Running Head: Frames of Reference and Course Selection Multiple Frames of Reference, Academic Interests, and Coursework Selection in Upper Secondary Schools in Germany

Data of n = 401 students (60.4% female) from German academically oriented secondary schools were collected at the middle of grade 10, at the end of grade 10, and in the middle of grade 12. Parallel measures for mathematics and English were collected, representing school grades, academic interest, academic selfconcept, and coursework selection (advanced vs. basic course). Consistent with a priori predictions, the results show that the extreme domain specificity previously demonstrated with academic self-concept generalizes to academic interest. Specifically, the effects of math interest were positive on math coursework selection but negative on English coursework selection, whereas the effects of English interest were positive on English coursework selection but negative on math coursework selection. This type of pattern was also evident for the effects of math and English self-concepts on math and English interest as well as math and English coursework selection. The findings are theoretically and practically important. Theoretically, predictions from the internal/external self-concept model are extended to academic interest and course selection, underlining the importance of multiple frames of reference when making important academic choices. Practically, the findings highlight the important role of academic interests and self-concepts for important career decisions beyond what can be explained in terms of prior academic achievement. Frames of Reference and Course Selection 3 According to the internal/external (I/E) frame of reference model (e.g., Marsh, 1986, 1990), academic self-concept in a particular school subject is formed in relation to an external (social comparison) reference in which students compare their self-perceived performances in a particular school subject with the perceived performances of other students in the same school subject and an internal (ipsative-like) reference in which students compare their performances in the particular school subject with their own performances in other school subjects. The external comparison process predicts that good math skills lead to higher math selfconcept and that good English skills lead to higher English self-concept. According to the internal comparison process, however, good math skills should lead to lower English self-concept and good English skills should lead to lower math self-concept. In the path model used to test this prediction, the paths leading from math achievement to English self-concept and from English achievement to math self-concept are predicted to be negative. Support for these predictions comes from a large body of research based on a variety of different self-concept measures (Marsh, 1990). In the present investigation we argue that academic interests as well as coursework selection in German upper secondary schools are also influenced by processes of external and internal comparisons in that a higher math self-concept lead to higher math interest and lower English interest, while a higher English self-concept enhances English interest but reduces math interest. The same pattern should be observable for the likelihood of choosing an advanced course in math and English. The internal/external (I/E) frame of reference model To establish a domain-specific self-concept of ability, students have to integrate achievement-related information from various sources. According to Marsh (1986, 1990) they compare their levels of academic ability using two different, but connected, frames of reference. In conducting social comparisons (external frame of reference), students compare self-perceptions of their own ability, for example, in mathematics and English, with the perceived abilities of their classmates, and this external reference serves as a basis for their math and verbal self-concepts. For example, if their math achievement is lower than their classmates’ achievement, then their math self-concept will be lower, too. Because achievements in school subjects are typically positively correlated, these external (social) comparisons lead to the expectation that domainspecific self-concepts are positively correlated as well. The existence of an internal frame of reference, however, helps to explain why typically there are only very small correlation coefficients between different academic self-concepts and why academic self-concepts are domain-specific. According to this internal frame of reference, students evaluate their achievements in any particular subject in relation to their achievements in other subjects. This internal comparison is the second basis for the formation of a self-concept in each subject. According to Marsh, Walker, and Debus (1991), better verbal skills lead to a better verbal self-concept based on external comparisons with classmates’ achievements in verbal domains, but to a poorer math self-concept based on internal comparisons with one’s poorer achievements in math. The relative weight of both comparison processes leads thus to the moderate or nearly zero correlations between math and verbal self-concepts found in a variety of studies with different methodologies carried out in several countries (Bong, 1998; Faber, 1992; Köller, Klemmert, Möller, & Baumert, 1999; Marsh, 1986, 1990; Marsh et al., 1991; Marsh & Yeung, 1998; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1992, 1995; Tay, Licht, & Tate, 1995; Williams & Montgomery, 1995; for an exception see Skaalvik & Rankin, 1990). The effects of combined internal and external comparisons can be illustrated by the students’ reactions when receiving achievement feedback (see Marsh, 1990). A student may accurately perceive himself as above average in math and English, compared to his peers (external), but as being better in math than in English (internal). The external comparison leads to a high self-concept in both subjects, but the internal comparison may moderate the impact of the positive social comparison on the students’ self-concept. The internal comparison results in a higher self-concept in math (above average with regard to both external and internal frames of reference) and reduces the self-concept in English (below average with regard to an internal frame of reference). If the internal comparison is dominant, this student may have an average or even a below average self-concept in English. As another consequence, the I/E model predicts in path Frames of Reference and Course Selection 4 analyses negative effects of achievement in one subject on self-concept in the other subject (see Marsh, 1986, 1990; Marsh et al., 1991, for empirical support). The competency/affect distinction in self-concept research Recent papers by Bong and Clark (1999) and Zimmerman (2000) have contrasted self-efficacy and academic self-concept research, arguing that one important distinction between the two constructs refers to their composition. While self-efficacy primarily deals with cognitively perceived capability of the self, academic self-concept, particularly in the research tradition of Marsh and Shavelson (e.g., Marsh, 1986; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976), contains both cognitive and affective aspects. Self-concept questionnaires developed by Marsh and colleagues (e.g., Marsh, Barnes, Cairns, & Tidman, 1984; Marsh & O’Niell, 1984) were specifically designed to reflect competency (or cognitive) and affect components of domain-specific academic self-concept. Self-perceived competency was defined by items asking students whether they were good at, learned things quickly in, had got good marks in, and found work to be easy in different school subjects. Affect was defined by items asking students whether they were interested in, looked forward to, liked, and enjoyed work in different school subjects. Putting both components together in research on the I/E model is typically justified by empirical findings suggesting that both the affective and the cognitive aspect is influenced by internal and external frames of reference (e.g., Marsh, 1986). In a recent factor-analytical work, however, Marsh, Craven, and Debus (in press) argued for a separation of the two components. Using large samples of students, the authors analyzed responses to the self-description questionnaire (SDQ-I). Confirmatory factor analyses revealed clearly distinguishable affective and cognitive factors for verbal, math, and school academic self-concept. The average correlation between competence and affect components was about . 75 for reading and math and slightly lower for school. The separation of the competency and affect components is also supported by studies carried out with a German adaptation of the SDQ-I (Tänzer, 1996), and a Norwegian adaptation of the SDQ-II (Skaalvik, 1996). Consequently, an increasing number of researchers are turning toward a narrower definition of academic self-concept such as self-concept of ability (Brookover, Thomas, & Paterson, 1964; see also Bong & Clark, 1999). Wigfield and Karpathian (1991) noted results consistent with this work: They found that recent formulations of self-concept tend to emphasize competence perceptions as the key aspect of academic self-concept. In Eccles’ expectancy-value model of achievement and academic choice (e.g., Eccles, 1994; Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000) self-concepts of ability and task value are clearly distinguished. Although based on somewhat different constructs, the work by Eccles and her colleagues focuses on how students’ competency-related beliefs in specific activities (e.g., how good they are) combine with task value (e.g., interest, enjoyment, usefulness, importance) to influence academic choice. Of particular importance for the present investigation is that Eccles et al. posit a causal path from the self-concept of ability to the task value, meaning that perceived competence within a domain influences all aspects of the task value, including interest. Summarizing the research mentioned above, there is currently a strong tendency to se