hnvjhv

Motivational Effects on Self-Regulated Learning

with Different Tasks
Regina Vollmeyer & Falko Rheinberg
Published online: 17 October 2006
# Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract In our cognitive motivational process model (Vollmeyer & Rheinberg,
Zeitschrift
für Pädagogische Psychologie, 12:11–23, 1998) we assume that initial motivation affects
performance via motivation during learning and learning strategies. These variables are
also
central for self-regulation theories (e.g., M. Boekaerts, European Psychologist, 1:100
–122,
1996). In this article we discuss methods with which the model can be tested. Initial
motivation with its four factors challenge, probability of success, interest, and
anxiety was
measured with the Questionnaire on Current Motivation (QCM; Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, &
Burns, Diagnostica, 47:57– 66, 2001). As an indicator for the functional state we
assessed
flow with the FKS (Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Engeser, Diagnostik von Motivation und
Selbstkonzept [Diagnosis of Motivation and Self-Concept], Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany,
261–279, 2003). We also used different tasks, including a linear system, a hypermedia
program, and university-level classes. In general, our methods are valid and with them
we
found support for our model.
Keywords Flow-experience . Motivation . Performance . Self-regulation . Strategies
Introduction
Models of self-regulated learning (Boekaerts, 1996; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000)
describe how learners use cognitive strategies, metacognition, volition, and motivation
to
Educ Psychol Rev (2006) 18:239–253
DOI 10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0
This research was supported by two grants (Vo 514-5, 514-10) from the German Research
Foundation (DFG)
to Regina Vollmeyer and Falko Rheinberg.
R. Vollmeyer (*)
Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Postfach 11 19 32, 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
e-mail: R.Vollmeyer@paed.psych.uni-frankfurt.de
F. Rheinberg
Institut für Psychologie, Universität Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
monitor their learning process. They specify which variables researchers should take
into
account to understand how self-regulated learners learn. Although there are several
models,
the methods to operationalize the models’ variables differ between researchers. In this
article our first aim is to present our cognitive-motivational process model and the
methods
to study the model’s assumptions. The second aim is to present results gained with
these
methods. Of course, we also need to address the methods’ limits.
The Cognitive-Motivational Process Model
Similar to models of self-regulated learning Vollmeyer and Rheinberg (1998, 2000;
Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Rollett, 2000, see Fig. 1) developed their
cognitive-motivational
process model. The aim of the model was (1) to specify factors of initial motivation
(theoretical assumptions and results are presented in the section “Initial
motivation”), (2) to
collect possible mediators for the influence of initial motivation on performance
(theoretical
assumptions are presented in the section “Mediators for the influence of initial
motivation
on performance”), and finally (3) to emphasize different learning outcomes. In this
article
we will focus on how we measured these different process variables and we discuss the
quality of our measures. In addition, we present studies that support our model (in
Page 1
 hnvjhv
section
“A test of the model derived from the cognitive-motivational process model”).
Initial Motivation
In the models of self-regulated learning mentioned above, motivation covers several
motivational concepts. For example, Zimmerman (2000) refers to self-motivation beliefs
(this may include concepts such as self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Bandura,
1997),
intrinsic interest/value (Deci, 1975) and goal-orientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;
Nicholls,
1984)). Pintrich (2000) mentioned perceptions of task difficulty (similar to
probability of
success; Atkinson, 1957) and interest (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). The concepts of
task difficulty and interest are also central in Wigfield and Eccles’ (2002)
expectancy-value
model. On the basis of these models and on our own research we postulated four
important
factors of initial motivation: (1) probability of success, (2) anxiety, (3) interest,
and (4)
challenge. As we decided to define these four factors as initial motivation we
developed a
questionnaire (for items of the Questionnaire on Current Motivation [QCM], Rheinberg,
Vollmeyer, & Burns, 2001, see Appendix 1). In the next sections we describe the
theoretical
assumptions followed by a discussion of the questionnaire (i.e., quality and
motivational
patterns).
Initial Motivation Mediators Learning Outcome
probability of success duration/frequency knowledge
anxiety systematic transfer
strategies
interest motivational state
challenge functional state
learning
Fig. 1 The cognitive-motivational process model.
240 Educ Psychol Rev (2006) 18:239–253
Probability of success is a factor discussed as early as the models of Lewin, Dembo,
Festinger, and Sears (1944), Atkinson (1957, 1964), and is also part of newer theories
such
as Bandura (1997), Anderson (1993) and Wigfield and Eccles (2002). Learners at least
implicitly calculate the probability of success in that they take into account their
ability and
the perceived difficulty of the task. This concept could be even more precisely
specified as
learners’ belief that they can succeed in the task (for personal agency beliefs see
Ford,
1992; for self-efficacy see Pajares, 1997; for control theories see Skinner, 1996).
However,
for our purpose it was sufficient to formulate a general probability-of-success factor.
The second factor is anxiety, which can be partly interpreted as fear of failure in a
specific situation (Atkinson, 1957, 1964). However, this factor is not necessarily the
opposite of high probability of success, as it can be high for learners who are in a
social
situation in which they do not want to fail and try hard to avoid failure even though
they
expect to succeed. Thus, anxiety incorporates the negative incentive of failure.
The third factor is interest. For learning, the topic of the learning material is
important as
has been shown in theories of interest (e.g., Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). If
learners are
interested they have positive affects and positive evaluations regarding the topic.
The last factor we regarded as important is challenge. This factor assesses whether
learners accept the situation as an achievement situation in which they want to have
success. If they want to have success then the learning situation gains importance
(Importance is a subjective task value component from the expectancy-value model by
Wigfield & Eccles, 2002).
Page 2
 hnvjhv
Quality of the measurement of the four factors Before we report how initial motivation
affects the learning process we want to give some details about the motivational
factors’
quality. As mentioned above we constructed a questionnaire (QCM) that should capture
learners’ current motivation after they were instructed to do a task and before they
really
started. Because current motivation changes over tasks and time we did not expect a
stable
measure, on the contrary, motivation has to change depending on the characteristics of
the
task.

Page 3