Edited by: Jesus de la Fuente, University of Almería, Spain
Reviewed by: Stefanie Chye, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; Angela Jocelyn Fawcett, Swansea University, United Kingdom
†These authors have first co-authorship.
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Education
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Studies show a decrease in students’ motivation in secondary education. Hence, it was investigated whether training of teachers could stop this decline. Two interventions were implemented in prevocational secondary education, being self-regulated strategy instruction and behavioral consultation combined with strategy instruction. The longitudinal effects of the two interventions were tested on the goal orientations of 279 students. The growth curves show a long-term effect of the intervention combining teacher consultancy with strategy instruction on task orientation, ego-enhancing orientation, and ego-defeating orientation as compared to the control condition. For the strategy instruction only condition, only effects on ego orientation were found. The outcomes suggest that combining the instruction of self-regulation strategies with teacher consultation on student problem-solving can stop the downward trend in student motivation, even on the long term.
Motivation in secondary education is a topic of interest. Motivation to learn is considered indispensable for a successful academic career. Students’ motivation determines what tasks they choose, how much effort they invest in a task, and how they interpret feedback given on their performance. On the long run, this influences students’ perception of own academic ability and willingness to start and persist in academic tasks (Morgan and Fuchs,
Additionally to the consequences for the students’ academic careers, students’ motivation also has consequences for the way the students can be taught. Teachers often consider student motivation to be of important influence on classroom and teacher behavior, as well as, in the long run, on academic performance (Addison and Brundrett,
In the last years, about 50% of the adolescents in the Netherlands attended prevocational education. Among this percentage, there is considerable drop-out, while a high proportion of pupils are delayed in graduating. Moreover, the prevalence of problem behaviors in this group of adolescents is considerably higher compared to their peers attending high school. Knowing that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are overrepresented in the lowest school type and that the percentage of early school leavers in the lowest school type is about three times higher than in higher school types (The State of Education in the Netherlands,
Hence, teacher’s professionalism is seen as a key factor in determining whether a pupil receives sufficiently individualized special educational support and education in a class or group (The State of Education in the Netherlands,
A predominant motivational theory is achievement goal theory, linking goals, ability, effort investment, and self-regulation. This theory states that students can have different goal orientations that influence their perception, choices, and behavior. Within this theory, a distinction is made between task orientation and ego orientation (Nicholls,
Goal orientations have consequences for students’ interpretation of performance feedback and the effort invested (Minnaert,
In other words, perceived ability on a task is of importance to students when choosing tasks and deciding how much effort they will invest in task performance. Feedback from the environment is determining for the perceived ability. Successful task completion leads to an increase of perceptions of ability. Negative feedback, however, can lead to negative perceptions of own ability and, when experienced repeatedly, lead to downward spirals (Dickhäuser et al.,
Research has shown that, during adolescence, both the feelings of competence as well as the task interest and, therefore, perceived ability and task orientation of students decline. Ego orientation, however, inclines during adolescence (Wigfield et al.,
As stated in the context of achievement goal theory, motivation and self-regulation are linked. Self-regulated learning means to be explicitly and purposefully planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s own learning processes (Zimmerman,
The use of self-regulation strategies has been shown to decrease over time (Ahmed et al.,
In order to achieve a durable change in the motivation of vulnerable students, we implemented two promising interventions in this study, being Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) (Harris and Graham,
Self-regulated strategy development is a well-acclaimed approach to teaching writing strategies to students with learning difficulties. The main goal is teaching self-regulation. The students are being taught knowledge and skills on how to regulate their motivation and learning behavior. Examples of knowledge taught are strategic knowledge on self-regulation and problem-solving strategies, or content knowledge on what strategies can be used and how. Examples of skills taught are self-regulation skills such as planning, self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement, or study skills, such as rehearsal, structuring, and use of resources. Additionally, motivation is boosted by visualization of progress and emphasizing the importance of effort on task completion. This is expected to lead to improved self-regulation, improved study skills, improved performance, and ultimately improved self-efficacy.
This knowledge and these skills are being taught using a six stage teaching structure combining explicit teaching with teacher–student interaction and tailored instruction. The first stage is
This approach aims at offering a specific approach to the individual student’s problems as well as an internalization of self-regulation strategies. By using explicit teaching and structured feedback students with learning problems are served in their needs. This way of teaching has shown to be most effective for students with problems with memory, attention or information processing. Especially among students with learning difficulties, the SRSD-approach has been shown to deliver good improvements in writing skills and—at a more generic level—on self-regulating behavior, with effect sizes ranging from 1.1 till 2 (Graham and Harris,
The role of goals in self-regulated learning is already widely emphasized for a long time [see, e.g., Zimmerman (
Behavioral consultation is a problem-solving approach that has its roots in student counseling in order to improve the performance and behavior of students with special educational needs (Bergan,
Behavioral consultation has been shown to effectively improve student performance, to reduce disruptive behavior, and to improve attendance (Shapiro and Kratochwill,
With the SRSD intervention, students experiencing learning difficulties are taught strategies. Using these strategies, the students can gain control over their performance on academic tasks, boost their perceptions of ability, and direct their effort toward the task. The change brought forth by SRSD remains, however, local. It remains limited to the individual student to whom the specific strategies are taught, and to the teacher teaching the strategies to the student. The integrated version of BC and SRSD was constructed to strive toward change that is durable, school wide, and on the multiple aspects of motivation. This intervention adopted the holistic approach to students’ learning problems of BC and integrated the specific approach to students’ learning problems of SRSD in it. Literature has shown that, in order to achieve an effect on learning behavior, both specific and general knowledge and skills have to be included in the intervention (Campione,
The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of these interventions on the development of motivation of the students of prevocational education, since these students are most at risk for academic failure and a downward spiral of motivation. By effectively solving students’ problems with learning and improving students’ learning behavior, we expected that students’ perceived ability would be boosted, and that they would be provided with positive learning experiences, leading to enjoyment of the learning task. We compared the development of motivation over a time span of 18 months of students with whom the interventions were implemented to the development of motivation of a group of students without a treatment. Based on the literature, we expected that we would observe a decline over time in task orientation and incline over time for both ego-enhancing and ego-defeating orientation would for students in the control condition (Anderman et al.,
Participants were 279 first grade students of four secondary schools in four distinct medium sized towns in the northern part of the Netherlands. They all attended prevocational secondary education. The sample is comprised of 47% boys.
In this study, we used a pretest posttest follow-up experimental control group design with two treatment groups, each consisting of students of a separate school, and a control group, consisting of students of two other schools. It was opted to include the students of two schools in order to increase representativeness of the control group. We measured the student outcomes at three time points: a before-implementation pretest, an after-implementation posttest, and a 1 year later, follow-up test. Not all the participant completed all tests, but they completed at least two tests. Further analysis revealed that missing was completely at random. The number of participants per condition per measurement as well as the total number of unique participants are represented in Table
Number of participants per measurement moment.
Pretest | Posttest | Follow-up | Unique participants |
|
---|---|---|---|---|
SRSD | 72 | 56 | 42 | 75 |
BC and SRSD | 73 | 33 | 53 | 60 |
Control | 139 | 139 | 126 | 144 |
The interventions were implemented between pretest and posttest. For both interventions, we used three times a 2 h training session and a follow-up session. The teachers in the SRSD intervention training sessions were the Dutch and English language teachers of the students participating in the study. The teachers in the combined intervention training sessions were all teachers of the students participating in the study as well as the school administrators, since the BC intervention demanded school-wide implementation. In both interventions, we adapted the intervention contents based on SRSD in such a fashion that the domain specific writing strategies of the intervention were encapsulated by more general self-regulated learning strategies. The BC in the combined condition was aimed at optimizing student remedial care. The first co-author led the training sessions in both conditions and was assisted by a colleague. The school administrators had communicated that participation of training sessions was mandatory. To provide a good fit with the educational context, we made the participating teachers responsible for judging when the training contents could be properly implemented in the classroom. We assessed the implementation fidelity during the follow-up coaching session in the form of teacher appraisals of the interventions applicability and change of teacher vision in line with the interventions. A schematic representation of the research design can be found in Table
Design of the study.
Time | Start | 1 month | 3 months | 15 months | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Activity | Students | Pretest | Posttest | Follow-up test | |||
Teachers |
Training | Classroom implementation | Coaching | Classroom implementation |
The first training session dealt with theory of self-regulation and analysis of student self-regulating behavior. The second training session dealt with devising a plan and teaching a self-regulation strategy to a student. The teachers were handed a strategy teaching planning scheme consistent with the phases of SRSD. During the third training session, the whole model was trained by making use of three deliberately chosen and target group representative case studies. During the follow-up session, the teachers had the opportunity to ask questions. This created the possibility to, when needed, re-activate the intervention. For a complete overview of the SRSD training and coaching sessions, the reader is referred to Table
The first training session dealt with problem identification and problem analysis. The teachers were handed an analysis scheme consistent with the stages of BC and received training in consultation. The second training session dealt with devising a plan and teaching a self-regulation strategy to a student. The teachers were handed a strategy teaching planning scheme consistent with the phases of SRSD. The third training session dealt with in-class implementation and evaluation. The follow-up session was held with only the school administrator and dealt with independent implementation of the BC and SRSD combined approach in order to work toward ownership by the school. For a complete overview of the BC and SRSD combined training and coaching sessions, the reader is referred to Table
All instruments we used were self-report questionnaires, and were answered either electronically or paper-pencil, depending on the schools’ facilities. The items could be scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
We used the Goal Orientation Questionnaire (Seegers et al.,
For the analysis of the data, we used multilevel longitudinal (growth) analysis. We entered three levels into the model in order to do justice to the multilevel structure of the data. Level one is the measurement level, level two is the student level, and level three is the class level. An advantage of multilevel analysis is that it is capable of handling missing data. We included gender in the model to control on possible gender effects. It was entered as a dummy variable, with boys receiving the score “0” and girls receiving the score “1.” We entered the condition variable with dummy variable for the experimental conditions, so that the control conditions functioned as the comparison. For each variable, we tested models with linear and quadratic effects against models with only linear time effects, and models with gender against models without gender. To test the models against each other, we used likelihood ratio tests (Snijders and Bosker,
After establishing what was the best growth model for the data, the parameters of the models were tested using Wald’s
In the case of the SRSD-only condition, the teachers indicated during the follow-up coaching session that they had implemented the intervention in the classroom. The teachers judged the interventions as useful and suitable for classroom application. The teachers could offer multiple examples of how they had implemented the intervention and how it had worked out.
In the case of the BC and SRSD combined condition, the school administrator indicated during the follow-up coaching session that the approach was found to be especially useful when used for group-wise evaluating the students and solving student problems during groupwise evaluations by the teachers of student performance. This was indeed in line with the core ideas behind the approach. Moreover, they indicated that the school was working to further develop the approach to make it even more suitable to their demands, indicating that the school had developed ownership of the approach.
The means of the variables, their SDs at the different time points, and effect sizes can be found in Table
Descriptives of the variables by condition and effect sizes.
Orientation | Condition | Pretest | Posttest | Follow-up | ES |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | |||
Task orientation | Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) | 3.92 (0.69) | 3.88 (0.74) | 3.50 (0.71) | −0.06/−0.61 |
Behavioral consultation (BC) and SRSD | 3.76 (0.76) | 3.77 (0.74) | 3.62 (0.57) | +0.01/−0.18 | |
Control | 3.82 (0.66) | 3.65 (0.78) | 3.44 (0.83) | −0.26/−0.58 | |
Ego enhancing | SRSD | 3.02 (0.98) | 3.11 (0.80) | 2.72 (0.80) | +0.09/−0.31 |
BC and SRSD | 2.96 (0.96) | 2.97 (1.09) | 3.07 (0.82) | +0.01/+0.11 | |
Control | 3.06 (0.91) | 2.91 (0.82) | 2.81 (0.89) | −0.16/−0.27 | |
Ego defeating | SRSD | 1.87 (0.78) | 2.22 (1.05) | 1.68 (0.88) | +0.45/−0.24 |
BC and SRSD | 1.92 (0.71) | 1.97 (0.82) | 2.17 (0.80) | +0.07/+0.35 | |
Control | 2.06 (0.86) | 2.16 (0.84) | 1.95 (0.85) | +0.12/−0.13 |
The results of the multilevel growth curve analysis are displayed in Table
Multilevel growth curve models.
Task orientation |
Ego-enhancing |
Ego-defeating |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE | |
Intercept | 3.952** | 0.100 | 3.268** | 0.112 | 2.066** | 0.121 |
Time | −0.023** | 0.005 | −0.046** | 0.023 | 0.0372 | 0.025 |
Time2 | 0.002 | 0.001 | −0.003** | 0.002 | ||
SRSD | −0.035 | 0.179 | −0.064 | 0.183 | −0.180 | 0.121 |
SRSD and BC | −0.211 | 0.163 | −0.106 | 0.167 | −0.163 | 0.115 |
SRSD × time | −0.007 | 0.010 | 0.072 | 0.045 | 0.085* | 0.049 |
SRSD × time2 | −0.005* | 0.003 | −0.006** | 0.003 | ||
SRSD and BC × time | 0.015* | 0.009 | 0.022** | 0.010 | 0.023** | 0.009 |
SRSD and BC × time2 | ||||||
Gender | −0.297** | 0.099 | −0.399** | 0.086 | ||
Gender × SRSD | 0.337** | 0.170 | ||||
Gender × SRSD and BC | 0.266 | 0.172 | ||||
Level 3 variance | ||||||
Intercept | 0.035 | 0.021 | 0.048 | 0.029 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Time | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Intercept × time | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Level 2 variance | ||||||
Intercept | 0.233 | 0.038 | 0.482 | 0.059 | 0.401 | 0.055 |
Time | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Intercept × time | −0.000 | 0.003 | −0.010 | 0.004 | −0.005 | 0.004 |
Level 1 variance | ||||||
Residual | 0.246 | 0.024 | 0.254 | 0.025 | 0.305 | 0.029 |
Deviance | 1,462.899 | 1,652.361 | 1,666.147 |
The linear model was found to be the best fitting model for the data. We found no significant differences in the deviance tests for models including quadratic parameters and, therefore, decided that the simplest model would be the best to use.
We found no differences in intercepts between the conditions. We did find a significant decline in task orientation for the control condition (
Graph of the growth curves of task orientation. Time is displayed in months since the start of the intervention. Gender differences were not included in this representation.
We found a significant difference in deviance scores (
The model combining linear and quadratic effects was found to be the best fitting model for the data. We found no significant differences in the deviance tests between the linear and quadratic models. However, some quadratic parameters were found to be significant and, therefore, it was decided that the combination model showed the best fit for the data.
We found no differences in intercepts between the conditions. Additionally, we found a significant linear decline of ego-enhancing orientation for the control condition (
Graph of the growth curves of ego-enhancing orientation. Time is displayed in months since the start of the intervention. Gender differences were not included in this representation.
We found a significant difference in deviance scores (
The model combining linear and quadratic effects was found to be the best fitting model for the data. We found no significant differences in the deviance tests between the linear and quadratic models. However, some quadratic parameters were found to be significant and, therefore, it was decided that the combination model showed the best fit for the data.
We found no differences in intercepts between the conditions. No significant incline or decline in linear development of ego-defeating orientation was found for the control condition. The quadratic effect was significant (
Graph of the growth curves of ego-defeating orientation. Time is displayed in months since the start of the intervention.
The BC and SRSD combined intervention appears to have an effect on the motivation of students: students showed less decline in motivation over time, even on the long term. Effects of educational interventions noticeable after more than 1 year are hard to achieve. Keeping this in mind, we want to point out that with the linear development of the goal orientation scores of the BC and SRSD combined condition as opposed to the quadratic development of the scores of the other conditions, the magnitude of these effects becomes dramatic on the long term. The addition of BC seems to be the determining factor for long-term effect in this case, since the SRSD only condition shows a strong drop in the motivation scores on the long term. Besides, other intervention research in the Netherlands converged with the long-term impact of BC in this respect, notwithstanding in primary education (Meijer et al.,
The SRSD only condition, on the other hand, did not lead to an effect on task motivation. Strong effects on self-regulatory writing skills and outcomes, as presumed from the aforementioned SRSD research, apparently do not show transfer effects on motivation outcomes. Only on ego-defeating orientation, a significant decline was observed on the long term. Ego orientation, however, has been shown to be detrimental to academic performance when it is not combined with task orientation (Pintrich,
This study has shown that only teaching self-regulation strategies are not sufficient to achieve a durable change in students’ motivation. Moreover, for the students of prevocational education, with often history of academic failure and a high incidence of specific learning disorders and challenging behavior, the risk of a-motivation appears to be very existent, even when being taught self-regulation strategies. In order to achieve both a stop in the declining trend of motivation and make this effect durable, changes should be made not only in the teacher–student interaction and teaching of strategies but also in the learning environment in a more broad scope (Wang and Eccles,
Some limitations can be noted in the research design. A random assignment of schools to conditions was not performed, hence the requirements of an experimental design were not fully met. Since participation by schools could not be top down regulated in the Netherlands, a convenience sampling design was used. This raises the chance of school variables being accountable for the found effect instead of the intervention (Shadish et al.,
In this study, gender effects were found on task orientation and ego-enhancing orientation. In all these cases, girl scored lower than boys. Gjesme (
Longitudinal studies of motivation in secondary school are growing but still relatively scarce (Wigfield et al.,
This study has shown that, even among students with a higher risk of learning disorders and behavioral challenges, measures can be taken that affect their motivation over a long time. Training of teachers to teach strategies, to consult each other, to stimulate constructive vision on students with special educational needs, and to professionalize themselves has shown to be productive for student motivation and self-regulation.
In the control group, we observed the expected decline over time for task orientation. We observed a decline in ego-enhancing orientation. For ego-defeating orientation, we observed a stable trend on the short term, and a decline on the long term. The observed decline in ego orientation for the control group was, however, not in line with our expectations.
The SRSD group showed similar developmental patterns with reference to the control group. Only for development of ego-defeating orientation, we observed a stronger decline on the long term than in the control group. On the short term, we observed a trend toward an incline in ego-defeating orientation for the SRSD group. The development of ego-enhancing orientation of the students in the SRSD group was comparable to the development of the control group on the short term, but showed even a stronger decline after all. We found neither an effect, nor a trend of the intervention on task orientation.
The BC and SRSD combined group showed, however, different developmental patterns. On all of the goal orientation variables, we observed a linear development over time. This development showed less decline than the control group, or in the case of ego-defeating orientation even an incline. These differences in developments were found to be significant for the ego-orientations and approaching significance for task orientation.
The results revealed some differences between boys and girls. No further interaction effects of gender and time or gender and intervention were found.
Concluding, in the BC and SRSD combined intervention condition, we observed a trend on task orientation which confirmed our expectations. Regarding both ego-enhancing and ego-defeating orientation, clear effects have been found in the BC and SRSD combined condition, but not in the expected direction. The SRSD intervention only shows an expected declining effect on ego-defeating orientation on the long term. The BC and SRSD combined intervention appeared to have an effect on the motivation of the students. Students did show less decline in motivation over time.
Active consent was retrieved from the school directors, teachers, and students participating in this study. Besides, the study was approved by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Ministry of Education.
This contribution stems from a successfully defended Ph.D. of AP at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. This research was supported by grant 411-07-123 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research assigned to AM. The research is not published in any kind of book or journal. It was in a different form part of a chapter in the Ph.D. AM and M-CO are both the supervisors of this Ph.D. and are the PI’s of the grant and the Ph.D. project from onset till now.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Detailed description of the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) training sessions.
Session 1: self-regulation behavior analysis | ||
---|---|---|
Contents | Format | |
Exercise 1: “what is self-regulation?” | Theory self-regulation Examples of self-regulating behavior How to teach self-regulation |
Trainer providing information Group discussion |
Exercise 2: “the SRSD model” | SRSD six stage model SRSD key characteristics |
Trainer providing information |
Exercise 3: “talking to students about used strategies” | Interviewing skills for interaction with student Identification of needed information for analysis |
Small group role-playing exercise |
Homework: “the case of an individual student—part 1” | Analysis of self-regulating behavior of an individual student using three category form: desired self-regulation (strategy), current behavior, how to teach |
Fill in form |
Exercise 1: “from analysis to procedure” | Theory self-regulation procedure Translation of analysis outcomes to procedure using three characteristics: structure, tailor-made, step-wise. |
Trainer providing information Small group exercise |
Exercise 2: “teaching a self-regulation strategy” | Theory teaching a self-regulation strategy Translation procedure to teaching behavior using four category form: discuss, model, memorize, practice |
Trainer providing information Small group exercise |
Homework: “the case of an individual student—part 2” | Elaboration of individual student case procedure using four category form: discuss, model, memorize, practice Contemplate teacher role in the process |
Fill in form |
Exercise 1: “Three cases of students” | Three fictional cases of students are discussed Four steps: analysis, procedure, how to teach, how to implement in classroom teaching |
Group exercise |
Exercise: “Q&A” | Experiences Strengths and weaknesses of the approach Questions |
Interactive group conversation Questions and answers |
Detailed description of the behavioral consultation (BC) and self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) combined training sessions.
Session 1: student problem analysis | ||
---|---|---|
Contents | Format | |
Exercise 1: “model and vision” | BC model: goals, four stages, main characteristics Interviewing techniques |
Trainer providing information Video modeling the consultation interview Group discussion |
Exercise 2: “problem identification” | First two steps of the model: problem identification and problem analysis Identification mismatch consultee and client Construction of ideographical theory of client problem |
Small group role-playing exercise |
Homework: “the case of an individual student—part 1” | Analysis of problem of an individual student using seven category form: problem description; goals not accomplished (both problem identification); task; current task behavior; instruction; desired strategy (all four problem analysis); mismatch and ideographical theory |
Fill in form |
Exercise 1: “from analysis to procedure” | Theory self-regulation SRSD key characteristics Translation of analysis outcomes to procedure using three characteristics: structure, tailor-made, step-wise |
Trainer providing information Small group exercise |
Exercise 2: “teaching a self-regulation strategy” | Theory teaching a self-regulation strategy SRSD six stage model Translation procedure to teaching behavior using four category form: discuss, model, memorize, practice |
Trainer providing information Small group exercise |
Homework: “the Case of an individual student—part 2” | Elaboration of individual student case procedure using four category form: discuss, model, memorize, practice Contemplate teacher role in the process |
Fill in form |
Exercise 1: “case of a student” | The whole process of problem identification, problem analysis, design of procedure, teaching the strategy |
Video Group discussion |
Exercise 2: “long term and class wide” | Teaching strategies for the long term and class wide use of the approach |
Trainer providing information Group discussion |
Meeting with the school administrator | Evaluation of the training: identification of strengths of the approach for the school Identification of field situations in which the approach could be used and elaborated toward school ownership Planning for future actions |
Meeting of trainer with school administrator |
The scales used in the study.
Example item | No. of items | Source | Original scale reliability (α) | This study scale reliability (α) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Task orientation | “I like it when I have learned something new at school” | 5 | Seegers et al. ( |
0.77 | 0.83 |
Ego-enhancing orientation | “I enjoy getting a better grade in math than my classmates” | 6 | Seegers et al. ( |
0.81 | 0.85 |
Ego-defeating orientation | “During classroom tasks, I am afraid that the other children will notice that I make mistakes” | 6 | Seegers et al. ( |
0.76 | 0.87 |
Self-efficacy | “I’m certain I can master the skills taught in class this year” | 6 | Midgley et al. ( |
0.78 | 0.83 |
Self-regulation | “Before I begin studying I think about the things I will need to do to learn” | 8 | Pintrich and De Groot ( |
0.74 | 0.78 |
“When I feel stressed, I just think about something else” |