Stay Motivated and Carry On: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Role of Motivation Regulation Strategies

• In Event: What Research Syntheses Tell Us About the Individual, Instructional, and Contextual Correlates to Academic Motivation

Abstract

Although the relationship between student motivation and achievement has been extensively examined (e.g., Lavrijsen et al., 2021; Pintrich, 2003), less is known about how motivation regulation (MR) strategies, or the way students purposefully act to initiate, maintain, or supplement their willingness for task engagement and completion, relate to academic performance (Schwinger et al., 2012). Distinct from but interrelated with motivation, MR concerns purposeful attempts students use to influence their motivation regarding a specific task (Wolters, 1998, 2003). Based on theoretical work on achievement motivation, self-regulation, volition, and metamotivational beliefs, various MR strategies have been proposed (Miele & Scholer, 2018; Wolters, 1998; Schwinger et al., 2009), including mastery or performance self-talk (subvocalizing thoughts of competence/knowledge or high grades/outperforming), interest enhancement (connecting task engagement with personal interests or gamifying tasks), self-consequating (providing themselves an extrinsic consequence), environmental control (arranging surroundings to make a task easier or to reduce interruptions), and proximal goal-setting (breaking down a long-term goal into smaller subgoals). Over dozens of studies, there have been mixed results regarding which MR strategies are most influential for students’ academic achievement, motivation, and self-regulation (Grunschel et al., 2017; Kryshko et al., 2020; Sansone et al., 2012; Smit et al., 2017; Wolters, 1999). Using state-of-the-art meta-analytic methods to resolve these discrepancies (Pigott & Polanin, 2020), we were guided by the following questions: What are the associations between MR strategies and students’ achievement, motivation, and self-regulatory outcomes? If variance exists among effect sizes, what factors account for such heterogeneity?
After locating over 400 potentially relevant reports from an exhaustive search through electronic databases, forward and backward citations, author queries, and listserv requests, we identified 50 studies that met our inclusion criteria of (a) a MR strategy measure, (b) an achievement, motivation, or self-regulatory outcome, and (c) a correlational effect size. Pairs of coders reliably extracted effect sizes and other study characteristics such as sample demographics (grade level, age, gender) and MR characteristics. Meta-analytic procedures included multivariate random-effect weighting procedures, robust variance estimation when synthesizing effect sizes, and meta-regression when exploring moderators.
Due to space limitations, we focus on preliminary findings for overall relationships between each of the MR strategies and achievement outcomes: mastery self-talk (r =.07); performance self-talk (r = .08); interest enhancement (r =.03); self-consequating (r =.06); environmental control (r =.11); proximal goal-setting (r =.04). All average weighted correlations were considered small to moderate and significantly greater than zero, except for interest enhancement and proximal goal-setting strategies. Second, we explored if study characteristics explained variability among effect sizes. For this proposal, we present results on grade level moderation, specifically secondary versus postsecondary school levels. Specifically, mastery self-talk and proximal goal setting was more highly correlated with achievement for college students than high school or middle school students. Additional moderators and outcomes will be discussed during the presentation. In sum, our meta-analytic investigation sheds light upon which MR strategies might be most adaptive for student achievement and identifies for whom and under what circumstances specific strategies can be most strategically used.

Authors

• Carlton J. Fong, Texas State University

• Servet Altan

• Cassandra Gonzales, Texas State University

• Mehmet Kirmizi, Texas State University - San Marcos

• Semilore F. Adelugba, Texas State University