Do Students’ Exam-Specific Motivational Regulation Profiles Differ in Initial Motivation Regulation and Exam-Specific Learning Outcomes?

• In Event: Exploring the Optimal Use of Motivation Regulation Strategies for Academic Success

Abstract

Purpose
Motivational regulation is positively related to several important outcomes, including effort, academic achievement, and cognitive self-regulation (Fong et al., 2024). However, it is unclear whether similar profiles of motivational regulation strategies emerge across time and whether some profiles are more optimal for subsequent motivation and learning within a course. Are there certain combinations of motivation regulation strategies that are related to increased initial general motivation regulation, as well as specific exam-related aspects of spaced studying, self-efficacy, effort, and performance? In this paper, we evaluate this question. Understanding the combination of students’ motivational regulation strategy profiles is critical, as it provides insights into whether certain strategies are more productive for specific outcomes than others or whether using all strategies more frequently is more optimal for a given outcome.

Framework
Theories and models of motivation regulation in education state that students are aware of and in control of their motivation to learn (e.g., Miele & Scholer, 2018; Sansone & Thoman, 2005; Wolters, 2003). One way to control motivation is through specific motivational regulation strategies. Although there are a host of motivational regulation strategies (Wolters, 2003), we focused on eight specific strategies: mastery-approach self-talk, performance-approach self-talk, proximal goal setting, enhancement of personal interest, enhancement of situational interest, utility-value self-talk, self-consequating, and environmental restructuring.

Method
Undergraduates (N=371) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a large Mid-Atlantic public university participated in the study by completing at least one survey. Students received extra credit for participating (see Table 1 for demographic information). At the start of the semester, general motivation regulation was measured to assess students’ general tendency to maintain or improve their motivation for studying. Then, after each of their three non-cumulative exams, students completed a survey tailored to their studying practices, which asked about their use of specific motivational regulation strategies, spaced practice, and effort regulation. Refer to Table 2 for details. Additional items were included in the survey but are beyond the scope of this study.

Results and Significance
Latent profile analyses revealed five similar profiles across the exams (Table 3), consistent with prior work (Schwinger et al. 2012). However, for two profiles there were differences strategy endorsement: Profile 3: utility value self-talk and performance-approach self-talk and Profile 2: enhancement of personal interest. For a visual with profile labels, see Figure 1-3.
ANOVAs revealed that the profiles had different initial levels of motivational regulation, as well as exam-specific variables (Table 4). Generally, across the timepoints for self-efficacy, spaced practice, effort regulation, and initial general motivation regulation: Profiles 1 and 2 were less optimal and Profile 5 was more optimal than the other profiles. Profiles 3 and 4 offset each other across the exams. For exam performance, there were not many differences between the profiles, and only occurred between Profiles 1-3 on Exam 1 or 3. Together, these results provide a more nuanced understanding for theory and practice focused on supporting students’ use of these motivational regulation strategies, as some approaches are more optimal than others, depending on the outcomes.

Authors

• Serena Luo, The Ohio State University

• Kaicheng Zhang, Michigan State University

• Cristina D. Zepeda, Vanderbilt University