivation by highlighting the role of peers in shaping students' adoption of achievement goals within CCA settings and offering a social‐motivational perspective on optimizing CCAs to enhance developmental outcomes.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec25/bjep12753-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12753-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Hypothesized Relationships between Perceived Co‐Curricular Activity (CCA) Peer Acceptance, CCA Achievement Goals, and CCA‐Desired Outcomes. Thick single‐headed arrows represent hypothesized paths. Factors in the dashed box represent covariates. Prediction of Time‐2 outcomes controls for their respective Time‐1 outcome factors." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133026-4">SOCIAL CONTEXTS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS: AN INTEGRATED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK</hd> <p>According to the Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation (Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref24">26</reflink>]; Elliot & Sommet, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]), achievement goal pursuit is driven by both competence‐oriented (e.g., need for achievement, fear of failure) and relational (e.g., need for belonging, fear of rejection) motives. SDT (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref26">78</reflink>]) further underscores this by emphasizing that satisfying the needs for competence and relatedness—through experiences of mastery and connection—is essential for fostering motivation. Grounded in SDT, the Self‐System Model (Connell & Wellborn, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]; Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref28">80</reflink>]) highlights a "context → self → action → outcomes" pathway, where contextual factors like relationships with peers, parents, and teachers shape students' self‐systems (e.g., their sense of competence and relatedness) and self‐appraisals (e.g., self‐efficacy, achievement goals), which, in turn, influence their actions and outcomes. However, relational motives have traditionally been less studied than competence‐based ones (Elliot & Sommet, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]), prompting recent calls for research into the social foundations of achievement goals (Butera et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; Liem & Senko, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref31">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>This focus on social contexts is also reflected in the addition of Social Support (S) to the TARGET Framework (Patrick & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref32">71</reflink>]). The earlier version of the framework highlighted Task, Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, and Time as the primary elements promoting mastery goals (see Meece et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref33">59</reflink>] for detailed accounts). By including Social Support, the TARGETS Framework now acknowledges the critical role of positive relationships, including those with peers, in fostering student motivation. As noted, SDT similarly asserts that the satisfaction of the need for relatedness—along with those for competence and autonomy—is essential for driving engagement and perseverance (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref34">78</reflink>]; Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref35">80</reflink>]). Collectively, AGT, through its Hierarchical Model and TARGETS Framework, and SDT, with its emphasis on relational needs and support in student motivation (e.g., the Self‐System Model), provide the theoretical foundation for examining the role of peers in achievement goal pursuit.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-5">Peer acceptance and achievement goals</hd> <p>In this study, we focused on students' perceived peer acceptance, representing the degree to which students feel liked, valued, or positively regarded by their peers within a social group (Ntoumanis & Vazou, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref36">68</reflink>]). Peer acceptance is particularly salient in CCAs because affiliation with peers is a key reason why students join activities and improving social skills is a central goal of many activities. Further, peer comparison and evaluation are important sources of competence information (Fredricks & Simpkins, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]). Peer acceptance has been extensively found to play a crucial role in children's development, influencing areas such as social adjustment, self‐esteem, academic performance, and mental health (e.g., Asher & Coie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; Bagwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]; Wentzel & Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref40">85</reflink>]). Interestingly, cultural contexts can shape how peer acceptance is perceived and pursued by students (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]). In competitive cultures, students may seek acceptance by demonstrating individual success and achievement. In cooperative cultures, however, acceptance is more likely pursued through collaboration and contributing to group harmony. Thus, the way peer acceptance is achieved may vary depending on cultural values, norms, and practices.</p> <p>In the context of mastery goals—where the aim is learning and self‐improvement—peer acceptance may act as a powerful energizer. According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref42">78</reflink>]), the need for relatedness is a fundamental psychological driver that fuels intrinsic motivation. The TARGETS Framework extends this idea by emphasizing how a supportive social context, characterized by positive peer relationships, fosters the adoption of mastery goals (Patrick & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref43">71</reflink>]). When students feel accepted and valued by their peers, they experience a sense of psychological safety that encourages them to focus on personal growth and learning. Thus, peer acceptance serves as a vital interpersonal context that enhances mastery goal adoption by creating a social environment conducive to exploration, self‐improvement, and deeper engagement with learning tasks.</p> <p>However, peer acceptance can also be associated with the adoption of performance goals, especially when social status or approval is tied to relative competence. In competitive cultural contexts where peer approval is contingent upon outperforming others, students may adopt performance goals, aiming to demonstrate their competence in comparison to their peers. Thus, while peer acceptance can promote mastery goals through the supportive context it creates, peer acceptance can also be associated with performance goals where peer approval is linked to demonstrating superiority. From SDT's standpoint, when social rewards (e.g., recognition, status) are valued and anticipated, students may pursue performance goals as a means to satisfy their need for relatedness, as achieving these rewards enhances their chances for social acceptance (Deci et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]; see also Liem & Senko, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref45">49</reflink>] for the notion of goal complexes focusing on this issue). Indeed, prior research has supported the positive links between perceived peer acceptance and both academic mastery and performance goals (Nelson & DeBacker, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref46">65</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref47">82</reflink>]). Accordingly, we hypothesize that perceived peer acceptance will be positively associated with mastery (Hypothesis 1) and performance (Hypothesis 2) goals.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-6">Achievement goals and activity outcomes</hd> <p>The Hierarchical Model further posits that achievement goals serve as proximal predictors of achievement‐relevant processes and outcomes by providing the direction to what individuals pay attention to and aim to accomplish in competence‐relevant situations (Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]; Elliot & Sommet, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]). Indeed, Ames ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]) highlighted, "the adoption of a particular achievement goal triggers a 'program' of cognitive processes related to how individuals attend to, interpret, and respond to informational cues and situational demands" (p. 327). Thus, the achievement goals students pursue in their CCAs can shape the academic and non‐academic benefits they gain by guiding their attention and engagement.</p> <p>In this study, we investigate the role achievement goals play in both academic and non‐academic outcomes. For academic outcomes, we focus on school belonging, educational aspirations, and classroom engagement. School belonging refers to students' sense of connection and inclusion within their school community (Goodenow, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]). Classroom engagement represents students' focused attention and deep involvement in class activities (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]). Educational aspiration captures students' desire to stay in school (Bandura et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]). For non‐academic outcomes, we focus on lifelong learning, teamwork disposition, and leadership skills. Lifelong learning reflects a continuous desire for personal growth through formal and informal learning experiences (London, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref54">52</reflink>]). Teamwork refers to students' ability to work collaboratively with others (Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref55">43</reflink>]), whereas leadership represents the ability to guide, influence, and motivate others effectively (Murphy & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref56">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students adopting mastery goals focus on personal improvement and skill development (Elliot & Sommet, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]; Senko, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref58">79</reflink>]). In the context of CCAs, they seek challenges, persist despite setbacks, and engage deeply in their chosen activities. This interest‐based motivation and focus on self‐growth in CCAs likely extends to academic subjects, as these students become accustomed to the satisfaction that comes from mastery and personal progress. As a result, this mastery‐oriented motivation fosters a deeper connection to the school environment, as students feel more aligned with the school's learning culture, which strengthens their sense of belonging (Roeser et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref59">76</reflink>]). Therefore, mastery goals are expected to be positively linked to school belonging (Hypothesis 3).</p> <p>In addition to its positive role for school belonging, the problem‐solving skills, resilience, and passion that mastery‐oriented students develop through their CCA participation can transfer to academic work (Pierce et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref60">73</reflink>]). This transfer may result in a more positive attitude towards schooling, reflected in their active engagement in learning tasks and future academic intentions. Therefore, mastery goals are expected to be positively associated with classroom engagement (Hypothesis 4) and educational aspirations (Hypothesis 5). Moreover, students with mastery goals often exhibit conscientiousness (Corker et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]), a strong desire for continuous learning (Renninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref62">74</reflink>]), and collaborative tendencies (Levy‐Tossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref63">48</reflink>]). Thus, mastery goals are also likely to be positively linked to lifelong learning (Hypothesis 6) and teamwork (Hypothesis 7a).</p> <p>Performance goals, which emphasize winning and recognition (Elliot & Sommet, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]; Senko, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref65">79</reflink>]), can boost confidence, effort, and achievement but are also linked to anxiety, self‐handicapping, and avoidance of help‐seeking (Linnenbrink, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref66">51</reflink>]; Senko, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref67">79</reflink>]). These detrimental effects may be particularly pronounced for younger children, whose social and emotional skills are still developing, making them more vulnerable to the pressures associated with performance goals (Midgley et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref68">60</reflink>]). Younger students, especially in early and middle childhood, are in a critical phase of developing peer relationships, and adopting performance goals may hinder this process. For example, 5th graders with performance goals collaborate selectively with high‐status peers (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref69">47</reflink>]), and 7th graders with the same goals experience more friendship tension (Levy‐Tossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref70">48</reflink>]). Thus, performance goals might be negatively linked to outcomes particularly those associated with interpersonal relationships such as teamwork (Hypothesis 7b).</p> <p>Finally, development of leadership skills is a key goal of CCAs, likely linked to both mastery and performance goals. To gain and maintain leadership status within a social group, individuals must not only possess relevant competencies but also demonstrate them effectively to others. Indeed, individuals aspiring to lead "must seem to possess competencies that are central to their own primary tasks and challenges" (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>], p. 575). This aligns with the focus of mastery goals on developing competence and the emphasis of performance goals on displaying it for recognition. Thus, both mastery and performance goals are likely to be positively associated with leadership qualities (Hypotheses 8a and 8b).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-7">THE PRESENT STUDY: CONTEXT, PURPOSE, AND COVARIATES</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133026-8">CCA in Singapore</hd> <p>In Singapore, CCA participation is strongly encouraged in primary schools, but only becomes compulsory at the secondary level (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref72">62</reflink>]). CCAs are categorized into Physical Sports (e.g., badminton, basketball), Visual and Performing Arts (e.g., choir, dance), Clubs and Societies (e.g., chess, digital media), and Uniformed Groups (e.g., brownies, red cross), each designed to nurture diverse skills and interests. Despite this variety, all CCAs share common objectives of fostering leadership, teamwork, passion, and lifelong learning (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref73">61</reflink>]). These activities are guided by specific lesson objectives outlined in CCA student development plans (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref74">61</reflink>]), which help students progressively acquire these key competencies.</p> <p>In a competitive society like Singapore, where the nation's prosperity is heavily reliant on its human resources, CCAs are seen as vital in preparing students for the challenges of a global economy by honing essential life skills. Participation in CCAs provides an important avenue for developing qualities such as resilience, collaboration, and leadership—traits crucial for success in both education and the workforce. Teachers, working alongside CCA instructors, supervise student involvement to ensure alignment with CCA objectives, while schools actively engage parents to foster a shared understanding of the philosophy and goals behind CCAs. These partnerships reinforce the importance of CCAs in cultivating future‐ready individuals who can thrive in an increasingly competitive world (Liem et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref75">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-9">Hypothesized model</hd> <p>Drawing primarily on key tenets of AGT (Elliot & Sommet, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]; Patrick & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref77">71</reflink>]) and SDT (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref78">78</reflink>]; Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref79">80</reflink>]), this study hypothesizes the associations between students' perceived CCA peer acceptance early in the school year (T1) and both academic and non‐academic outcomes at the end of the school year (T2) by exploring the linking role of achievement goals in these relationships (Figure 1). As T1 achievement goals and outcomes are included as predictors of their respective T2 factors, the model allows us to test the degree to which T1 perceived peer acceptance predicts changes (gains or declines) in T2 outcomes through changes in achievement goals (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref80">55</reflink>]). The findings offer valuable insights into the role of social support in achievement goal adoption and highlight how fostering positive peer relationships and adaptive achievement goals early in the school year can optimize the benefits of CCA participation.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-10">Control variables</hd> <p>Prior research has highlighted the crucial roles parents and CCA instructors play in shaping students' participation and outcomes (Vandell et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref81">84</reflink>]). Parents' beliefs about the benefits of CCAs predict the time children invest in these activities (Denault & Poulin, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref82">22</reflink>]; Huebner & Mancini, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>]), while perceived instructor autonomy support is linked to higher CCA autonomous motivation (Denault & Guay, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref84">21</reflink>]). Further, regular participation is associated with improved skills and social adjustment (Bohnert et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>]). Despite gender differences in activity preferences—boys often favour sports and girls arts or service—both genders benefit similarly in leadership and teamwork (Eccles & Barber, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref86">25</reflink>]; Fredricks & Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref87">34</reflink>]). Factors like educational level, competition involvement, and autonomy in choosing an activity also affect outcomes, with older students showing higher intrinsic motivation when they can choose activities, and competition promoting performance goals and skill development (Denault & Guay, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref88">21</reflink>]; Fredricks & Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref89">34</reflink>]). Therefore, perceived parental activity expectations and activity instructor autonomy support, as well as gender, grade level, autonomy in deciding on CCA, competition involvement, and weekly activity participation frequency are included as covariates in the model.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-11">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133026-12">Participant and procedure</hd> <p>The sample comprised 517 students (50.7% female; <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 10.58, <emph>SD</emph><subs>age</subs> = 1.08) from 12 primary schools in Singapore. This sample included 19% Primary 3, 25.5% Primary 4, 33.1% Primary 5, and 22.4% Primary 6 students, with Primary 3 being the first year that CCAs begin in primary education (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref90">61</reflink>]). In terms of CCA categories, 34% of the students participated in Physical Sports, 24.2% in Clubs and Societies, 31% in Visual and Performing Arts, and 10.8% in Uniformed Groups. Further, 72.7% of the students chose their CCA themselves, and 45.3% of them represented their CCA in inter‐school competitions.</p> <p>The data reported in this paper are drawn from the larger project (OER 9/13 GAD) funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore. Research ethics and data collection approvals were first obtained from the University's Institutional Review Board (IRB‐2013‐12‐038) and the Ministry of Education, respectively. The survey was administered online by CCA instructors during a CCA period at the respective schools. The survey, conducted in English used in Singapore schools, took approximately 30 min to complete and was voluntary. Both student assent and parental consent were obtained before participation. Students were assured of confidentiality and encouraged to respond truthfully. The study employed a longitudinal design, involving two data collection points. The T1 survey occurred towards the end of Term 1, about 6 weeks into the school year, after students participated in their respective CCAs for around 4 weeks, allowing students' perceived CCA peer relationships and activity achievement goals to form. The T2 survey took place in Term 4, before the year‐end exams, with a T1–T2 interval of around 24–26 weeks.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-13">Measures</hd> <p>The same survey was administered at two time points. All the measures and their sample items are presented below. They were rated on a 7‐point scale (from 1–<emph>Strongly Disagree</emph> to 7–<emph>Strongly Agree</emph>). Unless explicitly stated, each of the measures comprised four items. Table 1 reports the psychometric properties of the subscales.</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive statistics, distributional properties, omega reliability, and means of CFA factor loadings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Skew</th><th align="left">Kurt</th><th align="left"><italic>ω</italic></th><th align="left">Mean of CFA Factor loadings</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Perceived Social Contexts</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Peer Acceptance</td><td align="char" char=".">5.65</td><td align="char" char=".">1.39</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.92</td><td align="char" char=".">.85</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Parental Expectations</td><td align="char" char=".">5.71</td><td align="char" char=".">1.43</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.28</td><td align="char" char=".">1.23</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Instructor Autonomy Support</td><td align="char" char=".">5.59</td><td align="char" char=".">1.35</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.21</td><td align="char" char=".">1.43</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Achievement Goals</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Mastery Goals</td><td align="char" char=".">6.03</td><td align="char" char=".">1.17</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.70</td><td align="char" char=".">3.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Performance Goals</td><td align="char" char=".">5.21</td><td align="char" char=".">1.47</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.87</td><td align="char" char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Mastery Goals</td><td align="char" char=".">5.80</td><td align="char" char=".">1.27</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.12</td><td align="char" char=".">1.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.93</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Performance Goals</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.48</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.57</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="char" char=".">.82</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Academic Outcomes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 School Belonging</td><td align="char" char=".">6.10</td><td align="char" char=".">1.16</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.72</td><td align="char" char=".">3.50</td><td align="char" char=".">.87</td><td align="char" char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Educational Aspirations</td><td align="char" char=".">6.25</td><td align="char" char=".">1.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.94</td><td align="char" char=".">5.37</td><td align="char" char=".">.82</td><td align="char" char=".">.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Classroom Engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">6.13</td><td align="char" char=".">1.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.65</td><td align="char" char=".">3.94</td><td align="char" char=".">.87</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 School Belonging</td><td align="char" char=".">5.89</td><td align="char" char=".">1.15</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.18</td><td align="char" char=".">1.83</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Educational Aspirations</td><td align="char" char=".">6.06</td><td align="char" char=".">1.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.49</td><td align="char" char=".">2.76</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Classroom Engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">6.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.13</td><td align="char" char=".">1.69</td><td align="char" char=".">.86</td><td align="char" char=".">.78</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Non‐Academic Outcomes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Lifelong Learning</td><td align="char" char=".">6.37</td><td align="char" char=".">0.93</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.11</td><td align="char" char=".">6.24</td><td align="char" char=".">.85</td><td align="char" char=".">.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Teamwork Disposition</td><td align="char" char=".">6.05</td><td align="char" char=".">1.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.55</td><td align="char" char=".">2.96</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Leadership Skills</td><td align="char" char=".">5.30</td><td align="char" char=".">1.46</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">.85</td><td align="char" char=".">.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Lifelong Learning</td><td align="char" char=".">6.11</td><td align="char" char=".">1.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.46</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="char" char=".">.82</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Teamwork Disposition</td><td align="char" char=".">5.88</td><td align="char" char=".">1.15</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.11</td><td align="char" char=".">1.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td><td align="char" char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Leadership Skills</td><td align="char" char=".">5.34</td><td align="char" char=".">1.33</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.85</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189133026-14">Perceived relationships</hd> <p>The three types of perceived relationships were assessed by pre‐validated measures adapted to CCAs. Peer acceptance (e.g., "Students in my CCA make their peers feel valued") was measured by three items drawn from the Peer Motivational Climate in Youth Sport Questionnaire (Ntoumanis & Vazou, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref91">68</reflink>]). Parental expectations (e.g., "My parents encourage me to do well in my CCA") was measured by three items drawn from the Parental Involvement in Activities Scale (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]). Lastly, instructor autonomy support (e.g., "My CCA instructor provides me with choices") was measured by six items of the Learning Climate Questionnaire (Black & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-15">Achievement goals</hd> <p>The Achievement Goal Questionnaire‐Revised (Elliot & Murayama, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref94">28</reflink>]) was adapted to the CCA setting to assess mastery goals (e.g., "My goal in my CCA is to learn the skills or knowledge as much as possible") and performance goals (e.g., "My goal in my CCA is to do better than most other students").</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-16">Academic outcomes</hd> <p>School belonging (e.g., "I like my school") and educational aspirations (e.g., "I want to keep studying even after I complete secondary school") were measured using subscales from Martin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref95">56</reflink>]). Classroom engagement (e.g., "I pay attention well in the class") was measured using a subscale from the Rochester Assessment Package for Schools (Connell & Wellborn, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref96">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-17">Non‐academic outcomes</hd> <p>Lifelong learning (e.g., "I always want to learn new skills"), teamwork (e.g., "I cooperate with my team members"), and leadership (e.g., "I am good at leading others to work towards our goals") were assessed using subscales from the 21st Century Competency Questionnaire validated for use with Singapore primary school students (Chua et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref97">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-18">Sociodemographic factors</hd> <p>Gender was coded as 0 for girls and 1 for boys, and school grades ranged from 1 (Primary‐3) to 4 (Primary‐6). We asked students to indicate the person who chose their CCA (1 = others [parents, teachers, or peers], 2 = myself) and if they represented their respective CCAs in inter‐school competitions (1 = no, 2 = yes). Students also reported the frequency of their weekly CCA participation (1 = 0–2 h, 2 = 3–4 hours, 3 = 5–6 h, 4 = 7–8 h, 5 = 9–10 h, 6 = more than 10 h).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-19">Data analysis</hd> <p>Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first conducted to confirm the dimensionality of the multi‐item factors. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was then used to estimate the hypothesized relationships. Model fit was evaluated using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI), the Root‐Mean‐Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). CFIs and TLIs ≥.90, RMSEAs ≤.05, and SRMRs ≤.08 indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref98">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>To control for the shared method variance, cross‐wave correlations between T1–T2 pairs of the uniquenesses of observed variables were freely estimated (Cole & Maxwell, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref99">17</reflink>]). Missing data, which was less than 5% at both time points, were handled using the M<emph>plus</emph> default Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) and the Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimator was used in all analyses. The analysis accounted for the clustering nature of the data (students nested within CCA groups; see McNeish, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref100">58</reflink>]) using the TYPE = COMPLEX option in M<emph>plus</emph> 8.8 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref101">64</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-20">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133026-21">Preliminary analysis</hd> <p>CFAs, testing a measurement model for each group of constructs, yielded a good fit: T1 perceived relationships (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref102">50</reflink>] = 132.96, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06[.05,.07], SRMR = .04), T1–T2 achievement goals (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>[<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref103">90</reflink>] = 205.21, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05[.04,.06], SRMR = .04), T1–T2 academic outcomes (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>[<reflink idref="bib224" id="ref104">224</reflink>] = 539.81, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05[.05,.06], SRMR = .04), and T1–T2 non‐academic outcomes (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>[<reflink idref="bib224" id="ref105">224</reflink>] = 411.70, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .04[.03,.05], SRMR = .05). Table 1 reports the means of subscales' item factor loadings and Table 2 report latent factor correlations of variables including covariates. We then computed intraclass correlations (ICCs) to assess the variance in focal variables attributable to CCA group differences. The bulk of variance (94%–95% for 11 out of 13 variables) was at the student level rather than the CCA‐group level (.04 <ICCs <.10, <emph>M</emph><subs>ICC</subs> = .06 at T1;.02 <ICCs <.05, <emph>M</emph><subs>ICC</subs> = .04 at T2), with only T1 performance goals and T1 leadership skills showing ICCs of.10. Following Hox's ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref106">40</reflink>]) guidelines that ICCs around.05 are small,.10 moderate, and.15 large, we applied robust standard errors to account for these small‐to‐moderate clustering effects (McNeish, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref107">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>2 TABLE Latent factors correlations among key variables in the study.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Covariates</th><th align="left">Time 1</th><th align="left">Time 2</th></tr><tr><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th><th align="left">10</th><th align="left">11</th><th align="left">12</th><th align="left">13</th><th align="left">14</th><th align="left">15</th><th align="left">16</th><th align="left">17</th><th align="left">18</th><th align="left">19</th><th align="left">20</th><th align="left">21</th><th align="left">22</th><th align="left">23</th><th align="left">24</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Covariates</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Gender</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Grade</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Choice</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.16</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Competition</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">.23</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Frequency</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.15</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Time 1</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Peer Acceptance</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.15</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Parent Expectations</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">−.14</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.18</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.65</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Inst Auto Support</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">.13</td><td align="left">.17</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.76</td><td align="left">.74</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Mastery Goals</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.16</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.61</td><td align="left">.52</td><td align="left">.56</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Performance Goals</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.42</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.39</td><td align="left">.63</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>School Belonging</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">−.17</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.50</td><td align="left">.53</td><td align="left">.52</td><td align="left">.47</td><td align="left">.25</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Educ. Aspirations</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.51</td><td align="left">.50</td><td align="left">.46</td><td align="left">.63</td><td align="left">.35</td><td align="left">.80</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Class Engagement</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.13</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.56</td><td align="left">.47</td><td align="left">.46</td><td align="left">.56</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">.72</td><td align="left">.79</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lifelong Learning</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.49</td><td align="left">.43</td><td align="left">.44</td><td align="left">.62</td><td align="left">.35</td><td align="left">.61</td><td align="left">.78</td><td align="left">.66</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Teamwork Disposition</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.63</td><td align="left">.56</td><td align="left">.62</td><td align="left">.55</td><td align="left">.35</td><td align="left">.58</td><td align="left">.62</td><td align="left">.64</td><td align="left">.75</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Leadership Skills</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.14</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.59</td><td align="left">.51</td><td align="left">.60</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left">.41</td><td align="left">.49</td><td align="left">.43</td><td align="left">.54</td><td align="left">.51</td><td align="left">.85</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Time 2</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Mastery Goals</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.13</td><td align="left">.13</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">.37</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">.46</td><td align="left">.25</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.37</td><td align="left">.32</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.29</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Performance Goals</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.22</td><td align="left">.26</td><td align="left">.20</td><td align="left">.25</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">.22</td><td align="left">.17</td><td align="left">.19</td><td align="left">.17</td><td align="left">.22</td><td align="left">.24</td><td align="left">.60</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>School Belonging</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">−.12</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.35</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">.33</td><td align="left">.37</td><td align="left">.14</td><td align="left">.58</td><td align="left">.46</td><td align="left">.43</td><td align="left">.43</td><td align="left">.48</td><td align="left">.35</td><td align="left">.57</td><td align="left">.29</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Educ Aspirations</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.25</td><td align="left">.22</td><td align="left">.18</td><td align="left">.31</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.36</td><td align="left">.42</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left">.23</td><td align="left">.53</td><td align="left">.33</td><td align="left">.78</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Class Engagement</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.12</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">.29</td><td align="left">.24</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">.14</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.44</td><td align="left">.50</td><td align="left">.44</td><td align="left">.44</td><td align="left">.31</td><td align="left">.57</td><td align="left">.33</td><td align="left">.79</td><td align="left">.96</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lifelong Learning</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.27</td><td align="left">.27</td><td align="left">.26</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.17</td><td align="left">.37</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left">.46</td><td align="left">.41</td><td align="left">.27</td><td align="left">.70</td><td align="left">.36</td><td align="left">.63</td><td align="left">.71</td><td align="left">.73</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Teamwork Disposition</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.35</td><td align="left">.38</td><td align="left">.39</td><td align="left">.37</td><td align="left">.15</td><td align="left">.43</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left">.44</td><td align="left">.41</td><td align="left">.58</td><td align="left">.45</td><td align="left">.67</td><td align="left">.36</td><td align="left">.67</td><td align="left">.61</td><td align="left">.66</td><td align="left">.88</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Leadership Skills</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.20</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.42</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left">.39</td><td align="left">.32</td><td align="left">.27</td><td align="left">.32</td><td align="left">.27</td><td align="left">.37</td><td align="left">.28</td><td align="left">.48</td><td align="left">.59</td><td align="left">.50</td><td align="left">.45</td><td align="left">.48</td><td align="left">.42</td><td align="left">.48</td><td align="left">.53</td><td align="left">.74</td><td align="left">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Correlations sig. at <emph>p</emph> < .05 italicized, at <emph>p</emph> < .01 underlined, at <emph>p</emph> < .001 bolded; Correlations italicized, bolded, and underlined are T1–T2 correlations of the same variable; Gender (0 = girl, 1 = boy); Educational Level (1 = Primary 3, 2 = Primary 4, 3 = Primary 5, 4 = Primary 6); Choice of CCA (1 = others, 2 = myself); Representing school in competition (1 = no, 2 = yes); Frequency (weekly hours, continuous).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-22">Main analysis</hd> <p>SEM was then conducted to test the hypothesized model, with sociocontextual and sociodemographic factors included as covariates. The model showed a good fit: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(1705) = 2948.34, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .04 (.04,.04), and SRMR = .06. The results show that T1 peer acceptance was positively associated with both T1 mastery (<emph>β</emph> = .51, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and T1 performance (<emph>β</emph> = .31, <emph>p</emph> < .01) goals, which in turn predicted their corresponding T2 factors (<emph>β</emph> = .44 and <emph>β</emph> = .33, respectively, both at <emph>p</emph> < .001). Controlling for T1 outcomes, T2 mastery goals were significantly associated with T2 outcomes (all at <emph>p</emph> < .001): school belonging (<emph>β</emph> = .51), educational aspirations (<emph>β</emph> = .47), classroom engagement (<emph>β</emph> = .51), lifelong learning (<emph>β</emph> = .71), teamwork disposition (<emph>β</emph> = .66), and leadership skills (<emph>β</emph> = .40). T2 performance goals were positively related to T2 leadership skills (<emph>β</emph> = .14, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and negatively related to T2 lifelong learning (<emph>β</emph> = −.10, <emph>p</emph> < .05) and teamwork disposition (<emph>β</emph> = −.10, <emph>p</emph> < .01). The autoregressive paths from T1 to T2 outcomes were all significant at <emph>p</emph> < .001, with βs ranging from.18 to.39. Multicollinearity tests involving only the main predictors (e.g., the two achievement goals) or all the variables in the model yielded VIF (1.64–4.19) and Tolerance (.24–.61) values that fell within acceptable thresholds (VIF <10 and Tolerance>.10), suggesting that multicollinearity is not an issue.</p> <p>Modification indices indicated that adding a cross‐time path from T1 school belonging to T2 mastery goals would significantly enhance model fit. Given its theoretical alignment with the TARGETS Framework (Patrick & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref108">71</reflink>]) and potential practical implications, we included this path (<emph>β</emph> = .15, <emph>p</emph> < .01), resulting in a significant decrease in chi‐square (Δχ<sups>2</sups>[Δ<emph>df</emph> = 1] = 11, <emph>p</emph> < .001) and a slight improvement in SRMR (from.06 to.05). Adding this path did not affect the significance or values of other parameters. Examination of indirect effects revealed significant indirect effects (<emph>p</emph> < .05) of T1 peer acceptance via T1 and T2 mastery goals on T2 school belonging (<emph>β</emph> = .10), T2 educational aspirations (<emph>β</emph> = .09), T2 classroom engagement (<emph>β</emph> = .09), T2 lifelong learning (<emph>β</emph> = .12), and T2 teamwork disposition (<emph>β</emph> = .11). Significant indirect effects of T1 peer acceptance were also found on T2 leadership skills via both mastery (<emph>β</emph> = .08) and performance (<emph>β</emph> = .02) goals. None of the indirect effects of T1 parental expectations and T1 instructor autonomy support on T2 outcomes were statistically significant (<emph>p ></emph> .05). Figure 2 presents standardized estimates of the significant paths in the final model, while Table 3 details all paths, including those related to covariates.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec25/bjep12753-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12753-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Final Empirical Model of the Role of Co‐Curricular Activity (CCA) Achievement Goals in Linking Time 1 CCA Perceived Peer Acceptance to Time 2 Academic and Non‐Academic Outcomes. Fit indices of the model are as follows: χ2[1704] = 2937.78, p < .001, CFI =.92, TLI =.91, RMSEA =.04 (.04,.04), and SRMR =.05; thick solid arrows represent hypothesized paths, a thin solid arrow represents a significant cross‐time path, and dotted arrows represent stability or auto‐regressive paths from T1 outcomes to their corresponding T2 outcomes. Sociocontextual and sociodemographic factors (not depicted in the figure) are included as covariates (see Table 3 for all paths in the model). * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001." /> </p> <p></p> <p>3 TABLE Standardized beta coefficients from final structural equation model predicting academic and non‐academic outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Predictors</th><th align="left">Predicted variables</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Time 1</th><th align="left">Time 2</th></tr><tr><th align="left">PEAC</th><th align="left">PAEX</th><th align="left">INAS</th><th align="left">MAST</th><th align="left">PERF</th><th align="left">MAST</th><th align="left">PERF</th><th align="left">SCHO</th><th align="left">EDUC</th><th align="left">CLAS</th><th align="left">LIFE</th><th align="left">TEAM</th><th align="left">LEAD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade</td><td align="left">−.12*</td><td align="left">−.19**</td><td align="left">−.14**</td><td align="left">.09*</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.07*</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Choice</td><td align="left">.08*</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.14*</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.05*</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competition</td><td align="left">.18***</td><td align="left">.21***</td><td align="left">.19***</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Peer Acceptance (PEAC)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">.51**</td><td align="left">.31**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Parental Expectations (PAEX)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">.24</td><td align="left">.15</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Instructor Autonomy Support (INAS)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Mastery Goals (MAST)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.36***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Performance Goals (PERF)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.31***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Mastery Goals (MAST)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.50***</td><td align="char" char=".">.46***</td><td align="char" char=".">.51***</td><td align="char" char=".">.71***</td><td align="char" char=".">.66***</td><td align="char" char=".">.40***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2 Performance Goals (PERF)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.10*</td><td align="char" char=".">−.10**</td><td align="char" char=".">.13**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 School Belonging (SCHO)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.15**</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.34***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Educational Aspirations (EDUC)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.18***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Classroom Engagement (CLAS)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.26***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Lifelong Learning (LIFE)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.18***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Teamwork Disposition (TEAM)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.29***</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 Leadership Skills (LEAD)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.39***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="left">.06*</td><td align="left">.07*</td><td align="left">.04*</td><td align="left">.46***</td><td align="left">.22***</td><td align="char" char=".">.25***</td><td align="char" char=".">.15***</td><td align="char" char=".">.46***</td><td align="char" char=".">.31***</td><td align="char" char=".">.38***</td><td align="char" char=".">.52***</td><td align="char" char=".">.54***</td><td align="char" char=".">.51***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note</emph>: Gender (0 = girl, 1 = boy); Educational Level (1 = Primary 3, 2 = Primary 4, 3 = Primary 5, 4 = Primary 6); Choice of CCA (1 = others, 2 = myself); Representing school in inter‐school competition (1 = no, 2 = yes); Frequency (weekly hours, continuous).</item> <item>3 *<emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>4 **<emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>5 ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189133026-24">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The study reveals that perceived peer acceptance early in the school year played a crucial role in the changes in academic and non‐academic outcomes later in the school year, through achievement goals at both time points. Specifically, perceived peer acceptance was positively associated with both mastery and performance goals—supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. Mastery goals, in turn, were associated with growth in all the desired outcomes considered (school belonging, educational aspirations, classroom engagement, lifelong learning, teamwork disposition, leadership skills)—consistent with Hypotheses 3–6, 7a, and 8a. Finally, performance goals were associated with gains in leadership but slight declines in teamwork and lifelong learning—aligned with Hypotheses 7b and 8b. In this section, we discuss key findings, their theoretical contributions and practical implications, and end with the study's limitations and directions for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-25">Theoretical contributions</hd> <p>These findings in CCA settings offer a timely response to the call for research into the social foundations of achievement goals (Butera et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref109">14</reflink>]; Liem & Senko, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref110">49</reflink>]) and research on how CCAs promote positive outcomes through social‐motivational mechanisms (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref111">12</reflink>]; Kuperminc et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref112">46</reflink>]). CCAs are structured to support peer interactions and the development and demonstration of competence (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref113">32</reflink>]; Fredricks & Simpkins, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref114">36</reflink>]). Our findings also provide fresh evidence supporting the addition of 'S', Social Support, to the TARGETS Framework as a key contextual factor for promoting mastery goals (Patrick & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref115">71</reflink>]). A notable finding is the positive link between perceived peer acceptance and performance goals, suggesting that when social approval is tied to social status—especially in competitive environments—students may adopt performance goals to demonstrate competence and gain peer recognition. This aligns with previous research showing that pursuing social status is related to performance goals (Anderman & Anderman, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>]). Moreover, our sample included students in middle childhood, a developmental stage where peer approval plays a critical role. Together, this emphasizes the need to account for both contextual factors and developmental stages when examining student motivation.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-26">Performance goals</hd> <p>Performance goals were associated with gains in leadership but also slight declines in teamwork and lifelong learning dispositions. These negative associations involving performance goals emerged only when their shared variance with mastery goals was accounted for in the model. In our sample, T2 mastery and performance goals were correlated at <emph>r</emph> = .60. Again, the cultural context may partly explain this finding. In competitive settings, students often seek both to improve their skills and to outperform others simultaneously. These goals can coexist, as competition is seen as a way to enhance abilities, while skill improvement enhances competitiveness (see Bong et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref117">11</reflink>] for a similar cultural lens). As students strive to surpass others primarily by developing their skills, controlling for mastery goals reveals the 'true' relationships of performance goals with outcomes (see MacKinnon et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref118">53</reflink>] for a methodological discussion). With the desire for learning and improvement—the essence of mastery goals—removed (i.e., controlled for in the model), focusing solely on surpassing others—the core of performance goals—can lead students to view peers as competitors, thereby straining relationships and undermining teamwork and continuous learning. Of course, aside from the correlation between the two goals, the presence of other variables and relationships in the model—particularly the role of T1 outcomes as controls and the interrelations among T2 outcomes—should be considered when interpreting these findings.</p> <p>The negative associations of performance goals with teamwork and lifelong learning cannot be simply attributed to a statistical artefact (e.g., suppression effects; MacKinnon et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref119">53</reflink>]) as performance goals were still positively linked to leadership skills in the model. Since students typically pursue multiple goals simultaneously (Barron & Harackiewicz, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref120">8</reflink>]), estimating both mastery and performance goals together provides a more accurate reflection of reality. Nonetheless, we cannot fully rule out the possibility that our findings also reflect culture‐specific phenomena. In less competitive cultures, mastery goals may be less intertwined with performance goals, and their effects on outcomes could be more independent of one another.</p> <p>The generally healthy effects of mastery goals and the potentially harmful effects of performance goals in this study support the goal theory's Mastery‐Goal Perspective (Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref121">23</reflink>]; Nicholls, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref122">67</reflink>]), positing the good‐bad dualism of mastery and performance goals. Predominantly arising from research within academic classroom contexts (Midgley et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref123">60</reflink>]), it suggests that pursuing performance goals may be less suitable for younger students who are typically learning to develop basic social skills and build peer relationships. Thus, the pursuit of performance goals can strain children's social relationships, as viewing peers as competitors may hinder the development of cooperation and positive social interactions. This finding is not entirely new, as prior qualitative and quantitative studies have shown similar patterns (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref124">47</reflink>]; Levy‐Tossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref125">48</reflink>]). It should be noted, however, that the negative effects of performance on teamwork and lifelong learning were considerably small (Keith, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref126">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-27">School belonging</hd> <p>An additional key finding shows that a sense of school belonging early in the school year was positively associated with gains in mastery goals later in the school year. While similar links have been documented in academic settings (e.g., Anderman & Anderman, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref127">2</reflink>]; Patrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref128">72</reflink>]), our study extends this to the CCA setting, underscoring the crucial role of perceived peer acceptance for mastery goals across contexts. Here, peer acceptance refers specifically to the acceptance from CCA peers, while school belonging encompasses a broader sense of being "personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school social environment" (Goodenow & Grady, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref129">38</reflink>], p. 80). When students experience a broader sense of school belonging, they are more inclined to engage in learning and pursue self‐improvement. This supportive environment mitigates fear of failure and rejection, providing a secure foundation for students to confidently pursue mastery goals, knowing their efforts are valued. Clearly, this finding highlights the importance of not only CCA peers but also the wider school community in promoting mastery goals within CCAs and, in turn, the developmental benefits of CCA participation.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-28">Practical implications</hd> <p>Several applied implications can be drawn from our findings. First, the findings underscore the importance of establishing positive relationships among students within individual CCAs early in the school year and reinforcing these relational dynamics throughout the year. This can be achieved by creating opportunities for team‐building activities, collaborative tasks, and open communication, allowing students to connect, build trust, and support one another with their CCA peers. These strategies also promise the possibility that students seek social approval in a healthier way, not by outperforming others but by contributing to group work and fostering social cohesion. By emphasizing collaboration and mutual support, these efforts can also help enhance students' sense of belonging to the school community.</p> <p>Second, our findings point to the academic and non‐academic benefits of mastery goals. Thus, emphasizing skills development that is based on individual students' baseline skills should be the key principle guiding CCA instructors in shaping their instructional practices and parents in setting CCA‐related goals for their children. For CCA instructors, beyond fostering strong bonds among CCA members, this can be achieved by applying other specific TARGETS principles (Patrick & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref130">71</reflink>]). For parents, communicating realistic expectationsunconditionally, without pressures or threats of negative consequences, is a healthy and perhaps more effective way to help the child reap the optimal benefits from activity participation.</p> <p>Third, considering that the aim of CCAs is to create a healthy balance of collaboration, challenge, and enjoyment in developing skills (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref131">61</reflink>]), while also taking into account the negative consequences of pursuing performance goals shown in this and other studies with young students (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref132">47</reflink>]), we question whether CCAs are suitable for nurturing leadership. We believe the answer is yes. CCA instructors can still effectively foster students' leadership by providing explicit opportunities for <emph>all</emph> students to take on various leadership roles throughout the year, without relying on competition and normative performance. This strategy should be reinforced by CCA instructors clearly communicating the objectives of these leadership opportunities and by parents emphasizing to their children that personal improvement, rather than outperforming others, is the true measure of success in CCAs.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-29">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>Despite the study's contributions and the implications of its findings, several limitations should be noted. First, the study relied on self‐report measures and students' perceptions of social contexts. While students may interpret the same context differently, underscoring the importance of assessing their individual perceptions (Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref133">75</reflink>]), future research should also incorporate reports from peers, parents, and instructors regarding their beliefs and behaviours related to CCAs. Additionally, objective measures like school achievement and attendance should be included as outcomes. Second, the lack of significant effects involving perceived parental expectations and instructor autonomy support does not necessarily imply that these socialization agents are unimportant in motivating children's activity participation. Future studies should examine other aspects of parental and instructor involvement, such as emotional and instrumental support, and explore their relative salience alongside peer influences. Third, the extended time interval (24–26 weeks) between measurement points in our study may have contributed to the lack of significant cross‐time relationships between perceived peer acceptance, achievement goals, and outcomes. Future research should consider shorter intervals or more frequent measurements to capture the potentially dynamic and proximal nature of these relationships. Fourth, although the study included a relatively sizable group of students, we claim neither that these students were representative of the activity groups they belonged to nor that the range of CCAs in our study captured all activities offered in schools. This limitation arises from the fact that, while all students in the selected programs were invited to participate, we did not have access to data on the total number of students enrolled in each program during the study period. Consequently, while this study provides a broad social‐motivational perspective on participation across various CCA settings, future research should delve deeper into the social‐motivational dynamics within specific categories of CCAs (e.g., sports), investigate activity characteristics that may moderate these processes (e.g., individual vs. team sports), and ensure the inclusion of a representative sample of students for the CCA groups being studied. Finally, although this study is one of the few to examine the social‐motivational mechanism of CCA participation among young Asian students, the findings may not generalize to students in other Asian contexts. Sociocultural variations, such as differing emphases on competition, the prioritization of co‐curricular activities, or the integration of such activities within the educational system, could influence how students engage with and benefit from CCAs. Future research should extend to other Asian cultures to better understand the influence of sociocultural contexts on activity processes and outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-30">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The literature has highlighted the unique growth opportunities that school‐based CCAs offer. To date, there has been much less research on social and motivational processes in CCAs than in classroom settings, despite the fact that CCAs provide an ideal setting to study these processes. Moreover, most prior studies have focused on North American adolescents and have emphasized the quantity of CCA participation—such as frequency and duration—while often neglecting the quality of participation. Adopting Achievement Goal and Self‐Determination Theories, particularly through the Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation, the TARGETS Framework, and the Self‐System Model, this study broadens our understanding of the social‐motivational processes driving positive development in Singaporean primary school students through CCAs. Findings underscore the importance of fostering positive peer relationships and the pursuit of mastery goals in optimizing the benefits of activity participation for developmental outcomes. By focusing on these social‐motivational dynamics, this study offers both theoretical contributions and applied implications for researchers and practitioners aiming to leverage CCA peer relationships to enhance children's holistic development, emphasizing quality over quantity in participation.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-31">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Gregory Arief D. Liem:</bold> Conceptualization; investigation; funding acquisition; methodology; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Jennifer A. Fredricks:</bold> Conceptualization; writing – review and editing; writing – original draft.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-32">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>The study was funded by the grant (OER 9/13 GAD) from Singapore's Ministry of Education through the National Institute of Education's Education Research Funding Programme. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of the Ministry of Education, Singapore, or any affiliated institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-33">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>None declared.</p> <hd id="AN0189133026-34">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0189133026-35"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref50" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The literature has used the term <emph>Extra‐Curricular Activities</emph> (<emph>ECAs</emph>) to describe school‐based activities that occur outside of core academic learning (Farb & Matjasko, [31]). These activities are characterized by the following features: (a) hold regularly scheduled meetings; (b) are supervised by adults; (c) are organized around particular competencies; and (d) are structured around group‐oriented participation (Vandell et al., [84]). In Singapore, where this study was conducted, these activities are known as <emph>Co‐Curricular Activities</emph> (<emph>CCAs</emph>) (MOE, 2022). As such, this term will be used throughout this paper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref116" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The achievement goal literature (Elliot & Hulleman, [27]; Liem & Senko, [49]) identifies these goals as mastery‐approach and performance‐approach. Each has a corresponding avoidance‐oriented counterpart: mastery‐avoidant goals aim to prevent a decline in competence, while performance‐avoidant goals seek to avoid being outperformed or appearing incompetent. In our study, we focus exclusively on the two approach‐oriented goals. For simplicity, we refer to these as mastery goals and performance goals.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref71" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> We also tested several other models to examine the relationships between perceived relationships, achievement goals, and outcomes across different time points. One model positioned T1 perceived relationships as predictors of T2 achievement goals, which then predicted T2 outcomes, with T1 achievement goals and T1 outcomes included as predictors of their respective T2 factors (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>[1385] = 2454.28, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .04[.04,.04], and SRMR = .04). Another model positioned T1 perceived relationships as predictors of T1 achievement goals, which in turn predicted T2 outcomes, with T1 outcomes included as predictors of their corresponding T2 factors (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>[965] = 1685.59, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .04[.04,.04], and SRMR = .05). Finally, we tested a combined longitudinal and contemporaneous model, guided by MacKinnon's (2008) recommendations for testing mediation relationships with two time points. This model incorporated key mediational paths both across time points (i.e., T1 perceived relationships → T2 achievement goals; T1 achievement goals → T2 outcomes) and within the same time point (i.e., T2 perceived relationships → T2 achievement goals; T2 achievement goals → T2 outcomes). The model yield a good fit too (χ<sups>2</sups>[3901] = 6507.22, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = .90, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .04[.04,.04], and SRMR = .05). Although all these models reflected the same theoretically informed relationships as the final model reported in this paper, none revealed significant mediational pathways. This may suggest that the extended time interval between T1 and T2 measurements (24–26 weeks) caused substantial shifts in the dynamics of the hypothesized relationships which is itself a methodologically and substantively important finding.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189133026-36"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327 – 348). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24 (1), 21 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0978</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574 – 601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref92" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, J. C., Funk, J. B., Elliott, R., & Smith, P. H. (2003). Parental support and pressure and children's extracurricular activities: Relationships with amount of involvement and affective experience of participation. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 241 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193‐3973(03)00046‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (Eds.). (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69 (1), 140 – 153. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref53" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Vittorio Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self‐efficacy beliefs as shapers of children's aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72 (1), 187 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8624.00273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref120" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (5), 706 – 722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.80.5.706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref93" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84 (6), 740 – 756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098‐237X(200011)84:6<740::AID‐SCE4>3.0.CO;2‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bohnert, A., Fredricks, J. A., & Randall, E. (2010). Capturing unique dimensions of youth organized activity involvement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Review of Educational Research, 80 (4), 576 – 610. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bong, M., Woo, Y., & Shin, J. (2013). Do students distinguish between different types of performance goals? Journal of Experimental Education, 81 (4), 464 – 489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, B. B. (2013). Adolescents, organized activities, and peers: Knowledge gained and knowledge needed. In J. A. Fredricks & S. D. Simpkins (Eds.), Organized out‐of‐school activities: Setting for peer relationships (Vol. 140, pp. 77 – 96). New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B., & Rubin, K. H. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butera, F., Dompnier, B., & Darnon, C. (2024). Achievement goals: A social influence cycle. Annual Review of Psychology, 75, 527 – 554. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐013123‐102139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., French, D. C., & Schneider, B. H. (2006). Culture and peer relationships. In X. Chen, D. C. French, & B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 3 – 20). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chua, B. L., Chye, Y. L. S., Seng, B. G. Y., & Liem, G. A. D. (2019). Designing an instrument to measure 21st century values and competencies. OER Knowledge Bites, 9, 16 – 17. https://ebook.ntu.edu.sg/20190607‐oer‐knowledge‐bites‐volume9/fullview.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112 (4), 558 – 577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐843X.112.4.558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self‐system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self‐processes and development (pp. 43 – 77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corker, K. S., Oswald, F. L., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Conscientiousness in the classroom: A process explanation. Journal of Personality, 80 (4), 995 – 1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6494.2011.00750.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deci, E., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self‐regulation of learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8 (3), 165 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041‐6080(96)90013‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denault, A.‐S., & Guay, F. (2017). Motivation towards extracurricular activities and motivation at school: A test of the generalization effect hypothesis. Journal of Adolescence, 54, 94 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.11.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denault, A.‐S., & Poulin, F. (2009). Intensity and breadth of participation in organized activities during the adolescent years: Multiple associations with youth outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 (9), 1199 – 1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐009‐9437‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41 (10), 1040 – 1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.41.10.1040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14 (1), 10 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558499141003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach‐avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30 (2), 111 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031‐006‐9028‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J., & Hulleman, C. S. (2017). Achievement goals. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 43 – 60). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (3), 613 – 628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.100.3.613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J., & Sommet, N. (2023). Integration in the achievement motivation literature and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (3), 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐023‐09785‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton & Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farb, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2012). Recent advances in research on school‐based extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Developmental Review, 32 (1), 1 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., Alfeld‐Liro, C. J., Hruda, L. Z., Eccles, J. S., Patrick, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). A qualitative exploration of adolescents' commitment to athletics and the arts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17 (1), 68 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558402171004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59 – 109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental Psychology, 42 (4), 698 – 713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.42.4.698</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., & Simpkins, S. D. (2013a). Organized out‐of‐school activities: Settings for peer relationships. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2013 (140), 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., & Simpkins, S. D. (2013b). Organized‐out‐of‐school activities and peer relationships: Theoretical perspectives and previous research. In J. A. Fredricks & S. D. Simpkins (Eds.), Organized out‐of‐school activities: Setting for peer relationships (Vol. 140, pp. 1 – 17). New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13 (1), 21 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431693013001002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends' values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62 (1), 60 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.9943831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harwood, C., Spray, C., & Keegan, R. (2008). Achievement goal theories in sports. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology. 3rd ed, Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L.‐T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut‐off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huebner, A. J., & Mancini, J. A. (2003). Shaping structured out‐of‐school time use among youth: The effects of self, family, and friend systems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32 (6), 453 – 463. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025990419215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keith, T. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knifsend, C. A., Espinoza, G., & Juvonen, J. (2022). The role of peer relationships on academic and extracurricular engagement. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (2nd ed., pp. 387 – 401). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuperminc, G. P., Smith, E. P., & Henrich, C. C. (2013). Social and motivational processes in after‐school settings: Bridging gaps between theory, research, and practice. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33 (1), 5 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612469055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents' achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 127 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPOE.0000018547.08294.b6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy‐Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal orientations, multiple goal profiles, and friendship intimacy among early adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 231 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liem, G. A. D., & Senko, C. (2022). Goal complexes: A new approach to studying the coordination, consequences, and social contexts of pursuing multiple goals. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 2167 – 2195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐022‐09701‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liem, G. A. D., Wong, I. Y. F., & Aziz, J. (2022). Local evidence synthesis on fostering learning for life. Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education‐Nanyang Technological University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance‐approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students' motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 197 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.97.2.197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> London, M. (2021). The Oxford handbook of lifelong learning (2nd ed.). Oxford Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1 (4), 173 – 181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahoney, J. L., Vandell, D. L., Simpkins, S., & Zarrett, N. (2009). Adolescent out‐of‐school activities. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 228 – 269). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, A. J. (2011). Prescriptive statements and educational practice: What can structural equation modeling (SEM) offer? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 235 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐011‐9160‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, A. J., Papworth, B., Ginns, P., & Liem, G. A. D. (2014). Boarding school, academic motivation and engagement, and psychological well‐being: A large‐scale investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (5), 1007 – 1049. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53 (2), 205 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.53.2.205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeish, D. (2023. Advance online publication). A practical guide to selecting and blending approaches for clustered data: Clustered errors, multilevel models, and fixed‐effect models. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487 – 503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance‐approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 77 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.93.1.77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education (MOE). (2016). MOE Handbook for the co‐curriculum. MOE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education (MOE). (2022). Overview of co‐curricular activities. Retrieved on June 1st, 2024 from https://<ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.sg/education‐in‐sg/our‐programmes/cca/overview#:~:text=What%20are%20CCAs%3F,prepare%20them%20for%20future%20challenges">www.moe.gov.sg/education‐in‐sg/our‐programmes/cca/overview#:~:text=What%20are%20CCAs%3F,prepare%20them%20for%20future%20challenges</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long‐lens approach to leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 459 – 470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998 –2023). Mplus user's guide. Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, R. M., & DeBacker, T. K. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. Journal of Experimental Education, 76 (2), 170 – 189. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.2.170‐190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, P. T. (2020). The paradoxes of student well‐being in Singapore. ECNU Review of Education, 3 (3), 437 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120935127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91 (3), 328 – 346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.91.3.328</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ntoumanis, N., & Vazou, S. (2005). Peer motivational climate in youth sport: Measurement development and validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27 (4), 432 – 455. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.27.4.432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oberle, E., Ji, X. R., Guhn, M., Schonert‐Reichl, K. A., & Gadermann, A. M. (2019). Benefits of extracurricular participation in early adolescence: Associations with peer belonging and mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 (11), 2255 – 2270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐019‐01110‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrick, H., & Kaplan, A. (2022). Promoting students' growth motivation: Mastery‐structured classrooms. In K. Allen, M. J. Furlong, D. A. Vella‐Brodrick, & S. M. Suldo (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools: Supporting process and practice (3rd ed., pp. 295 – 308). Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 83 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.99.1.83</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pierce, S., Gould, D., & Camiré, M. (2017). Definition and model of life skills transfer. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10 (1), 186 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1199727</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renninger, K. A., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2004). Love of learning. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 161 – 179). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, K. A. (2023). Motivational climate theory: Disentangling definitions and roles of classroom motivational support, climate, and microclimates. Educational Psychologist, 58 (2), 92 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2198011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.88.3.408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose‐Krasnor, L., & Ramey, H. L. (2019). Youth activity participation: An ecological peer‐based approach for positive youth development. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 676 – 695). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self‐determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senko, C. (2016). Achievement goal theory: A story of early promises, eventual discords, and future possibilities. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 75 – 95). Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223 – 245). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sommet, N., Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (2021). Achievement goal complexes: Integrating the "what" and the "why" of achievement motivation. In O. P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (4th ed., pp. 104 – 121). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, X., Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., Goetz, T., Wubbels, T., & Mainhard, T. (2020). Classroom social environment as student emotions' antecedent: Mediating role of achievement goals. The Journal of Experimental Education, 90 (1), 146 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1724851</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Usher, E. L. (2018). Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural relevance. Educational Psychologist, 53 (2), 131 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1442220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandell, D. L., Larson, R. W., Mahoney, J. L., & Watts, T. W. (2015). Children's organized activities. In M. H. Bornstein, T. Leventhal, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes (7th ed., pp. 305 – 344). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68 (6), 1198 – 1209. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zusho, A., & Clayton, K. (2011). Culturalizing achievement goal theory and research. Educational Psychologist, 46 (4), 239 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.614526</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gregory Arief D. Liem and Jennifer A. Fredricks</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib224" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref133"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1488563
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Groups, Goals, and Growth: How Peer Acceptance Shapes Student Development in Co-Curricular Activities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gregory+Arief+D%2E+Liem%22">Gregory Arief D. Liem</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2523-5095">0000-0003-2523-5095</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennifer+A%2E+Fredricks%22">Jennifer A. Fredricks</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2025 95(4):1134-1154.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Acceptance%22">Peer Acceptance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Development%22">Student Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Extracurricular+Activities%22">Extracurricular Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Singapore%22">Singapore</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12753
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Compared to the role of classmates on students' academic development, less research has focused on the role of peers in students' motivation and developmental outcomes in school-organized Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs). Aims: This study examined how perceived acceptance from CCA peers early in the school year (T1) is associated with changes in CCA outcomes at the end of the school year (T2), with T1 and T2 mastery and performance goals serving as a linking factors. Sample: Participants were 517 Primary-3 to Primary-6 students in Singapore (50.7% female; M[subscript age] = 10.58, SD[subscript age] = 1.08). These students took part in various CCA groups classified into Physical Sports (34%), Visual and Performing Arts (31%), Clubs and Societies (24.2%), and Uniformed Groups (10.8%). Methods: The same survey was administered at two time points within a school year, with an interval of 24-26 weeks between them. Results: Perceived CCA peer acceptance early in the school year was significantly related to changes in both academic and non-academic outcomes later in the year, primarily through mastery goals. Mastery goals were positively associated with gains across all developmental outcomes, including school belonging, educational aspirations, classroom engagement, lifelong learning, teamwork disposition, and leadership skills. In contrast, performance goals were linked to gains in leadership but slight declines in teamwork and lifelong learning. Conclusions: These findings have theoretical implications for researchers studying peer relationships in CCAs and their impact on children's academic and non-academic development, as well as for practitioners optimizing the benefits of school-based CCA involvement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1488563
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1488563
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12753
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 1134
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Peer Acceptance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Extracurricular Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Singapore
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Groups, Goals, and Growth: How Peer Acceptance Shapes Student Development in Co-Curricular Activities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gregory Arief D. Liem
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jennifer A. Fredricks
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 95
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1