This belief was not constrained to a small group of propagandists but was a widely held belief advocated by prominent politicians and scientists. For example, in the Lincoln - Douglas debate, Lincoln stated:

Thomas Jefferson wrote "I advance it, therefore, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowment of both body and mind." He contended that although blacks were inferior, their deprivation in intelligence was no measure of their rights. David Hume, the prominent English philosopher, advocated the separate creation and innate inferiority of non-white races and Charles Darwin wrote about a future time when the gap between human and ape will increase by the anticipated extinction of intermediates such as chimpanzees and Hottentots(2).

Prior to the turn of the 19th century, America lived in the shadow of European scholars, and subscribed to European theories and philosophies. The first great theory to be advanced in America was that of polygeny - the basic premise that blacks and Indians are separate species and inferior to whites. The first of the great polygenist was Louis Agassiz, a Swiss born naturalist who immigrated to America in the 1840's. There he became a professor at Harvard where he founded and directed the Museum of Comparative Zoology.

Agassiz's theory of polygeny argued that races were created as separate species. The Bible does not speak about parts of the world unknown to the ancients. The tale of Adam refers only to the origin of Caucasians. Negroes and Caucasians are as distinct in the mummified remains of Egypt as they are today. If human races were the product of climatic influence, then the passage of three thousand years would have engendered substantial changes. But modern races occupy definite, non-overlapping, geographic areas - even though some ranges have been blurred by migration. Agassiz wrote:

Samuel Morton was a distinguished scientist and physician in Philadelphia and was also the owner of a collection of some 1000 skulls. His goal was to test a hypothesis - that a ranking of races could be established objectively by physical characteristics of the brain, particularly by its size. His methodology consisted of collecting skulls, filling the cranial cavity with sifted mustard seed, pouring it back into a graduated cylinder and reading the skull's capacity in cubic inches. Later on, he became dissatisfied with mustard seed and used 1/8 inch diameter lead shot to achieve more consistent results.

Needless to say, Morton's findings confirmed American beliefs - whites have the largest brain capacity, Indians are in the middle, and blacks are on the bottom. Furthermore, among caucasians, Teutons and Anglo-saxons are on top, Jews in the middle, and Hindus on the bottom(4).

Gould reanalyzed some of Morton's findings and reported that Morton's summaries were a patchwork of fudging, finagling and miscalculation. In calculating averages for Indians, Morton included an extremely high proportion of small skulled Peruvians which had the effect of lowering the mean for that group. On the other hand, in calculating the average for caucasians, he omitted small-brained Hindus from his sample which had the effect of raising the average for Caucasians. Furthermore, half the skulls in the caucasian group belong to males, while in the negroid group, only 1/3 of the skulls belong to males. Caucasians also tend to be bigger people, and bigger people tend to haver larger skulls. This does not imply that they are smarter. When Gould recalculated the averages, correcting for sampling and omissions, he found no differences between the races.

Following the ground breaking research of Agassiz and Morton, a new fevor swept across America in the second half of the 19th century. This fervor was fueled by two trends - the development of craniometry, and the allure of numbers. The science of craniometry involved measuring heads (and later, bodies) with the goal of objectively ranking the races. Indeed, much effort was spent measuring heads and bodies of people from various races, and comparing them to each other and to apes. The conclusion was that blacks and other races, and women were inferior to white males, and that such differences were innate. This research was lead by notables such as Francis Galton.

Galton, in addition to being a scientist, was an accomplished mathematician. He had a passion for measurement, and it was under his guidance that the notion of quantification came to play an important role in the assessment of intelligence. Another of the prominent craniologists was Paul Broca. Broca was noted for his enormous care in generating data and his precise measurements. Broca began a search for means of measuring skulls to rank races. It should be noted, that such endeavours were often undertaken with a priori convictions that races could be ranked, and that the outcome of such ranking was really never in doubt. To this end they developed a series of measures on the skull.

First, they started by measuring cranial capacity - the volume of the skull. However, at one point, Broca became dissatisfied with the measure of capacity. He conceded that brain size and intelligence were not correlated for groups of superior intelligence but that the correlation was still strong for groups of inferior intelligence(5).

This was followed by the development of two more refined measures - the cranial index and the facial angle. The cranial index was defined as the maximum width to the maximum length of the skull. Relatively long skulls were thought to be indicative of superior intelligence and relatively shorter skulls were thought to be indicative of inferior intelligence. This belief was held with such conviction that Anders Retzius constructed a theory of civilization based upon the cranial index. Retzius believed that Stone Age people possessed relatively shorter skulls while the more progressive Bronze Age people who invaded and replaced them possessed longer skulls. This theory was supported by the fact that people in Sweden, England, America and Germany were found to have relatively long skulls. However, imagine the problem when it was discovered that African blacks and Australian aborigines turned out to be the world's longest headed people! Broca argued that the lengthening of the skulls in blacks occurred at the rear of the skull whereas for whites the lengthening of the skull occurred at the front. The front of the brain was thought to be responsible for higher order thinking, while the rear was responsible for more mundane functions such as involuntary muscle movement, sensation, and emotion. Hence, Broca constructed a neat little argument demonstrating the superiority of whites(6).

Another measure Broca adopted was the position of the foramen magnum. The foramen magnum is the hole in the base of the skull where the spinal cord passes through. In mammals, the hole begins at the base of the skull and moves to a position at the back of the skull by birth. In humans, it moves very little. In apes it moves more, so that it is further back on the skull. The general consensus was that the higher the race, the more forward the foramen magnum. Again, imagine Broca's discomfort when it was discovered that the distance from the back of the skull to the foramen magnum was the same for blacks and whites. And furthermore, since blacks tended to have longer faces, the foramen magnum of whites was relavitively more anterior than that of blacks. The solution was to subtract out the influence of the longer faces, a sort of statistical correction. Having done that, Broca then found that the hole for blacks was relatively more to the rear than for whites and the problem was solved(7).

The work of these men has been very influential upon social policy and still carries weight within contemporary thinking. What we must keep in mind is the time period in which they were working - the late 19th century. These ideas are only 100 years old. Indeed, Hooten was still talking about measuring head circumference as a measure of intelligence as late as 1939! In fact, one of the variables Rushton measured in his famous paper of the mid-1980's, which created an uproar, was head circumference. These ideas are not that far behind us. The second point that we must keep in mind, is that these ideas represent influential and pervasive beliefs within the culture that we live. The idea of an innate entity called intelligence is a very dominant force within our society. And it can be traced back to the ideas of these researchers and their views. And it was from these men that intelligence testing was born.

Alfred Binet was initially interested in measuring intelligence, and he, like his contemporaries, began measuring intelligence by measuring heads. However, Binet became dissatisfied with the procedure - he recognized its inconsistencies and lack of real differences. Thus he was led to abandon the use of head circumference as a means of measuring intelligence. He turned to psychological mthods and began to develop a set of tasks that would enable him to measure reasoning. He declined to give an exact meaning to the number that emerged on his test, and he recognized that it could become a number indicating something that could be labelled and perverted by misuse, teacher expectancy and the self-fulfilling prophesy. The ultimate purpose of the test was to identify those children who needed special help, and even cautioned teachers against hereditarian assumptions. The test was meant to identify students who needed help, and not for labelling(8).

Binet developed three principles for his tests:

1. The scores are a practical device; they do not support any thoery of intelligence. They do not define anything innate. We may not designate what they measure as "intelligence".
2. The scale is rough, empirical guide for identifying mildly retarded and learning-disabled children who need special help. It is not a device for ranking normal children.
3. Whatever the cause of difficulty, emphasis shall be placed upon improvement through special education. Low scores shall not be used to mark children as innately incapable.

Unfortunately, American psychologists took Binet's test and used it to measure a single, innate, immutable entity called intelligence. The first of these was Goddard. Goddard translated Binet's test and articles into English.and began to use the test to identify in order to recognize limits, segregate, and curtail breeding to prevent further deterioration of an endangered American stock, threatened by immigration from without and by prolific reproduction of its feeble-minded within. An unabashed hereditarian, Goddard wrote that "the chief determiner of human conduct is ... intelligence: that this process is conditioned by a nervous mechanism which is inborn ... that it is but little affected by any later influences except such serious accidents as may destroy part of the mechanism." This led Goddard to form such opinions such as preventing feeble-minded people from bearing children, and preventing the immigration of feeble-minded people. Given the nature of the test, this amounted to the exclusion of almost any non-english speaking immigrant! (It should be noted that Goddard did back down on many of his views later in life)(9).

Lois Terman developed the Stanford-Binet test by engaging in statistical analysis to refine the items on the Binet test. However, Terman's major influence came about as an advocate for universal testing. Terman hoped to establish a gradation of innate ability by which people could be assigned to their proper stations in life. Testing soon became, and still is, a multi-million dollar industry. Terman decided that we must first restrain or eliminate those whose intelligence is too low for an effective or moral life. Next, Terman hoped that his testers would determine the minimum IQ necessary for success in various occupations. Substantial success, he suggested, would require an IQ of 115 or 120, which would effectively eliminate ¾ of the population from any opportunities for substantial success. An IQ of 75 or below would be an unskilled labourer. 75 to 85 would be a semi-skilled labourer.

Interestingly enough, Terman measured the IQ of 47 courier employees and found the average IQ to be 95. This low achievement in life, Terman suggested, was probably due to certain emotional, moral, or other desirable qualities. Some may have even been prematurely forced out of school due to economic pressures. What is noteworthy is that although he was hereditarian in his assumptions, he appealed to social and environmental factors as predictors of intelligence when evidence did not match predictions! As well, he found the average IQ of 256 hobos and unemployed to be 89, higher than that he advocated for firemen and policemen, a finding which seemed to refute his ideas(10).

But IQ testing really took off in a big way with R. Yerkes from Harvard University. As the first World War approached, Yerkes persuaded the Army to submit its personnel to IQ testing. Working with Goddard and other collegues, Yerkes developed forms of the IQ test to be administered to the 1.75 million men in the army. While Gould suspected that the army never really made much use of the tests, the tests did have significant impact. The Army began to use tests as a pre-screening for officer training, perhaps one of the first instances of institutionalized screening of intelligence. Probably the most significant impact of his work was the development of methods for mass testing everyone.

With the development of mass testing came the development of standardized testing including the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). With the advent of mass testing and the profileration of the SAT, higher education began to adopt an appearance bearing remarkable similarity to the vision of Goddard, Terman, and Yerkes. In the 1950's American colleges began a process of screening applicants for selection based upon intelligence. For example, in 1952 the average SAT score for first year students at Harvard was 583, but by 1960 it was 687, a gain of more than 100 points. The trend, starting in the 1950's, was to identify the brightest and most talented individuals for admission into college with a doubling in the number of individuals from the top quartile of IQ attending college from 1950 to 1960(11). Furthermore, as more of the top students began going to college and university, the colleges began to sort themselves out to create a stratification within higher education.

The trends in American education suggest that the vision of Goddard, Terman, and Yerkes has come, in a very quiet and subtle way, to fruition. The identification and selection of individuals with the highest IQ scores has led to the formation of a `cognitive elite' in America which has come to, and is continuing to, separate itself from the masses, who are shaping American society, and are reaping the social and economic benefits of their intelligence. "The upper end of the cognitive ability distribution has been increasingly channeled into higher education, ..., thence into high-IQ occupations and senior management positions ... forming a new class.(12)"  Members of this class have become, and will become, leaders in business, medicine, law, science, media, government, think tanks, and special interest groups while enjoying the privileges that accompany such status. Concomitantly, with the emergence of a cognitive elite is the development of an underclass whose members suffer from economic and social hardships such as high unemployment, high crime, and high illegitimacy. Membership in this class is defined by low IQ, and offspring of members of this class will, statistically speaking, continue as members of the underclass(13).  The education system serves the function of identifying and nurturing highly intelligent children.

That the education system should come to be used to identify the most highly intelligent is the result of economic and social policy which is founded upon a strictly materialistic psychology. As a materialistic psychology has come to assert itself education has become a natural battlefield from which such a way of thinking can exert its influence. While certain groups seek to establish a basis of education in epistemology, (e.g., Paul Hirst), epistemological theories ``are neither necessary nor sufficient to establish conclusions about education. Epistemology may provide relevant considerations in determining answers to educational questions, but education is, at the bottom, based on ethics and politics, and even the content is politically determined(14). That is, currently the practice of education is a ideological mechanism that "encompasses and is built upon a particular theory or view of man and the world(15)"  and seeks to instill in people that particular way of seeing the world. In constructing an education system and devising a curriculum, there is an implied concept of man and what is good for man. Education serves as an ideological mechanism which `"everyone is compelled to live through for a long period of time.(16)"  The question that emerges is what sorts of views of humanity are embedded in the education system, and is it a view that has at its foundations a degraded notion of being human and the propagation of a materialistic psychology?

The power of education to deliver the will of the political elite has been taken for granted by those in authority, and this political will has come define education in a strictly materialistic sense by proposing that education is the pivotal means of wealth generation. "Indeed, there is now a new 'consensus' on both the left and right of the political spectrum which has defined education as the key to economic prosperity.(17)"  For example, a report by the Science Council of Canada stated that in "an age when international economic success increasingly depends upon knowledge and technological innovation, universities need to engage more actively in economic renewal in Canada. ... Ways must be found to strengthen the role universities play in the economy. Universities must reorient some of their activities to provide the teaching and research required by the private sector ... they are the primary source of people and knowledge so urgently needed for industrial revitalization.(18)"  These sentiments are echoed by the American President in a major address:

Consequently, education has come to be viewed as knowledge acquisition which is no longer an end in itself, nor is necessary for human growth, but a commodity for exchange. "The old principle that the acquisition of knowledge is indissociable from the training (Bildung) of minds, or even of individuals, is becoming obsolete and will become ever more so.(20)"  But more importantly, there is a shift in the purpose and activity of education. Education is no longer about who we are, life, and the world in which we live. Acquiring the good through reason and understanding (e.g. Plato) has been replaced by using knowledge to attain materialistic ends. Traditionally, it is through education that we come to know who we are, where we came from, and our place in the world. Education is a distinctly human endeavour about the nature of our humanity. We have conferred upon us a unique dignity as beings. As humans we possess unique characteristics; we are moral, rational and free beings. Education is "the process by which man becomes man. ... The peculiarity of truly human life is that man has to create himself by his own voluntary efforts; he has to make himself a truly moral, rational, and free being" through the process of education(21).  However, in a contemporary materialistic view education is a means of acquiring knowledge to generate wealth. Technique replaces self-awareness and education is no longer about who we are but how well we can manipulate the world.

Yet within a materialistic view, economic efficiency demands getting the most talented people into the most important and technically demanding jobs, regardless of social circumstances. If individuals had the ability to succeed, they would ascend the social ladder. The key to this ascent lay in the notion of intelligence. "It was assumed that in society there was a limited pool of individuals with high intelligence who were required to run the engines of industrial growth. This pool of talent needed to be selected and promoted through the education system because, as Halsey and Floud (1961) noted, 'education is a critical type of investment for the exploitation of modern technology(22). '" Intelligence was also the critical factor in Goddard's and Terman's social engineering. Goddard, for example, argued that democracy ``means that the people rule by selecting the wisest, most intelligent and most human to tell them what to do to be happy.(23)''  "In our society there is a pervasive tendency to equate accomplishment [or perceived accomplishment] with human value, or simply put, individuals are thought to be only as worthy as their accomplishments.(24)"  Consequently, in a materialistic psychology intelligence is the most critical feature of education and the task in education is to search out the brightest, most capable students and train them for positions within society for the betterment of that society with the result that such students would reap the benefits and rewards of their talents.

The unfortunate repercussions of such a materialist way of thinking is a degraded notion of being human and a loss of our dignity. While it is a traditional American belief that one should achieve according to one's potential and be rewarded for one's accomplishments, the result of the result of the reification of intelligence is a necessary degradation of the human. Those students who are viewed as less intelligent come to believe as though that they are less worthy than the smarter students. They experience failure and feel considerable shame and humiliation in the process. If a person is not deemed intelligent, that person cannot enter into the cognitive elite and will be socially powerless and worthless. Once a man feels that he has no worth or that " I-have-no-significance. [and} I am unable to influence others. The next step is apathy. And the step following that is violence. For no human being can stand the perpetually numbing experience of his own powerlessness.(25)"

An education system which is built around the principal of identification and rewarding of intelligence is a system perpetuating the belief that intelligence is the casue of success and failure. Whether true or not, the belief that success and failure is due solely to ability is a belief that is psychologically crippling. Such a belief leaves students feeling worthless, because they are not valued either for who they are or worthless because they can't perform, and powerless because they are unable to effect any change(26).

The psychological constructs of worthlessness and powerlessness are crucial to understanding the modern condition and the social consequences that emerge. In feeling worthless the individual feels that he has no value, that he is not respected and has no sense of dignity. Such a person feels unloved. Yet, feelings of self-worth are critical for the healthy functioning of the human. Feelings of worthlessness are strongly associated with depression, personality and behaviour disorders, and suicide. On the other hand, feelings of worth are strongly associated with healthy behaviours such coping with difficulty, forming healthy relationships, and achieving success. In feeling helpless the individual feels and believes that he has little or no control over events that happen. His life is no longer in his control and the individual is powerless to effect any change in his life. Helplessness is strongly associated with worthlessness, depression, passivity, aggression and anger. Modern man loses his sense of self.

The loss of sense of self resulting from powerlessness and worthlessness cultivates a way of thinking and being that is symptomatic of this crisis, a way of being that the American psychologist Martin Seligman has called victimology. Individuals no longer accept responsibility for themselves. Rather, the trend is to adopt an 'external explanatory style' in which events are explained by external forces. If things go wrong, ``it's not my fault!'' In this way of thinking, the individual stops being an agent, indeed stops knowing he is an agent, and becomes a victim who feels helpless and worthless, with tragic results. "The psychological changes [that have occurred in the last 40 years] are even more frightening [than the physical changes]. Traditional American child-rearing in individual responsibility has been replaced by a self-esteem movement ... [and] our kids are imbued with victimology, which today has become the American way of blame. It is too routine for adults and their kids to explain all their problems as victimization. When a boy in trouble sees himself as the victim, this festers into seething anger. With easy availability of guns, it can explode as murder.(27)"  Recent events in American schools seem to support, at least in part, this hypothesis.

Defining people by intelligence, then, has serious consequences. Yet, a more fundamental question remains to be asked: "What is intelligence?" Psychologists in the last century have been preoccupied with measuring intelligence at the expense of figuring out what it is they are measuring. To this end, the most recent theories of intelligence emerging have a different view of intelligence than their predecessors. These are Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences(28),  and Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence(29). Both have implications for the way we view intelligence, intelligence testing, and how we view ourselves.

Gardner's view of intelligence postulates that intelligence involves manipulating symbols. There are, at least seven different symbol systems, and thus seven different symbol systems - malthematics, language, music, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Furthermore, Gardner points out that ability or intelligence in one domain does not necessarily correlate with intelligence in another domain. Right away we can see this has implications for education. If Gardner is right, then we see that intelligence tests as currently designed are not testing all possible intelligences, but are just focussing on the mathematical and linguistic intelligences. Second, this theory has motivational consequences. If a person lacks one intelligence, it need not be the case that the person will lack intelligence in another domain. Hence, the opportunity exists for students to develop segregated and differentiated aspsects of self and foster compensatory strategies to maintain self-worth. That is, a person can be a dummy in one area, but be competent in another. Opportunities exist for developing one's skills.

Sternberg's theory postulates that intelligence is comprised of three components: (1) a meta-cognitive component.for planning, evaluating, and monitoring; (2) performance component in which tasks or skills are executed; and, (3) a knowledge-acquisition component in which students use various means for acquiring new knowledge. Sternberg's theory has implications for the way in which we view intelligence. Most importantly, Sternberg's view suggests that intelligence is not a fixed, innate entity. Intelligence can be improved with training. By teaching students to use strategies, such as comprehension monitoring strategies, self-instruction strategies, or various study strategies, students can increase their repetoire of cognitive processes comprising any one of the three components that make up the intelligence.

Gardner maintains the same view, although implicitly. Gardner describes tasks that measure intelligence as things like writing/telling a story, playing a song, or drawing a picture. The quality of the product in each one of these tasks can be improved by instruction - teaching students strategies for producing the product. For example, teaching students the rudiments of story grammars - that stories have a setting, theme, and plot, can improve their writing immensely. Given such conditions, Gardner's theory implies that intelligence is not only multi-faceted, but changeable as well.

Angoff argued that the question of the innateness of intelligence is irrelevant. What is noteworthy that intelligence, or certain aspects of intelligence, can be changed. Barrow argued for an educationally relevant definition of intelligence. Such a definition in his view constitutes reasoning logically, thinking critically, recognising relationships, discriminating concepts, and interpreting situations and people well. In looking at this definition, we see that the capacity to engage in each one of these behaviours is something that requires knowledge and strategies. What is more important, though, is recognizing that through effort and knowledge acquisition students can achieve success. This recognition leads students to form attributions to internal, controllable causes. Students stop feeling worthless and helpless and start recognizing that they are agents and research has consistently shown that feeling of control and competency are predictive of healthy, adaptive behaviour(30).  Research also shows that the most important factor influencing students feelings of competency and control is a caring and nuturing teacher. In other words, teaching has as its foundation a human interaction based upon respect and dignity, and not upon intelligence.

---

End Notes

(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) & (10) Gould, S. (1981) The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton & Company.

(11) Herrnstien, R. & Murrary, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Toronoto: The Free Press.

(12) Herrnstien, R. & Murrary, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Toronoto: The Free Press.

(13) Herrnstien, R. & Murrary, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Toronoto: The Free Press.

(14) Harris, K. (1979). Education and knowledge:The structural misrepresenation of reality. London: Routedge and Keagan Paul.

(15) Harris, K. (1979). Education and knowledge:The structural misrepresenation of reality. London: Routedge and Keagan Paul.

(16) Harris, K. (1979). Education and knowledge:The structural misrepresenation of reality. London: Routedge and Keagan Paul.

(17) Brown, P., Halsey, A. Lauder, H., & Wells, A. (1997). The transformation of education and society: An introduction. In A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Wells (eds.). Education: Culture, education and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(18) Science council of Canada Report (1988). Winning in a world economy. cited in B. Graham (1998). What's wrong with dialogue on education. CATU Bulletin, 46 (6).

(19) Clinton, B. (1992) They are all our childern. Speech delivered at East Los Angeles College, 14 May 1992. Cited in A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P.Brown, A. Wells (eds.). Education: Culture, education and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(20) Lyotard, J. (1993). The Postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Theory and History of Literature, v10. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

(21) Dewey, J. (1961). Democracy and Education. Toronto: Collier-MacMillan.

(22) Brown, P., Halsey, A., Lauder, H., & Wells, A. (1997) The transformation of education and socity: An introduction. In A. Halsey, H., Lauder, P. Brown, & Wells (eds.). Education: Culture, education and socity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(23) Goddard, H.H (1919). Psychology of the normal and subnormal. New York: Dodd, Mead amd Co. cited in Gould, S. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York : Norton & Company.

(24) Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perpective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(25) May, R. (1969). Love and will. New York: Norton.

(26) Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

(27) Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

(28) Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of minds: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Book, Inc..

(29) Sternberg, R. (1984). What should intelligence tests test? Implication of a triacrchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher, ().

(30) Seifert, T. (1997). Academic Goals and emotions: Results of a structural equation model and cluster analysis. British Journal of Educational Psycgology.

Seifert, T & O'Keefe, B. (under review). The relationship of work avoidance and learning goals to perceived competency, externality and meaning. British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Seifert, T. (1997). Academic goals and emotions: Results of a structural equation model and cluster analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 323-338.

O'Keefe, B. (1998). A study in motivation: Student's motivational related beliefs concerning co-operative education and school. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada.