INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 42 (1), 2–15

Motivational beliefs, cognitive engagement, and achievement in language and mathematics in elementary school children Panagiota Metallidou and Anastasia Vlachou University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

T

he contextual differences in the patterns of relations among various motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive components of self-regulated learning and performance in two key curriculum subject areas, language and mathematics, were examined in a sample of 263 Greek primary school children of fifth- and sixthgrade classrooms. Age and gender differences were also investigated. Students were asked to complete the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), which comprised five factors: (a) Self-efficacy, (b) Intrinsic Value, (c) Test Anxiety, (d) Cognitive Strategy Use, and (e) Self-regulation Strategies. They responded to the statements of the questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale in terms of their behaviour in mathematics and language classes, respectively. Moreover, their teachers were asked to evaluate each of their students’ academic achievement in Greek language and mathematics on a 1- to 20-point comparative scale in relation to the rest of the class. The results of the study indicated very few differences in the pattern of relations among self-regulated components within and across the two subject areas and at the same time revealed a context-specific character of self-regulated components at a mean level differences. Further, the current study (a) confirmed the mediatory role of strategies in the motivation-performance relation, (b) stressed the differential role of cognitive and regulatory strategies in predicting performance in subject areas that differ in their structural characteristics of the content, and (c) pointed out the key motivational role of self-efficacy. In fact, self-efficacy proved the most significant predictor not only of performance but of cognitive and regulatory strategy use as well. Gender differences in motivation and strategy use were not reported, while motivation was found to vary mainly with age. The usefulness of these findings for promoting greater clarity among motivational and metacognitive frameworks and ideas for future research are discussed.

C

ette e´tude porte sur les diffe´rences contextuelles dans les patrons relationnels entre les diverses composantes motivationnelle, cognitive et me´tacognitive de l’apprentissage et de la performance auto-re´gule´s dans deux domaines d’e´tude cle´ du programme, soit la langue et les mathe´matiques. Ces diffe´rences contextuelles ont e´te´ examine´es dans un e´chantillon de 263 d’enfants d’une e´cole primaire grecque (of) en cinquie`me et sixie`me anne´e. Les diffe´rences sexuelles et les diffe´rences d’aˆge ont e´te´ aussi e´tudie´es. Les e´le`ves ont e´te´ prie´s de comple´ter le «Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire» (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) qui comprend cinq facteurs: (a) l’auto-efficacite´, (b) la valeur intrinse`que, (c) un test d’anxie´te´, (d) l’utilisation d’une strate´gie cognitive et (e) les strate´gies d’auto-re´gulation. Ils ont re´pondu aux e´nonce´s du questionnaire sur une e´chelle de type Likert a` 7 points en termes de leur comportement en classe de langue et en classe de mathe´matiques se´pare´ment. De plus, les enseignants ont e´te´ prie´s d’e´valuer chaque re´sultat de leurs e´le`ves dans la langue grecque et en mathe´matique sur une e´chelle allant de 1 a` 20 points en comparaison au reste de la classe. Les re´sultats de l’e´tude ont indique´ tre`s peu de diffe´rences dans les patrons relationnels entre les composantes auto-re´gule´es a` l’inte´rieur et entre les domaines d’e´tude. En meˆme temps, les re´sultats ont re´ve´le´ un caracte`re contextuel spe´cifique des composantes auto-regule´es. De plus, la pre´sente e´tude (a) a confirme´ le roˆle me´diateur des strate´gies dans la relation motivation-performance, (b) a souligne´ le roˆle diffe´re´ des strate´gies cognitive et re´gulatoire dans la pre´diction de la performance dans les domaines d’e´tude qui diffe`rent dans leurs caracte´ristiques structurelles du contenu et (c) a souligne´ le roˆle motivationnel cle´ de l’auto-efficacite´. En effet, l’auto-efficacite´ s’est ave´re´e eˆtre le pre´dicteur le plus significatif non seulement de la performance mais aussi de l’utilisation d’une strate´gie cognitive et re´gulatoire. Des diffe´rences sexuelles dans la motivation et dans l’utilisation d’une strate´gie n’ont pas e´te´

Correspondence should be addressed to Anastasia Vlachou, Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton and Filellinon Str., Volos, PC 382-21, Greece (E-mail: [email protected]). # 2007 International Union of Psychological Science

http://www.psypress.com/ijp

DOI: 10.1080/00207590500411179

LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS

3

rapporte´es alors qu’il s’est ave´re´ que la motivation variait principalement en fonction de l’aˆge. L’utilite´ de ces re´sultats pour la promotion d’une grande clarte´ entre les cadres motivationnel et me´tacognitif et les ide´es pour les e´tudes futures sont discute´es.

S

e examino´, en una muestra de 263 nin˜os griegos de quinto y sexto an˜os de la escuela primaria, las diferencias contextuales en las pautas con las que se dan las relaciones entre varios componentes motivacionales, cognitivos y meta cognitivos del aprendizaje autorregulado y el desempen˜o en dos a´reas clave del currı´culo, lenguaje y matema´ticas. Tambie´n se investigo´ las diferencias de edad y ge´nero. Se pidio´ a los alumnos que respondieran el Cuestionario de Estrategias Motivadas para el Aprendizaje (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), compuesto por cinco factores: (a) Auto eficacia, (b) Valor Intrı´nseco, (c) Ansiedad ante los Exa´menes, (d) Empleo de Estrategias Cognitivas, y (e) Estrategias Autorreguladas. Respondieron a los enunciados del cuestionario sobre una escala Likert de 7 puntos en te´rminos de su conducta en las clases de matema´ticas y lenguaje por separado. Es ma´s, se pidio´ a sus profesores que evaluaran el desempen˜o de cada uno de sus estudiantes en Lenguaje Griego y Matema´ticas de acuerdo con una escala comparativa de 1 a 20 puntos, en relacio´n con el resto del grupo escolar. Los resultados del estudio indicaron pocas diferencias en la pauta que describen las relaciones entre los componentes de autorregulacio´n al interior de y entre ambas a´reas de estudio y, al mismo tiempo, revelaron un cara´cter especı´fico del contexto de los componentes de la autorregulacio´n con diferencias en el nivel medio. Ma´s au´n, el presente estudio (a) confirmo´ el papel de mediador que desempen˜an las estrategias sobre la relacio´n motivacio´n-desempen˜o, (b) acentuo´ el papel diferencial de las estrategias cognitiva y reguladora al predecir el desempen˜o en a´reas de estudio que difieren en las caracterı´sticas estructurales de su contenido, y (c) sen˜alo´ el papel motivacional clave que desempen˜a la auto eficacia. De hecho, la auto eficacia predijo de manera ma´s significativa no so´lo el desempen˜o, sino tambie´n el uso de la estrategia cognitiva y reguladora. No hubo diferencias de ge´nero respecto a la motivacio´n y al uso de la estrategia, aunque se encontro´ que la motivacio´n varı´a principalmente con la edad. Se discute la utilidad de estos hallazgos para aclarar los referentes motivacionales y meta cognitivos y promover ideas para investigaciones futuras.

INTRODUCTION Self-regulated learning has recently emerged as an important construct in education with the focus on the way that students initiate, monitor, and exert control over their own learning (Boekaerts, 1999; Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Bronson, 2000; Sperling, Howard, Staley, & Dubois, 2004; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). In the academic domain, the initiation of self-regulated learning presupposes specific motivational components such as self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). Specifically, self-efficacy has been considered as a key motivational component because of its validity in predicting students’ task choices as well as the quantity and the quality of students’ effort expenditure. Self-efficacy beliefs predict the use of deeper processing and regulatory strategies and are, consequently, related to better achievement outcomes (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000; see also Bandura, 1997; Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991; Schunk, 1989). There are consistent research findings for the positive correlations between self-efficacy and the use of ‘‘deep’’ cognitive strategies (Greene & Miller, 1996; Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nicholls, 1996; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992), as

well as the predictive value of self-efficacy in the use of cognitive and metacognitive or regulatory strategies (Greene & Miller, 1996; Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Moreover, self-efficacy beliefs seem to have greater predictive value of learning and achievement outcomes in various cognitive domains (e.g., language or mathematics) as compared to other motives, such as task value or test anxiety (Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). The second important motivational component is that of interest and intrinsic motivation. In the expectancy-value framework, the intrinsic value of a task results from a decision-making process in which the student takes into consideration the importance of doing well on a specific task, the personal interest of the content of the task, and its usefulness in relation to future personal goals, as well as the cost or the perceived negative aspects of engaging in this task (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Task value beliefs are positively correlated with efficacy beliefs and are related to the initial choice of becoming involved in academic tasks in terms of higher levels of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schiefele, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2002). They are also positively correlated with achievement, although in a rather complex manner, since this relation is affected by

4

METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

task features as well as students’ age and gender (see Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Pajares & Valiante, 1999). The third motivational component concerns students’ emotional reaction to the task. Test anxiety has been consistently found to exert negative effects on performance in different achievement situations (Mellroy, Bunting, & Adamson, 2000; Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981; Sharma & Rao, 1983; Van der Ploeg, 1984). According to the relevant research, test anxiety is a significant predictor of performance across various subject areas (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Classroom characteristics and task features, as well as students’ age and other individual differences such as gender, intervene and affect this relation (McDonald, 2001; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). While it is almost indisputable that motivational beliefs are necessary in the process of learning, at the same time they are not solely sufficient for better performance and achievement. Successful classroom performance presupposes the existence of both the ‘‘will’’ and the ‘‘skill,’’ which fuse through a dynamic interaction between motivation, cognition, and metacognition during the learning process and over time (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Young, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs and cognitive engagement, in the form of using cognitive and metacognitive or regulatory strategies, lead directly to better performance as compared to other motivational factors, such as task value or achievement goals (Greene et al., 2004; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Cognitive strategies involve the use of rehearsal, elaboration, and organizational strategies to increase encoding, retention, and comprehension of classroom material (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Further, the use of ‘‘deep,’’ meaningful processing strategies (e.g., organizational strategies) in conjunction with the use of metacognitive strategies lead to better performance as compared to the sole use of ‘‘superficial’’ strategies (e.g., rote processing) (Greene & Miller, 1996; Kardash & Amlund, 1991; Miller et al., 1996). Thus, in the monitor and control phase of the learning process, the emphasis in self-regulated learning has been upon the application of metacognitive or regulatory strategies, which reflect students’ intention to plan, monitor, and control their own learning (Brown, 1987; Pintrich, 1999). There is consistent evidence that an important source of difference between students with high and low academic performance lies in the degree of their engagement in a self-regulated process, mainly

through the use of regulatory strategies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Subject matter variations among selfregulated learning components Given the shift on situated cognition in educational psychology, a fundamental question in recent research on self-regulated learning relates to the degree to which students’ cognitive and motivational beliefs vary across subject area domains (Anderman, 2004; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Young, 1997). The structural characteristics of the content of a subject and, consequently, the nature of instruction within this subject, have been found to affect students’ motivational orientation (Stodolsky, 1988; Stodolsky, Salk, & Glaessner, 1991). Even kindergarten and first-grade children have distinct competence beliefs as well as intrinsic motivation for various subject areas (Eccles et al., 1993; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1998). Recent findings suggest that students form motivational beliefs that are subject-area-specific, and that some of these beliefs are generalized more than others across various academic domains (Bong, 2004). While most of these empirical studies stress the dynamic nature of motivational beliefs (Volet, 2001), only recently have studies in the goal theory framework started to examine the variations in relations between different motivational and cognitive self-regulated components across academic domains (see Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996; Young, 1997; Young, Arbreton, & Midgley, 1992). These studies found mean-level differences in motivation and strategic behaviour across different subject areas. However, only a few differences were found in the patterns of the relations among these selfregulated constructs in different school subjects (i.e., English and mathematics) (see Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996; Young, 1997), implying that general models of self-regulated learning may be applicable to different academic domains. The sample of these studies was mainly middle and secondary school students; there is scant evidence as far as younger school-aged children are concerned. Gender differences in motivational and strategy use beliefs Research concerning gender differences in motivation has shown that males tend to overestimate

LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS

while females underestimate their abilities in various domains. This is especially so in the domain of mathematics, which has traditionally and stereotypically been characterized as a male domain (Eccles et al., 1993; Pajares, 1996a; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1993; Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991; Wolters et al., 1996). In general, female students are identified by most of the researchers as the group with higher ratings of test anxiety and more unfavourable attitudes and beliefs in their mathematics ability, even when their performance is equal to or better than the performance of male students (McLeod, 1989; Pajares, 1996b; Stipek & Gralinski, 1991; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). For some researchers, gender differences in competence beliefs emerge during the middle school years (Phillips & Zimmerman, 1990; Wigfield et al., 1991), while others have found that such differences emerge in the early elementary years (Entwisle & Baker, 1983; Frey & Ruble, 1987), even as early as the first grade (Wigfield et al., 1997). However, this ‘‘confidence gap’’ between genders in mathematics was not verified by recent empirical evidence with 6th-grade students (Pajares & Graham, 1999). Also, Metallidou and Efklides (2004) found that gender differences in motivation are not as established as previously thought, while Chouinard, Vezeau, Bouffard, and Jenkins (2001) found that many of the differences in attitudes that favoured boys were stronger between 12 and 14 years of age, and tended to diminish or disappear later (15 to 18 years). In the domain of language, research evidence is inconsistent, supporting (a) females’ higher selfefficacy and task value beliefs (Eccles et al., 1993; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994; Wigfield et al., 1991), (b) differences in favour of females in task value only in writing tasks and not in self-efficacy (Pajares & Valiante, 1999), (c) differences in liking language as a subject area (Lightbody, Siann, Stocks, & Walsh, 1996), and (d) no gender differences in motivation in various language tasks (Metallidou, 2003). It is even harder to draw any firm conclusions in relation to gender differences in cognitive and regulatory strategies, since there is scant empirical data on this issue. According to the few relevant studies, females’ less adaptive self-efficacy beliefs and anxiety in mathematics as compared to males did not result in lower performance and use of cognitive strategies (Pajares & Valiante, 2002; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). In general, female students of different ages have been found to report a higher use of cognitive and regulatory learning strategies across different subject domains

5

than their male peers (Lompscher, Artelt, Schellhas, & Blib, 1995; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996). In light of all the above, the aim of the study was twofold: 1. To examine if the relations among the motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive components of self-regulated learning vary as a function of the subject area (language and mathematics) in 5th- and 6th-grade students. It was decided to begin with 5th-graders because students develop separate verbal and math self-concepts by the 5th grade due to their growing ability to differentiate their competence on different academic tasks (Marsh, 1986). 2. To examine the predictive value of students’ beliefs for their motivation and strategy use on teachers’ ratings for these students’ school performance in language and mathematics. Teachers’ achievement ratings were used because they reflect students’ achievement levels as well as their persistence and the quality of their school work; these, in turn, are indicative of their motivation and strategy use. Based on previous research evidence, the following hypotheses were formulated: 1.

2.

3.

The pattern of the relations among different self-regulated components would be similar in both subject areas (Hypothesis 1a). That is, self-efficacy, task value, cognitive, and regulatory strategies would correlate positively with each other and negatively with test anxiety in both subjects. The level of students’ motivation and cognitive engagement, however, would vary in these two subject areas (Hypothesis 1b). Test anxiety and self-efficacy beliefs were expected to be the best predictors of performance, while task value was expected to be predictive of the initial ‘‘choice’’ of becoming involved in academic tasks in terms of higher levels of cognitive strategy use and selfregulation (Hypothesis 2a). Motivational beliefs were also expected to predict achievement both directly and indirectly through their influence on strategy use (Hypothesis 2b). Male students were expected to report higher self-efficacy and lower test anxiety as compared to female students, mainly in the domain of mathematics (Hypothesis 3a). In the domain of language, it was hypothesized that, if there were gender differences, these

6

4.

METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

would be in favour of girls (Hypothesis 3b). It was also expected that gender differences would be found in favour of girls only in the reported use of cognitive and regulatory strategies (Hypothesis 3c). No significant differences were anticipated between 5th- and 6th-graders due to the very small age span used in the study. Nevertheless, if there were such differences in motivation, it was expected to be mainly in favour of younger students (Hypothesis 4a; see Gottfried et al., 2001; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). As far as the reported use of strategies is concerned, higher ratings were anticipated from older students’ rather than younger students’ ratings (Hypothesis 4b; see Wolters et. al., 1996).

METHOD Participants The sample consisted of 263 children drawn from the 5th- (N 5 114) and 6th-grade (N 5 149) classrooms of 13 public primary schools located in Central Greece. Gender was about equally represented in the sample (133 girls and 130 boys), while participants were from different socioeconomic status (SES) groups, according to their parents’ educational level and profession (62 low, 153 medium, and 46 high SES). The sample also consisted of 13 teachers who were teaching the classes from which the participating students were drawn. Measures Students’ ratings. Students were asked to complete the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The questionnaire included 44 items, as in the original study of Pintrich and De Groot. The participants responded to these items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 5 not at all true of me to 7 5 very true of me) in terms of their behaviour in mathematics and language classes separately. The questionnaire comprised five factors: (a) Self-efficacy, (b) Intrinsic Value, (c) Test Anxiety, (d) Cognitive Strategy Use, and (e) Self-regulation Strategies. Specifically, the Self-efficacy items (NI 5 9) concerned perceived competence in language or mathematics performance (e.g., compared with others in this class, I think I am a good

student) and confidence about future performance in these classes (e.g., I expect to do very well in this class). The Task Value items (NI 5 9) concerned interest in the class (e.g., I think that what we are learning in this class is interesting), importance and usefulness of the class work (e.g., I think that what I am learning in this class is useful for me to know), and the preference for challenging goals (e.g., I often choose paper topics I will learn something from even if they require more work). The Test Anxiety items (NI 5 4) concerned emotional reactions and cognitive interference on tests (e.g., when I take a test I think about how poorly I am doing). The Cognitive Strategy Use scale (NI 5 13) concerned the perceived use of three sets of cognitive strategies: rehearsal, elaboration, and organizational strategies (e.g., when I study I put important ideas into my own words, or when I read the material for this class, I say the words over and over to myself to help me remember). The Self-regulation scale (NI 5 9) included metacognitive items, such as planning and monitoring (e.g., before I begin studying I think about the things I will need to do to learn), as well as effort management items (e.g., even when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I keep working until I finish). The Cronbach reliability coefficient of the first three scales was a 5 .82 and a 5 .87 for Selfefficacy, a 5 .73 and a 5 .72 for Task Value, and a 5 .73 and a 5 .84 for Test Anxiety, in language and mathematics respectively. Crobach’s alphas of the remaining two scales were a 5 .77 and a 5 .83 for Cognitive Strategy Use, and a 5 .61 and a 5 .62 for Regulatory Strategy Use, in language and mathematics respectively. Teachers’ ratings. Teachers were asked to rank each of their students’ achievements in Greek language and mathematics on a 1- to 20-point (1 5 the lowest achievement, 20 5 the highest) comparative scale in relation to the rest of the class. The 20-point comparative scale was used instead of a 5-point one for teachers’ evaluation of students’ performance because, being compatible with the size of an ordinary classroom, it provides a wider evaluative spectrum than the latter. Procedure Data were collected during the second school semester. Students were asked to complete the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in their classroom, in the presence of one

LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS

of the researchers. The completion of the questionnaire took approximately 45 minutes; all students were informed that the questionnaire was anonymous. After completion, the teacher of the class was also asked to estimate each student’s achievement in Greek language and in mathematics (separately) on a 1 to 20 point comparative scale in relation to the rest of the class. Students’ and teachers’ protocols had a specific code number for matching purposes.

RESULTS Age and gender differences in motivation, strategy use, and performance in Greek language and mathematics A 2 (5th and 6th grade) 6 2 (boys or girls) 6 2 (subject areas: language or mathematics) Multivariate Analyses of Variance, with subject area as a repeated measure factor and age and gender as between-subjects factors, was applied to investigate age and gender differences in motivation, strategy use, and performance in each subject area. Cognitive and Regulatory Strategy Use. The main effect of age reached significance, F(1, 259) 5 6.74, p , .05, g2 5 .025 (cognitive) and F(1, 259) 5 5.97, p , .05, g2 5 .023 (regulatory). Younger students reported higher use of cognitive and regulatory strategies in both subject areas as compared to older students. Self-efficacy. No significant main effect of subject area was found, F(1, 259) 5 0.942, p .

7

.05, nor a subject area by age or gender interaction effect. Univariate tests revealed a main effect of age only in the area of language, F(1, 262) 5 4.94, p , .05, g2 5 .019, though this was rather small. Younger students reported significant higher efficacy beliefs than older students. Task Value. Results indicated a significant main effect of age, F(1, 259) 5 14.246, p , .001, g2 5 .052, as well as a subject area by age interaction effect, F(1, 259) 5 10.503, p , .005, g2 5 .039. Univariate tests revealed that the mean task value ratings differed significantly only in the area of language, F(1, 262) 5 26.95, p , .001, g2 5 .09. Again, younger students reported significantly higher task value for language as compared to older students. There was also a significant age by gender interaction in the area of language, F(1, 262) 5 7.07, p , .01, g2 5 .027. Boys in the 5th grade gave significantly higher task value estimations compared to 5th grade girls, while this difference was reversed in the 6th grade. Test Anxiety. Only the subject area by age interaction was found to be significant, F(1, 259) 5 8.78, p , .005, g2 5 .033. Univariate tests revealed that the difference between the age groups was significant in the area of mathematics F(1, 262) 5 7.42, p , .01, g2 5 .028. Older students reported higher Test Anxiety as compared to younger students. Performance. The main effect of gender was found to be significant in this case, F(1, 259) 5 11.85, p 5 001, g2 5 .044, as were the subject area by gender interaction effects, F(1, 259)

TABLE 1 Mean ratings and (SDs) for the motivational, strategy use, and performance variables in language and mathematics for total sample and grade Language th

Cognitive Strategy Use Regulatory Strategy Use Self-efficacy Task Value Test Anxiety Performance

th

Mathematics th

5 grade

6 grade

Total

5 grade

6th grade

Total

5.50 (0.83) 4.99 (0.97) 5.74 (0.92) 6.22 (0.58) 3.04 (1.45) 16.00 (3.83)

5.20 (0.77) 4.72 (0.80) 5.49 (0.89) 5.77 (0.80) 3.13 (1.35) 16.50 (2.86)

5.33 (0.81) 4.84 (0.88) 5.60 (0.91) 5.97 (0.74) 3.09 (1.39) 16.28 (3.32)

5.46 (1.02) 5.00 (1.00) 5.62 (1.17) 6.02 (0.77) 2.95 (1.58) 16.26 (3.39)

5.25 (0.85) 4.78 (0.82) 5.50 (0.96) 5.84 (0.82) 3.48 (1.58) 16.41 (2.96)

5.34 (0.93) 4.88 (0.91) 5.56 (1.05) 5.92 (0.80) 3.25 (1.60) 16.35 (3.15)

8

METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

5 6.80, p 5 .01, g2 5 .026. Teachers estimated higher performance for girls in both subjects as compared to boys. The difference in favour of girls, however, was higher in the case of language [Mgirls 5 17.04 in language and 16.89 in mathematics, and Mboys 5 15.51 in language and 15.79 in mathematics]. Pattern of relations among self-regulated components within and across language and mathematics In order to explore the pattern of relations among all these variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated separately for language and mathematics. Results from these analyses confirmed previous research data (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998) indicating a similar pattern of relations across the two subject areas. Most of the variables in both subject areas correlated significantly. Specifically, positive significant correlations were found between self-efficacy, task value, cognitive strategy use, regulatory strategy use, and performance, and negative significant correlations were found between test anxiety, self-efficacy, regulatory strategy use, and performance. Only the relationships of test anxiety with cognitive strategy use and task value varied across subject areas, being significant in the case of mathematics, but not in the case of language. Moreover, all the correlations among the same constructs across the two subject areas (language and mathematics) were all positive and significant at the p , .001 level (r 5 .63 for Self-efficacy, .61 for Task Value, .67 for Test

Anxiety, .76 for Cognitive Strategy Use, and .67 for Regulatory Strategy Use variables). The mediatory role of strategies in the motivation–performance relation In order to determine the relative contribution of each of the motivational, cognitive, and regulatory components to participants’ performance in language and mathematics, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were perfomed. Following Pintrich and De Groot’s methodology, motivational beliefs were used as predictive factors for strategy use and performance. The predictive value of cognitive and regulatory strategy variables for performance was also examined. It should be mentioned that in order to apply hierarchical regression analysis, significant bivariate relations among the variables involved in the analysis have to be established. In order to test these bivariate relationships, a series of linear regression analyses was performed on the data. All of the bivariate relations among variables were significant, except the bivariate relationship between cognitive strategy use and test anxiety in language (b 5 2.085, p . .05). Specifically, the hypothesis that motivational variables predicted performance directly and indirectly, through the mediation of strategies, was tested in four sets of hierarchical analyses. The mediating role of cognitive and regulatory strategies separately and in each subject area was also examined. Further, the differentiated role of each of the three motivational variables (that is, self-efficacy, task value, and test anxiety) was also

TABLE 2 Correlations among students’ motivational and strategy use ratings and teachers’ ratings for students’ performance and metacognitive knowledge of strategies Cognitive Strategies Self-reg. Strategies Language Cognitive Strategy Use Regulatory strategy Use Self-efficacy Task Value Test Anxiety Performance Mathematics Cognitive Strategy Use Regulatory Strategy Use Self-efficacy Task Value Test Anxiety Performance * p,.05; ** p,.01.

Self-efficacy

Task Value

Test Anxiety

.515** .617** .651** 2.098 .318**

.546** .454** 2.139* .338**

.533** 2.261** .470**

2.085 .224**

2.272**

.675** .623** .684** 2.144* .334**

.513** .565** 2.198** .313**

.669** 2.355** .442**

2.259** .361**

2.313**

LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS

examined. Students’ age and gender were used as statistical controls (age was coded as 1 for 5thgraders and 2 for 6th-graders, and gender as 1 for girls and 2 for boys). The first block always indicated age and gender, the second block indicated the cognitive or the regulatory strategies in each subject area, and in the third block the contribution of one motivational variable was tested each time. As regards the control variables, gender was systematically found to be a significant predictor of performance in both subject areas. Girls were rated by the teachers as being higher achievers in both subjects as compared to boys. Age was found to be a significant predictor of performance only in the domain of language. Specifically, younger students reported higher levels of self-efficacy and task value beliefs as compared to older students (see MANOVA results). Cognitive strategies as mediators. The first two sets of analyses (see Table 3) involved motivational variables as predictors (self-efficacy in Model 3a, task value in Model 3b, and test anxiety in Model 3c), with cognitive strategy use (as mediators) and performance in language and in mathematics as outcomes. As Table 3 shows, performance was

9

predicted by self-efficacy beliefs (Model 3a) directly in both subject areas and indirectly, through the mediation of cognitive strategy use, only in the area of mathematics. When selfefficacy beliefs in mathematics were introduced, although they reduced the predictive value of cognitive strategy use, the mediated role of strategies remained significant (b 5 .149, p , .05). Task value beliefs (b 5 .092, p . .05) were found to predict performance only indirectly in the case of language (Model 3b), through the mediation of the student’s beliefs for the use of cognitive strategies (b 5 .268, p , .01). In the case of mathematics, however, they were found to predict performance directly (b 5 .215, p , .01) and indirectly, through the mediation of cognitive strategies (b 5 .221, p , .01). Finally, test anxiety was found to predict performance directly in both subject areas (b 5 2.235, p , .001 in language and b 5 2.249, p , .001 in mathematics) and indirectly, through the mediation of cognitive strategies, only in the case of mathematics (b 5 .299, p , .001). Cognitive strategies cannot be considered as mediators in the language area due to the lack of a significant bivariate relationship with test anxiety (b 5 2.085, p . .05).

TABLE 3 Teachers’ performance ratings as predicted by their students’ age, gender, cognitive strategy use, and motivation

Predictors in language Block 1 Age Gender Block 2 Cognitive strategy use Block 3 Motivation 2

R R2c Fc Predictors in mathematics Block 1 Age Gender Block 2 Cognitive strategy use Block 3 Motivation 2

R R2c Fc

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3a (Self-efficacy)

Model 3b (Task Value)

Model 3c (Test Anxiety)

.072 2.230***

.130* 2.189**

.141** 2.192***

.148* 2.189**

.134* 2.177**

.320***

.058 8.074***

.021 2.174**

.051

.268**

.445***

.092

2.235***

.156 .097 29.914***

.280 .124 44.590***

.161 .005 1.539

.211 .055 17.894***

.064 2.141*

.058 2.153**

.367***

.031 4.137*

.163 .132 40.916***

.070 2.149**

.299***

.099 2.129*

.149*

.221**

.316***

.350***

.215**

2.249***

.238 .075 25.519***

.188 .025 7.816**

.220 .057 18.967***

The values presented are the standardized beta. R2c stands for R2 change and Fc stands for F change after the addition of new predictive variables to the model. p,.05; ** p,.01; *** p,.001.

10

METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

Regulatory strategies as mediators. The last two sets of analyses (see Table 4) involved motivational variables as predictors (self-efficacy in Model 3a, task value in Model 3b, and test anxiety in Model 3c), regulatory strategy use as mediators, and performance in language and in mathematics as outcomes. As Table 4 shows, performance was predicted by self-efficacy beliefs (Model 3a) directly in both subject areas (b 5 .408, p , .001 in language and b 5 .386, p , .001 in mathematics), and indirectly, through the mediation of regulatory strategy use, only in the area of language (b 5 .124, p , .05). As in the case of cognitive strategy use, regulatory strategy use mediated the relation between performance and task value. Task value beliefs (b 5 .122, p . .05) were found to predict performance only indirectly in the case of language (Model 3b), through the mediation of student’s beliefs for the use of regulatory strategies (b 5 .293, p , .001). In the case of mathematics, however, they were found to predict performance directly (b 5 .280, p , .001) and indirectly, through the mediation of regulatory strategies (b 5 .152, p , .05). Test anxiety was found to predict performance in both areas directly and indirectly, through the mediation of

regulatory strategies (b 5 .314, p , .001 in language and b 5 .262, p , .001 in mathematics). DISCUSSION The main aim of this study was to investigate the existence of contextual differences in the pattern of relations among various motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive components of self-regulated learning and performance in language and mathematics. Results from correlational as well as regression analyses confirmed previous research data (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996; Young, 1997) indicating very few differences in the pattern of relations among self-regulated components within and across these two subject areas (Hypothesis 1a) and, at the same time, a context-specific character of self-regulated learning components at the meanlevel difference (Hypothesis 1b). Specifically, correlation coefficients showed that most of the relations among self-regulated learning components were significant and in the expected direction. That is, self-efficacy, task value, cognitive, and regulatory strategies correlated positively with each other within each subject area, but

TABLE 4 Teachers’ achievement ratings as predicted by their students’ age, gender, regulatory strategy use self-reports, and motivation

Predictors in language Block 1 Age Gender Block 2 Regulatory strategy use Block 3 Motivation 2

R R2c Fc Predictors in mathematics Block 1 Age Gender Block 2 Regulatory strategy use Block 3 Motivation 2

R R2c Fc

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3a (Self-efficacy)

Model 3b (Task Value)

Model 3c (Test Anxiety)

.072 2.230***

.123* 2.208***

.146** 2.193***

.152* 2.202***

.126* 2.195***

.124*

.293***

.314***

.408***

.122

2.220***

.173 .115 35.905***

.289 .116 42.257***

.184 .011 3.454

.220 .047 15.636***

.060 2.151*

.057 2.157**

.071 2.156**

.110

.152*

.386***

.280***

2.269***

.234 .109 36.847***

.177 .053 16.646***

.192 .068 21.598***

.343***

.058 8.074***

.021 2.174**

.309***

.031 4.137*

.124 .093 27.639***

.098 2.137* .262***

The values presented are the standardized beta. R2c stands for R2 change and Fc stands for F change after the addition of new predictive variables to the model. * p,.05; ** p,.01; *** p,.001.

LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS

negatively with test anxiety. The relation of test anxiety with cognitive strategy use and task value, however, varied across subject areas, being significant only in the area of mathematics (see also Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Moreover, at the mean level difference there were no significant main effects of subject area; there were significant subject area by age interactions, but only in the motivational components. Younger students reported higher levels of self-efficacy and task value beliefs as compared to older students in the language domain, while older students reported lower levels of test anxiety in mathematics. The results from regression analyses confirmed to a large extent the second hypothesis of the study (Hypothesis 2a, b) as well as previous research evidence stressing the key motivational role of selfefficacy. Self-efficacy proved the most significant predictor not only of performance but also of cognitive and regulatory strategy use (see also Greene & Miller, 1996; Greene et al., 2004; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Its higher predictive value for teachers’ performance ratings as compared to other motivational components (i.e., task value) is consistent evidence, since self-efficacy, as it is measured, is an index of self-competence that involves social comparison. According to the results of hierarchical regression analyses, selfefficacy beliefs predicted a significant portion of variance of performance in both areas directly and indirectly, through the mediation of regulatory strategy use in language and the mediation of cognitive strategy use in mathematics. These results, although preliminary, imply the differential role of self-efficacy in the quality of students’ engagement during the learning process in different subject areas. Task value beliefs predicted, as expected, the use of cognitive and regulatory strategy use. Previous research evidence has shown that task value beliefs relate to the initial ‘‘choice’’ of becoming involved in academic tasks in terms of higher levels of cognitive and regulatory strategy use (Schiefele, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2002), but do not directly predict performance (see Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). The results of the present study partly confirmed this evidence by stressing the differential role of task value beliefs in predicting performance in these two subject areas. Task value beliefs predicted performance indirectly, through the use of strategies, only in the case of language. In the case of mathematics, however, they predicted performance both directly and indirectly. These results may be due to the age of the participants in the

11

present study. Positive task value beliefs may be significant motivators for young students in the initiation phase of deciding to pursue challenging achievement goals in a ‘‘threatening’’ subject area, like mathematics. The higher levels of anxiety of older students in mathematics may moderate the magnitude of the intrinsic value of this subject area by increasing the perceived negative aspects of engagement. Within the expectancy-value framework, the decision made by the person about the magnitude of a subject areas’ value takes into consideration not only interest and usefulness of the various tasks but also the perceived negative aspects of engaging in such tasks. This issue, however, needs further exploration. Test anxiety was also proved to be a significant predictor of performance, confirming both the hypothesis of the study and previous research evidence (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Specifically, it was found to predict performance ratings both directly and indirectly, through the mediation of strategy use, mainly in mathematics. In general, the lower the levels of students’ test anxiety in a subject area, the higher their cognitive engagement in terms of using more cognitive and regulatory strategies, and the higher their teachers’ performance ratings. The results of the present study, however, did not support Wolters and Pintrich’s (1998) research findings for the use of more cognitive strategies in the case of high levels of test anxiety. In fact, the bivariate relation between test anxiety and cognitive strategies was significant only in mathematics, and was in the opposite direction (that is, the higher the levels of test anxiety, the less the use of cognitive strategies in mathematics). The results of the present study confirmed the mediatory role of strategies in the motivation– performance relation, and stressed the differential role of cognitive and regulatory strategies in predicting performance in different subject areas. The structural characteristics of a subject area have been found to affect students’ motivational orientation (Stodolsky, 1988; Stodolsky et al., 1991), which, in turn, seems to affect the level of activation of either cognitive or regulatory strategies within each subject area. As has already been mentioned, self-efficacy beliefs have been found to activate the use of cognitive strategies in mathematics and regulatory strategies in language. As far as gender differences are concerned, contrary to the initial hypotheses, girls did not report less favourable competence and task beliefs in mathematics or higher ratings of strategy use as compared to boys (Hypothesis 3a, b, c). These results are in line with recent research evidence,

12

METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

which suggest that gender mean level differences in motivation are not as established as previously thought (Metallidou & Efklides, 2004; see also Syngollitou & Gonida, in press). Probably, the upper elementary years is a critical period for interventions before parents’ and teachers’ socialization practices are incorporated into girls’ expectations of themselves and become part of their self-concept (see also Dermitzaki & Efklides, 2001). Although the lack of gender differences in motivation and strategy use is a very promising finding, it is surprising that we did not find differences favouring girls, as girls’ performance was evaluated by their teachers as being significantly higher than that of boys (see also Kimball, 1989; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 2002). The lack of a good match between girls’ performance outcomes (here, significantly higher teachers’ performance ratings) and personal interpretation of these outcomes may be an ‘‘indirect’’ indication of girls’ lower confidence in their abilities. At the same time, however, it is also possible that this mismatch is a consequence of teachers’ subjectivity in their ratings of girls’ performance. This issue needs further exploration by using more objective measures of students’ actual performance in language and mathematics (i.e., achievement tests) than the measures used in the present study. Interestingly enough, motivation was found to vary mainly with age but not with gender. Younger students reported more favourable motivational beliefs in the area of language as compared to older students, thus partly confirming the hypothesis of the study (Hypothesis 4a). This evidence is in line with research findings consistently showing the optimistic view taken by younger students as regards their intrinsic motivation for learning and their sense of competence, as well as the decrease in motivation from childhood through adolescence (see Gottfried et al., 2001; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Also, the results confirm the initial prediction of higher ratings of cognitive and regulatory strategy use from older students’ as compared to younger students’ ratings (Hypothesis 4b) in both areas. Given the very small age span used in the study, the significant differences between 5th- and 6thgraders (though having small to medium effect size) imply that motivational and strategy use beliefs are dynamic constructs, though motivational beliefs may be more sensitive to contextual differences as compared to cognitive and regulatory aspects of self-regulated learning. This conclusion, however, is limited to upper elementary school students, and thus further research is needed.

In general, the conclusions are limited not only by the age span of the sample but also by the methodological tools. More refined experimental designs are needed that would involve quantitative and qualitative measures simultaneously in order to capture the ‘‘intrinsic context’’ within which the person functions in different subject areas (see Dermitzaki & Efklides, 2001). That is, to use not only self-reports and teachers’ performance ratings but also online measurements of motivation and strategy use, as well as more objective measures of students’ actual performance, such as achievement tests in specific academic tasks. Further, the use of more qualitative approaches (i.e., eco-behavioural approach) and methods (i.e., discourse analysis), which focus on the participatory nature of learning and the communicative character of thinking, would help to clarify the influence of the contextrelated variables as different strategies of teaching in language and mathematics (i.e., towards acquiring communication skills versus acquiring procedures). Conclusions and implications Despite the limitations of the study, the results provide empirical support for the claim that there are general as well as subject-area-specific features of self-regulated learning. As regards the general character of various self-regulated learning constructs, successful classroom performance presupposes the existence of both the ‘‘will’’ and the ‘‘skill.’’ Positive motivational beliefs and strategy use lead to better performance outcomes. Students’ confidence in their ability to be successful in class is a key motivational construct for upper elementary school students, just as it is for high school students (e.g., Greene et al., 2004; Miller et al., 1996; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Given that the decline in self-efficacy beliefs seems to begin in the elementary school years, according to the present data, future research has to be focused on the development of educational practices that strengthen young students’ sense of competence. Also, the results of the study provide empirical support for the role of strategies as mediators in the motivation–performance relation, showing the pathway for initiating or supporting students’ efforts for cognitive or regulatory engagement. At this point, the present results suggest that there is a need to take into consideration subject-areaspecific characteristics, due to the differential role of each motivational factor in the activation of strategies in different areas (here in language and

LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS

mathematics). Mathematics is still perceived as a ‘‘threatening’’ area; one that requires the effective application of deep cognitive strategies. This cognitive engagement presupposes the development of educational practices that lower negative thoughts and feelings about evaluation and foster the usefulness and instrumentality of mathematics as a subject area. Successful performance in language is a very effortful process in elementary school, and seems to rely more on confidence beliefs and the use of regulatory strategies. As Wigfield et al. (2004) maintained, the issue is whether children conceptualize motivation differently in various content areas. ‘‘Reading selfefficacy involves confidence in language and comprehension skills, whereas mathematics selfefficacy involves confidence in one’s numeric skills’’ (p. 300). And these skills are qualitatively different. Manuscript received March 2005 Revised manuscript accepted September 2005

REFERENCES Anderman, L. H. (2004). Student motivation across subject-area domains. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 283–285. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 287–297. Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14, 153–164. Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New York: Guilford Press. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Chouinard, R., Vezeau, C., Bouffard, T., & Jenkins, B. (2001). Gender differences in the development of mathematics attitudes. Paper presented at the 9th EARLI Conference, Freiburg, Switzerland. Dermitzaki, I., & Efklides, A. (2001). Age and gender effects on students’ evaluations regarding the self and task related experiences in mathematics. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 271–293). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.

13

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s selfand task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. Entwisle, D. R., & Baker, D. P. (1983). Gender and young children’s expectations for performance in arithmetic. Developmental Psychology, 19, 200–209. Frey, K., & Ruble, D. N. (1987). What children say about classroom performance: Sex and grade differences in perceived competence. Child Development, 58, 1066–1078. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13. Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on course performance: Goals, perceived ability, and selfregulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192. Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482. Kardash, C. M., & Amlund, J. T. (1991). Self-reported learning strategies and learning from expository text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 117–138. Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198–214. Lightbody, P., Siann, G., Stocks, R., & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and attribution at secondary school: The role of gender. Educational Studies, 22, 13–25. Lompscher, J., Artelt, C., Schellhas, B., & Blib, F. (1995). A complex investigation into learning strategies in 4th, 6th, and 8th grade students. Potsdam, Germany: University of Potsdam. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1998). Structure, stability, and development of young children’s self-concepts: A multicohort-multioccasion study. Child Development, 69, 1030–1053. McDonald, A. S. (2001). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children. Educational Psychology, 21, 89–101. McLeod, D. B. (1989). The role of affect in mathematical problem-solving. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem-solving: A new perspective (pp. 19–36). New York: Springer. Mellroy, D., Bunting, B., & Adamson, G. (2000). An evaluation of the factor structure and predictive utility of a test anxiety scale with reference to students’ past performance and personality indices. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 17–32. Metallidou, P. (2003). Motives, language performance, and metacognitive experiences in a text-comprehension

14

METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

task [in Greek]. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 10, 538–555. Metallidou, P., & Efklides, A. (2004). Gender differences in mathematics: Performance, motivation, and metacognition. In M. Dikaiou & D. Christidis (Eds.), Scientific Annals, School of Psychology, Vol. VI (pp. 37–64). Thessaloniki, Greece: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki/Art of Text. Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindram, B., & Nicholls, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–442. Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry–emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541–555. Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344. Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 390–405. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2002). Students’ self-efficacy in their self-regulated learning strategies: A developmental perspective. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 45, 211–221. Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and incompetence among competent children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Koligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 41–66). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Schiefele, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text comprehension. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 151–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A metaanalysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi &

A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173–208. Sharma, S., & Rao, U. (1983). Academic performance in different school courses as related to self-acceptance, test anxiety, and intelligence. In H. M. Van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research, Vol. 2 (pp. 111–117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1993). Gender differences in math and verbal achievement, selfperception, and motivation. Paper presented at the 5th EARLI Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & Dubois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117–139. Stipeck, D. J., & Gralinski, J. H. (1991). Gender differences in children’s achievement-related beliefs and emotional responses to success and failure in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 361–371. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Stodolsky, S. S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991). Student views about learning math and school studies. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 89–116. Syngollitou, E., & Gonida, E. (in press). Dimension of the classroom psychological environment and achievement in Math: The role of self-efficacy [in Greek]. In F. Vlachos, F. Bonoti, P. Metallidou, E. Dermitzaki & A. Efklides (Eds.), Scientific Annals of the Psychological Society of Northern Greece, Vol. 3. Athens, Greece: Ellinika Grammata. Van der Ploeg, H. M. (1984). Worry, emotionality, intelligence, and academic performance in male and female Dutch secondary school children. In H. M. Van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research, Vol. 3 (pp. 201–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Volet, S. (2001). Emerging trends in recent research on motivation in learning contexts. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 319–334). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Children’s competence beliefs, achievement values, and general selfesteem change across elementary and middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 107–138. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood to adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of

LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS

achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., MacIver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552–565. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299–309. Wolters, A. C., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47.

15

Wolters, A. C., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238. Young, A. J. (1997). I think, therefore I’m motivated: The relations among cognitive strategy use, motivational orientation and classroom perceptions over time. Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 249–283. Young, A. J., Arbreton, A. J., & Midgley, C. (1992). All content areas may be not created equal: Motivational orientation and cognitive strategy use in four academic domains. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, USA. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaers, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (1989). Selfregulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer.