Effectiveness of motivational regulation: Dependence on specific motivational problems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.011Get rights and content

Highlights

  • It is argued that learners' motivational regulation (MR) is strongly situation-specific.

  • A 2 × 3 model of motivational problems that trigger MR is proposed.

  • Regulatory effectiveness of 283 undergraduates for different problems was examined.

  • Results strongly supported the assumptions.

Abstract

It is argued that learners' motivational regulation is strongly situation-specific and depends on the motivational problems that trigger regulation. A 2 × 3 model is proposed in which motivational problems are distinguished between low expectancies for success vs. poor subjective task values in three different phases of the learning process (before, during, or after a learning activity). A study with 283 undergraduates who reported how effectively they can motivate themselves in different situations strongly supported the assumptions. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that learners' effectiveness of motivational regulation can be separated in accord with the six types of motivational problems. Separating variance components indicated that a large amount of learners' regulatory effectiveness can be attributed to the specifics of motivational problems. Finally, analyses on the mean-level yielded that motivational regulation is seen, on average, as particularly difficult when subjective task value is low or a learning activity is not yet initiated.

Introduction

Conceptualized as the process of initiating, maintaining, and evaluating one's cognition and behavior towards a learning goal (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008), learning motivation is considered to be an essential internal resource for effective self-regulated learning (SRL; Boekaerts, 1999, Boekaerts and Corno, 2005, Schunk et al., 2008, Wolters, 2003, Zimmerman, 2000). On the meta-level, regulating this internal resource – i.e. monitoring one's learning motivation and controlling it if necessary – can be conceptualized as a distinct and basic aspect of SRL that is just as essential for mastering complex learning tasks as learning motivation itself (Boekaerts, 1995, Boekaerts, 1997, Garcia and Pintrich, 1994, Pintrich, 1999, Sansone and Thomann, 2006). Motivational regulation in this sense is in the focus of the present work.

Originating in fundamental work on motivational aspects of SRL, research on the question of how learners deal with motivational problems has intensified in recent decades (Dewitte and Lens, 1999, Garcia, 1999, Pintrich, 1999, Prudie and Hattie, 1996, Sansone et al., 1992, Wolters, 1998, Wolters, 1999, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1986). However, previous research on motivational regulation has widely ignored the distinction between qualitatively different motivational problems. For example, effective motivational regulation may differ between an insufficient learning motivation stemming from diminishing optimism to cope with the learning task and an insufficient learning motivation resulting from the failure to perceive that the learning content is of any value (see Wolters, 1998). This disregard of qualitatively different motivational problems is surprising since research literature regularly demands a situation-specific consideration of SRL (e.g., Winne, 2010, Wirth and Leutner, 2008).

Hence, the overall objective of the present study was to advance research on learners' motivational regulation by applying a situation-specific perspective on different types of motivational problems. For this purpose, we proposed a 2 × 3 model of different motivational problems in academic learning. To test the assumption that the resulting six motivational problems are separable from one another, an empirical study was conducted in which undergraduates were asked to report their effectivity in successfully regulating their own motivation when faced with them.

The theoretical assumptions and perspectives used in the field of motivational regulation are, to a large extent, rooted in the theoretical considerations and empirical studies published by Wolters (see Wolters, 2003, for a review). He conceptualized motivational regulation as deliberately influencing one's own motivation. In this sense, individuals are supposed to initiate, maintain or even enhance their level of motivation regarding a particular activity. For this purpose, learners can use motivational regulation strategies (Wolters, 2003). For instance, a university student can intentionally make herself aware of the significance of a given learning material in order to elevate her subjective valuing of the subject matter. This could help to prevent her from quitting a learning task that she may have experienced as boring. Studies based on a taxonomy of motivational regulation strategies presented by Wolters, 1998, Wolters, 1999 examined the wide range of motivational regulation strategies used by individuals to maintain sufficient, or improve insufficient, motivation while learning; they provided evidence that learners can effectively regulate their motivation using such strategies (e.g., Schwinger et al., 2009, Schwinger et al., 2012, Schwinger et al., 2007, Wolters and Benzon, 2013). In any case, before learners will decide to manipulate their own motivation, they have to become aware that their learning motivation is inadequate to start or maintain the task at hand.

In their model of motivational regulation Schwinger and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2012) postulate that after detecting inadequate motivation and deciding to regulate it, learners analyze the quality of the motivational problem itself in the next step. This is supposed to build the basis upon which they can evaluate which motivational regulation strategy is best suited to address a given situation.

From a broader theoretical perspective on SRL, this cognitive sequence of detecting and evaluating a motivational problem is an inherent part of the regulation process. Particularly, Winne and Hadwin (2008), in reference to their four-phase model of SRL (Winne & Hadwin, 1998), argue that overcoming a motivational problem can be conceptualized as a regulation task. Although exhibiting some unique features, this regulation task is characterized by similar mechanisms (e.g., cognitive operations such as tactics and strategies, monitoring and evaluating progress against self-defined standards) as other learning tasks such as acquiring content knowledge. Winne and Hadwin (2008) locate appraisals of different motivational problems in the first phase of their model (“task definition”), in which self-regulated learners construct a personalized task profile with all essential information pertaining to the task at hand. Included are assumptions regarding the value of the task and self-assessments of how likely they are to successfully master the task. From this perspective, a task profile would provide information pertaining to different types of motivational problems (e.g., lack of motivation due to low expectancy of success) as well as appraisals of ability to deal with the specific kind of problem (e.g., expectations of getting a learning task started although it is evaluated as boring).

These appraisals of the effectiveness of motivational regulation should mirror the learners' individual experiences with specific demanding situations (Wolters, Benzon, & Arroyo-Giner, 2011). As such they should be assessable via self-reports, at least for adolescents and adult learners. Moreover, the appraisals should reflect the fact that motivational problems may place very different requirements on regulation and that engaging a motivational regulation strategy does not guarantee that it will be successful. From this theoretical point of view, learners' cognitive representations about the effectiveness of motivational regulation are supposed to depend on both their experiences with a specific motivational problem as well as on an overall person-specific self-efficacy on dealing with insufficient learning motivation (mirroring a person's basic capacity to regulate their own motivation).

Two approaches to empirically examine the situational specificity of motivational regulation are obvious. The first approach is to analyze what kind of strategies learners use in specific situations. Wolters (1998) provided 115 college students with specific learning situations (e.g., reading a chapter in a textbook), which were associated with either low expectancies of success (difficult learning material) or a low subjective value (boring or uninteresting learning material). The participants were asked to describe what they would do in the given situation in order to stay motivated. Wolters was able to show that, depending on the problem at hand, the students tended to report different strategies with different frequencies. In a recent study conducted by Engelschalk, Steuer, and Dresel (2015), 54 college students were interviewed on their strategy use regarding various types of motivational problems. In addition to the differentiation between low expectancies of success and low subjective values, the learning phase in which motivation was compromised was subjected to variation. Again, a certain proportion of students reported different strategies for different situations. However, in both of the studies a substantial proportion of students reported using motivational regulation strategies independent from the specific motivational problems. Two theoretical explanations are possible for these findings: They either perceived no specific demands in the given situations or they chose a preferred strategy regardless of any specific demands. Neither of the two studies could clarify which explanation is more appropriate.

This leads to the second approach for examining the situational specificity of motivational regulation: Learners can be directly asked how they assess their effectiveness to regulate motivation when confronted with specific motivational problems. According to the aforementioned theoretical view, learners should be able to report their experiences in such situations. A corresponding (single) question was put to college students in the above-mentioned study by Engelschalk et al. (2015). They found first indications that students link different motivational problems with different assumptions regarding their effectiveness to cope with them. However, the findings solely rely on mean value differences and do not allow for conclusions on whether motivational regulation can be separated and therefore vary intra-individually with respect to different types of motivational problems.

To specify relevant and qualitatively different motivational problems which learners can react to with motivational regulation, we propose a set of 2 × 3 prototypical situations, each addressing specific regulation requirements (Fig. 1).

First, we differentiate between expectancy and value problems. This is in line with the expectancy-value concept of motivation (e.g., Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and was used by Wolters (1998) to fundamentally distinguish between different motivational problems. On the one hand, a low level of motivation in learners can be partially attributed to their perception of a low likelihood of being capable of successfully resolving the task at hand (low expectancy of success). On the other hand, a learner could be insufficiently valuing the learning activity itself or its anticipated consequences (low value).

Second, a differentiation is made among three phases of learning which are referred to as the pre-actional, actional and post-actional phases (Heckhausen and Kuhl, 1985, Schmitz and Wiese, 2006, Zimmerman, 2000). This perspective suggests that motivational problems can surface in different phases of learning and, dependent on the phase, can also place correspondingly different requirements on the subsequent regulation of motivation (Engelschalk et al., 2015, Lenzner and Dickhäuser, 2011, Wolters, 2003). The focus in the pre-actional phase is on selecting and committing to a specific learning goal as well as planning the learning action. Characteristic for this phase is the necessity to establish sufficient motivation to initiate appropriate learning activities. In the actional phase learning activities are executed – the specific demand for regulation in this phase is to maintain the current motivational state and protect it against conflicting goals which may be rivaling for attention. In the post-actional phase self-reflective processes stand to the fore. Above and beyond, the evaluation of the learning activities and their results, one's own learning motivation over the course of action, is evaluated. These evaluation processes can result in feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction and may also generate favorable or unfavorable attributions (Schunk, 1996). Here, the requirement for the regulation of one's own motivation can be seen in the adaptive management of errors and failure, as well as with experiences of low motivation in the previous learning phase – which has consequences for the subsequent learning motivation. Additionally, motivational regulation in the post-actional phase of learning can mean to build intentions that are directly focused on similar learning activities in the future. In both cases, motivational regulation would be directed towards safeguarding or increasing motivation in the future.

In combining these two lines of theoretical reasoning (differentiation between expectancy of success problems and subjective value problems in each of the three phases of learning), we fashion six qualitatively different types of motivational problems which raise specific requirements and potentially necessitate motivational regulation in a specific manner (see Fig. 1). Given the diversity inherent in these motivational problems, one can assume that learners may have encountered diverse experiences and (more or less) successfully come to terms with them. Consequently, we expect that learners will see their effectiveness in the regulation of learning motivation (in the sense of a full restoration of motivation) as specific to the particular requirements of the individual motivational problems.

From a theoretical perspective, it seems justified to assume that learners distinguish among different motivational problems. The literature review showed preliminary empirical evidence that learners are sensitive to certain situational characteristics that can stimulate motivational regulation (Engelschalk et al., 2015, Wolters, 1998). However, these findings do not provide a strict test of whether different types of motivational problems can be distinguished. Moreover, they do not allow for conclusions of whether and how specific types of motivational problems affect learners' subjective effectiveness in regulating their motivation. As a jumping-off point for generating conclusions on the situational specificity of motivational regulation, we proposed a set of 2 × 3 motivational problems, relevant in terms of both practice and theory. The present study aimed to assess the degree to which these specific requirements affect motivational regulation. Based on the aforementioned theoretical assumption that learners usually have manifold experiences with motivationally demanding learning situations and unfavorable motivational states, we addressed this aim with an approach utilizing self-reports on the effectiveness of motivational regulation.

With regard to the six types of motivational problems (Fig. 1) and based on the theoretical considerations presented above, we set out to test three hypotheses. They all focus on separate but intertwined aspects of the assumed situational specificity of motivational regulation.

Hypothesis 1

The effectiveness of learners' motivational regulation can be separated in accord with types of motivational problems (differentiation between expectancy and value problems and among the phases of the learning process).

Hypothesis 2

A substantial amount of the differences found in the effectiveness of learners' motivational regulation can be attributed to the characteristics of the different types of motivational problems.

Hypothesis 3

Mean-level differences exist regarding the effectiveness of learners' motivational regulation for different types of motivational problems.

Section snippets

Sample

The sample consisted of 283 students enrolled at a mid-sized German university who, on average, were in their third semester (SD = 2.92) of a teaching degree program. The average age of those questioned was 21.6 years (SD = 3.08). The proportion of female participants came to 75.6%, which reflects the typical female to male ratio in German teacher degree programs. By taking part in this study, the participants were awarded credits towards meeting a requirement associated with a psychology course

Differentiating among different motivational problems

In order to test whether the effectiveness of learners' motivational regulation can be separated in accord with different types of motivational problems (Hypothesis 1), a series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012), including the four items for regulatory effectiveness for each of the six motivational problems (4 × 6 items). Because identical items were used for all situations, correlated errors between these items were modeled. Covariance stemming

Discussion

A flexible adaptation of one's learning behavior to the prevailing situational conditions is considered to be of central importance for successful self-regulated learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1999, Hadwin et al., 2001, Winne and Hadwin, 2008). The present study addressed the question of whether these conditions are also in place for the regulation of motivation – an important aspect of SRL which has been examined in the past mostly on the basis of global self-reports, i.e. without accounting for

References (41)

  • P. Winne et al.

    Measuring self-regulated learning

  • C.A. Wolters

    The relation between high school students' motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance

    Learning and Individual Differences

    (1999)
  • B.J. Zimmerman

    Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective

  • M. Boekaerts

    Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories

    Educational Psychologist

    (1995)
  • M. Boekaerts et al.

    Self regulation in the classroom. A perspective on assessment and intervention

    Applied Psychology. An International Review

    (2005)
  • M. Dresel et al.

    Competencies for successful self-regulated learning in higher education: Structural model and indications drawn from expert interviews

    Studies in Higher Education

    (2015)
  • T. Engelschalk et al.

    Wie spezifisch regulieren Studierende ihre Motivation bei unterschiedlichen Anlässen? Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie [Situation-specific motivation regulation: How specifically do students regulate their motivation for different situations?]

    Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie/Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Psychology

    (2015)
  • S. Fries et al.

    Lernen bei attraktiven Handlungsalternativen. Das Phänomen der motivationalen Interferenz [Learning with attractive alternatives: The phenomenon of motivational interference]

    Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie/German Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2007)
  • T. Garcia et al.

    Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies

  • T. Goetz et al.

    Types of boredom: An experience sampling approach

    Motivation and Emotion

    (2014)
  • Cited by (35)

    • How to facilitate motivational regulation strategies: Perspectives on teacher humility and teacher-student relationship

      2022, Computers and Education
      Citation Excerpt :

      Engelschalk, Steuer, and Dresel's (2016) and Ljubin-Golub, Petricevic, and Rovan's (2019) studies are exceptional, and many of the previous empirical works did not investigate tactics to enhance or facilitate the motivational regulation strategies of students. Engelschalk et al. (2016) found that the nature of the motivational problems (between expectancy and value problems in different learning phrases) would lead to learners' motivational regulation. Another study conducted by Ljubin-Golub, Petricevic, and Rovan (2019) suggested that Big Five Personality Traits have an impact on motivational regulation strategies and in return affect academic procrastination; specifically, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and intellect have an indirect negative effect on academic procrastination via environmental control, which is one of the motivational regulation strategies.

    • The role of state and trait motivational regulation for procrastinatory behavior in academic contexts: Insights from two diary studies

      2021, Contemporary Educational Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Analogously to the determination of trait fit, we calculated the situation-specific fit of these strategies by comparing them against the expert standards on the suitability of the presented strategies for specific motivational problems provided by Steuer et al. (2019). To assess the nature and extent of a current motivational problem in the specific situation, we used four items in the diary representing typical motivational problems (Engelschalk et al., 2016). The item stem was adapted to the daily context (“Today, I was unmotivated …”) and the items read as: “… to study, because the content was too difficult” (expectancy problem), “… to study, because the content was too boring” (value problem), “… to begin studying” (problem to initiate motivation), and “… to keep studying” (problem to maintain motivation).

    • Integrating the concepts self-efficacy and motivation regulation: How do self-efficacy beliefs for motivation regulation influence self-regulatory success?

      2020, Learning and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      In line with this assumption, Engelschalk, Steuer, and Dresel (2015) found that students more frequently chose ability-based self-instruction strategies when motivational deficits were based on low expectations of success, whereas for motivational deficits due to low perceived task value (e.g., lack of interest in a task) students tended more often to choose strategies like enhancement of situational interest or personal significance. Overall, however, it seems that students tend to have different ideas as to which strategy suits which occasion (cf. Engelschalk et al., 2015; Engelschalk, Steuer, & Dresel, 2016). In case motivation regulation is successful, effort and persistence in a task are increased which in turn positively influences achievement: Schwinger et al. (2009) and Schwinger and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2012) demonstrated this indirect effect of the use of motivation regulation strategies on effort expenditure and achievement.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This research was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01 PK11020A).

    View full text