Suitability of Motivational Regulation Strategies for Specific Motivational Problems

Abstract

Abstract. Learners utilize a variety of strategies to regulate their motivation. Theoretical models of motivational regulation imply a connection between the decision for a concrete strategy and the specific situational requirements. Accordingly, one would expect that the suitability of a strategy depends on how well it fits the motivational problem in question. Since reliable findings on this point are missing, we conducted a survey of N = 33 proven experts in the field of self-regulated learning to enlighten the suitability of nine strategies for six different motivational problems. Our findings showed that the suitability of a group of strategies was consistently considered dependent on the given motivational problem (e. g., ability-focus self-talk was suitable to enhance motivation for a difficult task) – pointing to the importance of conditional strategy knowledge for learners. For another group of strategies, experts’ suitability judgments were indifferent, indicating that strategy suitability may also comprise idiosyncratic (i. e., person-specific) aspects.

University students’ self-efficacy for motivational regulation, use of motivational regulation strategies, and satisfaction with academic studies: Exploring between-person and within-person associations.

“…Furthermore, students could be encouraged to share these successful self-regulatory experiences with other students, thus serving as authentic role models (i.e., providing vicarious mastery experiences for others). Additionally, students can be assisted in elaborating on the suitability of concrete strategies for specific motivational problems in terms of conditional strategy knowledge (Eckerlein et al, 2022; Steuer et al, 2019) and in assessing the accuracy and quality of their application (Engelschalk et al, 2017; Leutner et al, 2001). Finally, they can be supported in detecting different kinds of motivational problems through conscious metamotivational monitoring (Miele & Scholer, 2018).…”

Commonalities and Differences in Strategies for Regulating Motivation and Emotion in Academic Settings: A Within-Person Approach

“…For instance, in line with our observation that MR and ER show strongest conceptual correspondence in strategies involving cognitive reframing of subjective expectancy-/control-and value-related perceptions, we found that levels of ability-focused self-talk, control-enhancing reappraisal, enhancing personal significance, value-enhancing reappraisal, mastery self-talk, and self-consequating were smaller between motivational vs. emotional problems than between expectancy vs. value problems. However, not all of these strategies differed for expectancy-vs. value-related problems as one may expect based on past work on the situational fit of MR strategies (Eckerlein et al, 2022). For instance, mean levels of value-enhancing reappraisal were slightly higher for expectancy problems as compared with value problems, which seems counterintuitive.…”

“…Strategies should be matched accordingly: For instance, a student doubting their chances for completing a task should engage in strategies like ability-focused self-talk to increase perceptions of personal competence and success expectancies. Initial evidence drawing on student (Engelschalk et al, 2016) and expert ratings (Eckerlein et al, 2022) supports the idea that-variability notwithstanding-MR strategies can be categorized as primarily catering to either expectancy or value problems, or to both ('universal strategies'). Emergent scholarship on educational ER also indicates that effective regulation is not only person-, but also emotion-and contextspecific in that specific emotional experiences require different strategies (Rottweiler & Nett, 2021;Rottweiler et al, 2023).…”

“…MR scholars, too, contend that conditional strategy use contributes to the quality of MR by targeting the specific antecedents of the motivational problem at hand. Recent work proposes to classify motivational problems as pertaining to low expectancies for success (or high expectancies for failure) or a lack of subjective value of academic tasks (Eckerlein et al, 2022)-two core determinants of academic motivation as suggested by EVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Strategies should be matched accordingly: For instance, a student doubting their chances for completing a task should engage in strategies like ability-focused self-talk to increase perceptions of personal competence and success expectancies.…”

“…We adapted a vignette approach used in prior research (Eckerlein et al, 2022;Engelschalk et al, 2016;Steuer et al, 2019) to analyze students' reported use of various regulation strategies in four hypothetical study scenarios. In an anonymous web-based survey, students first completed a set of demographic questions.…”