Assessing Students' Selective Strategy Use in Response to Different Types of Motivational Deficits

• In Event: Expanding the Role of Metamotivational Knowledge in Academic Self-Regulation

Abstract

Objectives
To effectively regulate their motivation, students must implement strategies that help them overcome the context-specific motivational deficits they are experiencing. Although several studies have assessed students’ selective use of such strategies in hypothetical situations (e.g., Engelschalk et al., 2016; Wolters, 1998), few (if any) studies have examined their selective use of strategies on actual tasks. The current study assessed whether undergraduates selectively implement interest- versus efficacy-enhancing strategies when experiencing boredom versus challenge, respectively.

Theoretical Framework and Significance
This study was guided by the models of Wolters (2003) and Miele and Scholer (2018), which suggest that motivation regulation involves monitoring metamotivational feelings and implementing specific strategies that can address the deficits which elicited those feelings. Evidence for this selective responding to motivational deficits comes primarily from studies that used hypothetical scenarios. The present study extends this work in that students engaged in two versions of an actual task: one was designed to elicit boredom and the other was designed to lower perceptions of task competence. During and after the task, students reported their use of interest- and efficacy-enhancing strategies. As part of the study design, we also manipulated whether students were provided with information about the two types of strategies.

Methods
A final sample of 161 undergraduates participated in this study for course credit. During the primary study session, we experimentally manipulated two variables: strategy knowledge and task type. In the strategy knowledge condition, participants learned about and formed intentions to use strategies that address boredom or low self-efficacy. Participants in the other condition learned about non-motivational study strategies.
After completing a distractor task, participants were randomly assigned to work on one of two versions of a letter matrix task that was adapted from work by Sansone and colleagues (1992; 1999) and was described as being academically relevant: a boring letter-copying version versus a challenging hidden words version. After finishing the task, participants completed a survey in which they rated their use of interest- and efficacy-enhancing strategies during the task (among other things). They also provided open-ended descriptions of their strategy use during and after the task (analyses of these responses are not described here, but will be discussed as part of the presentation).

Results
A linear mixed model was conducted with self-reported frequency of strategy use as the dependent measure. The model included strategy knowledge, task type, and strategy type as predictors, along with all two- and three-way interaction terms (see Table 2.1). Although there were no effects of the knowledge manipulation, we observed a main effect of task type, which was qualified by a task type x strategy type interaction (see Figure 2.1). Specifically, participants reported using interest-enhancing strategies (but not efficacy-enhancing strategies) more often for the boring task than for the challenging task. In addition, participants reported using efficacy-enhancing strategies more often than interest-enhancing strategies for the challenging task, but not for the boring task. This represents evidence of selective strategy use in response to different types of motivational deficits.

Authors

• Sidney May, Boston College

• David B. Miele, Boston College