||The Self-regulation of motivation (SRM) model (Sansone & Thoman, 2005) suggests that two types of motivation are crucial while learning a task: Goals-defined (e.g., value and expectancy of learning), and experience-defined (e.g., if the task is interesting). Using an online HTML lesson, initial results from the Regulating Motivation and Performance Online (RMAPO) project proposed that adding utility information (increasing goals-defined motivation), predicted a higher degree of task-engagement activity (increasing experience). In a subsequent study, participants' goals-defined motivation and patterns of engagement were examined in an expected-evaluation context where some of the students were informed that there would be a quiz at the end of the lesson and their scores would be compared to the other participants' quiz scores. In this context, students in the utility value conditions tended to care more about performing well (Sansone, Sinclair, Fraughton, Butner, & Zachary, 2013). The present study examined whether students' spontaneously cited goals, as they began to work on the online HTML lesson sessions, differed as a function of a context that emphasized usefulness of learning HTML (learning and use goals) and/or evaluation of their performance (performance goals). The study also explored whether these goals predict different patterns of maintenance actions by looking at the different frequencies and kinds of interactions that participants had with the examples and exercises. Finally, the study questioned whether differences in the orientations that students brought to the situation predicted the goals cited in the lab context. A mastery approach orientation was characterized as including goals to learn and goals to use the knowledge to personally benefit the individual. A performance approach orientation was characterized as including a goal where the participant cited performance as compared to a standard. The study found that overall, students were more likely to spontaneously cite learning goals. A goal type by utility value information interaction was found showing that students were more likely to cite use and learning goals after receiving utility value information, but less likely to cite performance goals. Further, participants who cited a performance goal showed greater modeling of examples and exercises, while students who cited a learning goal showed greater degrees of manipulating/modeling the examples and exercises. Students' achievement goal personalities that were brought to the situation did not have a strong correlation with the goals that were spontaneously cited in the task situation, suggesting that goals are sensitive to circumstantial influences.