Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258921440

Motivational beliefs, cognitive engagement, and achievement in language and


mathematics in elementary school children

Article  in  International Journal of Psychology · February 2007


DOI: 10.1080/00207590500411179 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

85 151

2 authors:

Panayiota Metallidou Anastasia Vlachou


Aristotle University of Thessaloniki University of Thessaly
41 PUBLICATIONS   495 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   485 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Handedness and visual-spatial intelligence: Developmental trends View project

Metacognition in MIld Cognitive Impairment (MCI) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anastasia Vlachou on 07 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


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 sixth-
grade 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 étude porte sur les différences contextuelles dans les patrons relationnels entre les diverses composantes
motivationnelle, cognitive et métacognitive de l’apprentissage et de la performance auto-régulés dans deux
domaines d’étude clé du programme, soit la langue et les mathématiques. Ces différences contextuelles ont été
examinées dans un échantillon de 263 d’enfants d’une école primaire grecque (of) en cinquième et sixième année.
Les différences sexuelles et les différences d’âge ont été aussi étudiées. Les élèves ont été priés de compléter le
«Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire» (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) qui comprend cinq facteurs: (a)
l’auto-efficacité, (b) la valeur intrinsèque, (c) un test d’anxiété, (d) l’utilisation d’une stratégie cognitive et (e) les
stratégies d’auto-régulation. Ils ont répondu aux énoncés du questionnaire sur une échelle de type Likert à 7
points en termes de leur comportement en classe de langue et en classe de mathématiques séparément. De plus, les
enseignants ont été priés d’évaluer chaque résultat de leurs élèves dans la langue grecque et en mathématique sur
une échelle allant de 1 à 20 points en comparaison au reste de la classe. Les résultats de l’étude ont indiqué très
peu de différences dans les patrons relationnels entre les composantes auto-régulées à l’intérieur et entre les
domaines d’étude. En même temps, les résultats ont révélé un caractère contextuel spécifique des composantes
auto-regulées. De plus, la présente étude (a) a confirmé le rôle médiateur des stratégies dans la relation
motivation-performance, (b) a souligné le rôle différé des stratégies cognitive et régulatoire dans la prédiction de
la performance dans les domaines d’étude qui diffèrent dans leurs caractéristiques structurelles du contenu et (c) a
souligné le rôle motivationnel clé de l’auto-efficacité. En effet, l’auto-efficacité s’est avérée être le prédicteur le
plus significatif non seulement de la performance mais aussi de l’utilisation d’une stratégie cognitive et
régulatoire. Des différences sexuelles dans la motivation et dans l’utilisation d’une stratégie n’ont pas été

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: anavlachou@uth.gr).
# 2007 International Union of Psychological Science
http://www.psypress.com/ijp DOI: 10.1080/00207590500411179
LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 3

rapportées alors qu’il s’est avéré que la motivation variait principalement en fonction de l’âge. L’utilité de ces
résultats pour la promotion d’une grande clarté entre les cadres motivationnel et métacognitif et les idées pour les
études futures sont discutées.

S e examinó, en una muestra de 263 niños griegos de quinto y sexto años 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 desempeño en dos áreas clave del currı́culo,
lenguaje y matemáticas. También se investigó las diferencias de edad y género. Se pidió 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 Intrı́nseco, (c) Ansiedad ante los Exámenes, (d)
Empleo de Estrategias Cognitivas, y (e) Estrategias Autorreguladas. Respondieron a los enunciados del
cuestionario sobre una escala Likert de 7 puntos en términos de su conducta en las clases de matemáticas y
lenguaje por separado. Es más, se pidió a sus profesores que evaluaran el desempeño de cada uno de sus
estudiantes en Lenguaje Griego y Matemáticas de acuerdo con una escala comparativa de 1 a 20 puntos, en
relación con el resto del grupo escolar. Los resultados del estudio indicaron pocas diferencias en la pauta que
describen las relaciones entre los componentes de autorregulación al interior de y entre ambas áreas de estudio y,
al mismo tiempo, revelaron un carácter especı́fico del contexto de los componentes de la autorregulación con
diferencias en el nivel medio. Más aún, el presente estudio (a) confirmó el papel de mediador que desempeñan las
estrategias sobre la relación motivación-desempeño, (b) acentuó el papel diferencial de las estrategias cognitiva y
reguladora al predecir el desempeño en áreas de estudio que difieren en las caracterı́sticas estructurales de su
contenido, y (c) señaló el papel motivacional clave que desempeña la auto eficacia. De hecho, la auto eficacia
predijo de manera más significativa no sólo el desempeño, sino también el uso de la estrategia cognitiva y
reguladora. No hubo diferencias de género respecto a la motivación y al uso de la estrategia, aunque se encontró
que la motivación varı́a 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 well as the predictive value of self-efficacy in the


use of cognitive and metacognitive or regulatory
Self-regulated learning has recently emerged as an strategies (Greene & Miller, 1996; Greene, Miller,
important construct in education with the focus on Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004; Pintrich & De
the way that students initiate, monitor, and exert Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Moreover,
control over their own learning (Boekaerts, 1999; self-efficacy beliefs seem to have greater predictive
Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Bronson, value of learning and achievement outcomes in
2000; Sperling, Howard, Staley, & Dubois, 2004; various cognitive domains (e.g., language or
Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). In the academic mathematics) as compared to other motives, such
domain, the initiation of self-regulated learning as task value or test anxiety (Pajares & Valiante,
presupposes specific motivational components 1999; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998).
such as self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test The second important motivational component
anxiety (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schiefele, is that of interest and intrinsic motivation. In the
Krapp, & Winteler, 1992; Wolters & Pintrich, expectancy-value framework, the intrinsic value of
1998; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). a task results from a decision-making process in
Specifically, self-efficacy has been considered as which the student takes into consideration the
a key motivational component because of its importance of doing well on a specific task, the
validity in predicting students’ task choices as well personal interest of the content of the task, and its
as the quantity and the quality of students’ effort usefulness in relation to future personal goals, as
expenditure. Self-efficacy beliefs predict the use of well as the cost or the perceived negative aspects of
deeper processing and regulatory strategies and engaging in this task (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995;
are, consequently, related to better achievement Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Task value beliefs are
outcomes (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Zimmerman, positively correlated with efficacy beliefs and are
2000; see also Bandura, 1997; Bouffard-Bouchard, related to the initial choice of becoming involved
Parent, & Larivee, 1991; Schunk, 1989). There are in academic tasks in terms of higher levels of
consistent research findings for the positive cognitive and metacognitive strategy use (Pintrich
correlations between self-efficacy and the use of & De Groot, 1990; Schiefele, 1992; Wigfield &
‘‘deep’’ cognitive strategies (Greene & Miller, Eccles, 1992, 2002). They are also positively
1996; Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & correlated with achievement, although in a rather
Nicholls, 1996; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992), as complex manner, since this relation is affected by
4 METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

task features as well as students’ age and gender through the use of regulatory strategies (Pintrich
(see Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989).
Pajares & Valiante, 1999).
The third motivational component concerns
Subject matter variations among self-
students’ emotional reaction to the task. Test
regulated learning components
anxiety has been consistently found to exert
negative effects on performance in different
Given the shift on situated cognition in educa-
achievement situations (Mellroy, Bunting, &
tional psychology, a fundamental question in
Adamson, 2000; Morris, Davis, & Hutchings,
recent research on self-regulated learning relates
1981; Sharma & Rao, 1983; Van der Ploeg,
to the degree to which students’ cognitive and
1984). According to the relevant research, test
motivational beliefs vary across subject area
anxiety is a significant predictor of performance
domains (Anderman, 2004; Wigfield, Guthrie,
across various subject areas (Pintrich & De Groot,
Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004; Wolters & Pintrich,
1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Classroom
1998; Young, 1997). The structural characteristics
characteristics and task features, as well as
of the content of a subject and, consequently, the
students’ age and other individual differences
nature of instruction within this subject, have been
such as gender, intervene and affect this relation
found to affect students’ motivational orientation
(McDonald, 2001; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;
(Stodolsky, 1988; Stodolsky, Salk, & Glaessner,
Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
1991). Even kindergarten and first-grade children
While it is almost indisputable that motivational
have distinct competence beliefs as well as intrinsic
beliefs are necessary in the process of learning, at
motivation for various subject areas (Eccles et al.,
the same time they are not solely sufficient for
1993; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001;
better performance and achievement. Successful
Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1998).
classroom performance presupposes the existence
Recent findings suggest that students form
of both the ‘‘will’’ and the ‘‘skill,’’ which fuse
motivational beliefs that are subject-area-specific,
through a dynamic interaction between motiva-
and that some of these beliefs are generalized more
tion, cognition, and metacognition during the
than others across various academic domains
learning process and over time (Pintrich & De
(Bong, 2004). While most of these empirical
Groot, 1990; Young, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs
studies stress the dynamic nature of motivational
and cognitive engagement, in the form of using
beliefs (Volet, 2001), only recently have studies in
cognitive and metacognitive or regulatory strate-
the goal theory framework started to examine the
gies, lead directly to better performance as
variations in relations between different motiva-
compared to other motivational factors, such as
tional and cognitive self-regulated components
task value or achievement goals (Greene et al.,
across academic domains (see Wolters &
2004; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996; Young, 1997;
Cognitive strategies involve the use of rehearsal,
Young, Arbreton, & Midgley, 1992). These studies
elaboration, and organizational strategies to
found mean-level differences in motivation and
increase encoding, retention, and comprehension
strategic behaviour across different subject areas.
of classroom material (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).
However, only a few differences were found in
Further, the use of ‘‘deep,’’ meaningful processing
the patterns of the relations among these self-
strategies (e.g., organizational strategies) in con-
regulated constructs in different school subjects
junction with the use of metacognitive strategies
(i.e., English and mathematics) (see Wolters &
lead to better performance as compared to the sole
Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996; Young, 1997),
use of ‘‘superficial’’ strategies (e.g., rote proces-
implying that general models of self-regulated
sing) (Greene & Miller, 1996; Kardash & Amlund,
learning may be applicable to different academic
1991; Miller et al., 1996).
domains. The sample of these studies was mainly
Thus, in the monitor and control phase of the
learning process, the emphasis in self-regulated middle and secondary school students; there is
learning has been upon the application of meta- scant evidence as far as younger school-aged
cognitive or regulatory strategies, which reflect children are concerned.
students’ intention to plan, monitor, and control
their own learning (Brown, 1987; Pintrich, 1999). Gender differences in motivational and
There is consistent evidence that an important strategy use beliefs
source of difference between students with high and
low academic performance lies in the degree of their Research concerning gender differences in motiva-
engagement in a self-regulated process, mainly tion has shown that males tend to overestimate
LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 5

while females underestimate their abilities in than their male peers (Lompscher, Artelt,
various domains. This is especially so in the Schellhas, & Blib, 1995; Wolters & Pintrich,
domain of mathematics, which has traditionally 1998; Wolters et al., 1996).
and stereotypically been characterized as a male In light of all the above, the aim of the study was
domain (Eccles et al., 1993; Pajares, 1996a; twofold:
Skaalvik & Rankin, 1993; Wigfield, Eccles,
MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991; Wolters et 1. To examine if the relations among the motiva-
al., 1996). In general, female students are identified tional, cognitive, and metacognitive compo-
by most of the researchers as the group with higher nents of self-regulated learning vary as a
ratings of test anxiety and more unfavourable function of the subject area (language and
attitudes and beliefs in their mathematics ability, mathematics) in 5th- and 6th-grade students. It
even when their performance is equal to or better was decided to begin with 5th-graders because
than the performance of male students (McLeod, students develop separate verbal and math
1989; Pajares, 1996b; Stipek & Gralinski, 1991; self-concepts by the 5th grade due to their
Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). growing ability to differentiate their compe-
For some researchers, gender differences in tence on different academic tasks (Marsh,
competence beliefs emerge during the middle 1986).
school years (Phillips & Zimmerman, 1990; 2. To examine the predictive value of students’
Wigfield et al., 1991), while others have found beliefs for their motivation and strategy use on
that such differences emerge in the early elemen- teachers’ ratings for these students’ school
tary years (Entwisle & Baker, 1983; Frey & Ruble, performance in language and mathematics.
1987), even as early as the first grade (Wigfield Teachers’ achievement ratings were used
et al., 1997). However, this ‘‘confidence gap’’ because they reflect students’ achievement
between genders in mathematics was not verified levels as well as their persistence and the qua-
by recent empirical evidence with 6th-grade stu- lity of their school work; these, in turn, are
dents (Pajares & Graham, 1999). Also, Metallidou indicative of their motivation and strategy use.
and Efklides (2004) found that gender differences Based on previous research evidence, the following
in motivation are not as established as previously hypotheses were formulated:
thought, while Chouinard, Vezeau, Bouffard, and
Jenkins (2001) found that many of the differences 1. The pattern of the relations among different
in attitudes that favoured boys were stronger self-regulated components would be similar in
between 12 and 14 years of age, and tended to both subject areas (Hypothesis 1a). That is,
diminish or disappear later (15 to 18 years). self-efficacy, task value, cognitive, and reg-
In the domain of language, research evidence is ulatory strategies would correlate positively
inconsistent, supporting (a) females’ higher self- with each other and negatively with test
efficacy and task value beliefs (Eccles et al., 1993; anxiety in both subjects. The level of students’
Wigfield & Eccles, 1994; Wigfield et al., 1991), (b) motivation and cognitive engagement, how-
differences in favour of females in task value only ever, would vary in these two subject areas
in writing tasks and not in self-efficacy (Pajares & (Hypothesis 1b).
Valiante, 1999), (c) differences in liking language 2. Test anxiety and self-efficacy beliefs were
as a subject area (Lightbody, Siann, Stocks, & expected to be the best predictors of perfor-
Walsh, 1996), and (d) no gender differences in mance, while task value was expected to be
motivation in various language tasks (Metallidou, predictive of the initial ‘‘choice’’ of becoming
2003). involved in academic tasks in terms of higher
It is even harder to draw any firm conclusions in levels of cognitive strategy use and self-
relation to gender differences in cognitive and regulation (Hypothesis 2a). Motivational
regulatory strategies, since there is scant empirical beliefs were also expected to predict achieve-
data on this issue. According to the few relevant ment both directly and indirectly through
studies, females’ less adaptive self-efficacy beliefs their influence on strategy use (Hypothesis
and anxiety in mathematics as compared to males 2b).
did not result in lower performance and use of 3. Male students were expected to report higher
cognitive strategies (Pajares & Valiante, 2002; self-efficacy and lower test anxiety as com-
Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). In general, female pared to female students, mainly in the
students of different ages have been found to domain of mathematics (Hypothesis 3a). In
report a higher use of cognitive and regulatory the domain of language, it was hypothesized
learning strategies across different subject domains that, if there were gender differences, these
6 METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

would be in favour of girls (Hypothesis 3b). It student) and confidence about future performance
was also expected that gender differences in these classes (e.g., I expect to do very well in this
would be found in favour of girls only in the class). The Task Value items (NI 5 9) concerned
reported use of cognitive and regulatory interest in the class (e.g., I think that what we are
strategies (Hypothesis 3c). learning in this class is interesting), importance
4. No significant differences were anticipated and usefulness of the class work (e.g., I think that
between 5th- and 6th-graders due to the very what I am learning in this class is useful for me to
small age span used in the study. Nevertheless, know), and the preference for challenging goals
if there were such differences in motivation, (e.g., I often choose paper topics I will learn
it was expected to be mainly in favour of something from even if they require more work).
younger students (Hypothesis 4a; see Gottfried The Test Anxiety items (NI 5 4) concerned
et al., 2001; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). As far as emotional reactions and cognitive interference on
the reported use of strategies is concerned, tests (e.g., when I take a test I think about how
higher ratings were anticipated from older poorly I am doing). The Cognitive Strategy Use
students’ rather than younger students’ rat- scale (NI 5 13) concerned the perceived use of
ings (Hypothesis 4b; see Wolters et. al., three sets of cognitive strategies: rehearsal, ela-
1996). boration, 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
METHOD remember). The Self-regulation scale (NI 5 9)
included metacognitive items, such as planning
Participants and monitoring (e.g., before I begin studying I
think about the things I will need to do to learn),
The sample consisted of 263 children drawn from as well as effort management items (e.g., even
the 5th- (N 5 114) and 6th-grade (N 5 149) when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I
classrooms of 13 public primary schools located in keep working until I finish).
Central Greece. Gender was about equally repre- The Cronbach reliability coefficient of the first
sented in the sample (133 girls and 130 boys), while three scales was a 5 .82 and a 5 .87 for Self-
participants were from different socioeconomic efficacy, a 5 .73 and a 5 .72 for Task Value, and
status (SES) groups, according to their parents’ a 5 .73 and a 5 .84 for Test Anxiety, in language
educational level and profession (62 low, 153 and mathematics respectively. Crobach’s alphas of
medium, and 46 high SES). The sample also the remaining two scales were a 5 .77 and a 5 .83
consisted of 13 teachers who were teaching the for Cognitive Strategy Use, and a 5 .61 and a 5
classes from which the participating students were .62 for Regulatory Strategy Use, in language and
drawn. mathematics respectively.

Measures Teachers’ ratings. Teachers were asked to rank


each of their students’ achievements in Greek
Students’ ratings. Students were asked to com- language and mathematics on a 1- to 20-point
plete the Motivated Strategies for Learning (1 5 the lowest achievement, 20 5 the highest)
Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich & De Groot, comparative scale in relation to the rest of the
1990). The questionnaire included 44 items, as in class. The 20-point comparative scale was used
the original study of Pintrich and De Groot. The instead of a 5-point one for teachers’ evaluation
participants responded to these items on a 7-point of students’ performance because, being com-
Likert scale (1 5 not at all true of me to 7 5 very patible with the size of an ordinary classroom, it
true of me) in terms of their behaviour in provides a wider evaluative spectrum than the
mathematics and language classes separately. latter.
The questionnaire comprised five factors: (a)
Self-efficacy, (b) Intrinsic Value, (c) Test Anxiety, Procedure
(d) Cognitive Strategy Use, and (e) Self-regulation
Strategies. Specifically, the Self-efficacy items Data were collected during the second school
(NI 5 9) concerned perceived competence in semester. Students were asked to complete the
language or mathematics performance (e.g., com- Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
pared with others in this class, I think I am a good (MSLQ) in their classroom, in the presence of one
LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 7

of the researchers. The completion of the ques- .05, nor a subject area by age or gender interaction
tionnaire took approximately 45 minutes; all stu- effect. Univariate tests revealed a main effect of
dents were informed that the questionnaire was age only in the area of language, F(1, 262) 5 4.94,
anonymous. After completion, the teacher of the p , .05, g2 5 .019, though this was rather small.
class was also asked to estimate each student’s Younger students reported significant higher
achievement in Greek language and in mathe- efficacy beliefs than older students.
matics (separately) on a 1 to 20 point comparative
scale in relation to the rest of the class. Students’ Task Value. Results indicated a significant main
and teachers’ protocols had a specific code number effect of age, F(1, 259) 5 14.246, p , .001, g2
for matching purposes. 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
RESULTS ratings differed significantly only in the area of
language, F(1, 262) 5 26.95, p , .001, g2 5 .09.
Age and gender differences in motivation, Again, younger students reported significantly
strategy use, and performance in Greek higher task value for language as compared to
language and mathematics older students. There was also a significant age by
gender interaction in the area of language, F(1,
A 2 (5th and 6th grade) 6 2 (boys or girls) 6 2 262) 5 7.07, p , .01, g2 5 .027. Boys in the 5th
(subject areas: language or mathematics) Multi- grade gave significantly higher task value estima-
variate Analyses of Variance, with subject area as tions compared to 5th grade girls, while this
a repeated measure factor and age and gender as difference was reversed in the 6th grade.
between-subjects factors, was applied to investi-
gate age and gender differences in motivation, Test Anxiety. Only the subject area by age
strategy use, and performance in each subject area. interaction was found to be significant, F(1, 259)
5 8.78, p , .005, g2 5 .033. Univariate tests
Cognitive and Regulatory Strategy Use. The revealed that the difference between the age groups
main effect of age reached significance, F(1, 259) was significant in the area of mathematics F(1,
5 6.74, p , .05, g2 5 .025 (cognitive) and F(1, 259) 262) 5 7.42, p , .01, g2 5 .028. Older students
5 5.97, p , .05, g2 5 .023 (regulatory). Younger reported higher Test Anxiety as compared to
students reported higher use of cognitive and younger students.
regulatory strategies in both subject areas as
compared to older students. Performance. The main effect of gender was
found to be significant in this case, F(1, 259)
Self-efficacy. No significant main effect of 5 11.85, p 5 001, g2 5 .044, as were the subject
subject area was found, F(1, 259) 5 0.942, p . 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 Mathematics
th th th
5 grade 6 grade Total 5 grade 6th grade Total

Cognitive Strategy Use 5.50 5.20 5.33 5.46 5.25 5.34


(0.83) (0.77) (0.81) (1.02) (0.85) (0.93)
Regulatory Strategy Use 4.99 4.72 4.84 5.00 4.78 4.88
(0.97) (0.80) (0.88) (1.00) (0.82) (0.91)
Self-efficacy 5.74 5.49 5.60 5.62 5.50 5.56
(0.92) (0.89) (0.91) (1.17) (0.96) (1.05)
Task Value 6.22 5.77 5.97 6.02 5.84 5.92
(0.58) (0.80) (0.74) (0.77) (0.82) (0.80)
Test Anxiety 3.04 3.13 3.09 2.95 3.48 3.25
(1.45) (1.35) (1.39) (1.58) (1.58) (1.60)
Performance 16.00 16.50 16.28 16.26 16.41 16.35
(3.83) (2.86) (3.32) (3.39) (2.96) (3.15)
8 METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

5 6.80, p 5 .01, g2 5 .026. Teachers estimated Anxiety, .76 for Cognitive Strategy Use, and .67
higher performance for girls in both subjects as for Regulatory Strategy Use variables).
compared to boys. The difference in favour of
girls, however, was higher in the case of language
The mediatory role of strategies in the
[Mgirls 5 17.04 in language and 16.89 in mathe-
motivation–performance relation
matics, and Mboys 5 15.51 in language and 15.79
in mathematics]. In order to determine the relative contribution of
each of the motivational, cognitive, and regulatory
Pattern of relations among self-regulated components to participants’ performance in lan-
components within and across language and guage and mathematics, a series of hierarchical
mathematics regression analyses were perfomed. Following
Pintrich and De Groot’s methodology, motiva-
In order to explore the pattern of relations among tional beliefs were used as predictive factors for
all these variables, Pearson correlation coefficients strategy use and performance. The predictive value
were calculated separately for language and of cognitive and regulatory strategy variables for
mathematics. performance was also examined. It should be
Results from these analyses confirmed previous mentioned that in order to apply hierarchical
research data (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters regression analysis, significant bivariate relations
& Pintrich, 1998) indicating a similar pattern of among the variables involved in the analysis have
relations across the two subject areas. Most of the to be established. In order to test these bivariate
variables in both subject areas correlated signifi- relationships, a series of linear regression analyses
cantly. Specifically, positive significant correlations was performed on the data. All of the bivariate
were found between self-efficacy, task value, relations among variables were significant, except
cognitive strategy use, regulatory strategy use, and the bivariate relationship between cognitive strat-
performance, and negative significant correlations egy use and test anxiety in language (b 5 2.085,
were found between test anxiety, self-efficacy, regu- p . .05).
latory strategy use, and performance. Only the Specifically, the hypothesis that motivational
relationships of test anxiety with cognitive strategy variables predicted performance directly and
use and task value varied across subject areas, being indirectly, through the mediation of strategies, was
significant in the case of mathematics, but not in tested in four sets of hierarchical analyses. The
the case of language. Moreover, all the correlations mediating role of cognitive and regulatory strate-
among the same constructs across the two subject gies separately and in each subject area was also
areas (language and mathematics) were all posi- examined. Further, the differentiated role of
tive and significant at the p , .001 level (r 5 .63 for each of the three motivational variables (that is,
Self-efficacy, .61 for Task Value, .67 for Test 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 Self-efficacy Task Value Test Anxiety

Language
Cognitive Strategy Use
Regulatory strategy Use .515**
Self-efficacy .617** .546**
Task Value .651** .454** .533**
Test Anxiety 2.098 2.139* 2.261** 2.085
Performance .318** .338** .470** .224** 2.272**
Mathematics
Cognitive Strategy Use
Regulatory Strategy Use .675**
Self-efficacy .623** .513**
Task Value .684** .565** .669**
Test Anxiety 2.144* 2.198** 2.355** 2.259**
Performance .334** .313** .442** .361** 2.313**

* p,.05; ** p,.01.
LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 9

examined. Students’ age and gender were used as predicted by self-efficacy beliefs (Model 3a)
statistical controls (age was coded as 1 for 5th- directly in both subject areas and indirectly,
graders and 2 for 6th-graders, and gender as 1 for through the mediation of cognitive strategy use,
girls and 2 for boys). only in the area of mathematics. When self-
The first block always indicated age and gender, efficacy beliefs in mathematics were introduced,
the second block indicated the cognitive or the although they reduced the predictive value of
regulatory strategies in each subject area, and in the cognitive strategy use, the mediated role of
third block the contribution of one motivational strategies remained significant (b 5 .149, p ,
variable was tested each time. As regards the .05). Task value beliefs (b 5 .092, p . .05) were
control variables, gender was systematically found found to predict performance only indirectly in the
to be a significant predictor of performance in both case of language (Model 3b), through the media-
subject areas. Girls were rated by the teachers as tion of the student’s beliefs for the use of cognitive
being higher achievers in both subjects as compared strategies (b 5 .268, p , .01). In the case of
to boys. Age was found to be a significant predictor mathematics, however, they were found to predict
of performance only in the domain of language. performance directly (b 5 .215, p , .01) and
Specifically, younger students reported higher levels indirectly, through the mediation of cognitive
of self-efficacy and task value beliefs as compared strategies (b 5 .221, p , .01). Finally, test anxiety
to older students (see MANOVA results). was found to predict performance directly in both
subject areas (b 5 2.235, p , .001 in language
Cognitive strategies as mediators. The first two and b 5 2.249, p , .001 in mathematics) and
sets of analyses (see Table 3) involved motivational indirectly, through the mediation of cognitive
variables as predictors (self-efficacy in Model 3a, strategies, only in the case of mathematics (b 5
task value in Model 3b, and test anxiety in Model .299, p , .001). Cognitive strategies cannot be
3c), with cognitive strategy use (as mediators) and considered as mediators in the language area due
performance in language and in mathematics as to the lack of a significant bivariate relationship
outcomes. As Table 3 shows, performance was 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

Model 3a Model 3b Model 3c


Model 1 Model 2 (Self-efficacy) (Task Value) (Test Anxiety)

Predictors in language
Block 1
Age .072 .130* .141** .148* .134*
Gender 2.230*** 2.189** 2.192*** 2.189** 2.177**
Block 2
Cognitive strategy use .320*** .051 .268** .299***
Block 3
Motivation .445*** .092 2.235***
2
R .058 .156 .280 .161 .211
R2c .097 .124 .005 .055
Fc 8.074*** 29.914*** 44.590*** 1.539 17.894***
Predictors in mathematics
Block 1
Age .021 .064 .058 .070 .099
Gender 2.174** 2.141* 2.153** 2.149** 2.129*
Block 2
Cognitive strategy use .367*** .149* .221** .316***
Block 3
Motivation .350*** .215** 2.249***
2
R .031 .163 .238 .188 .220
R2c .132 .075 .025 .057
Fc 4.137* 40.916*** 25.519*** 7.816** 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 regulatory strategies (b 5 .314, p , .001 in
sets of analyses (see Table 4) involved motivational language and b 5 .262, p , .001 in mathematics).
variables as predictors (self-efficacy in Model 3a,
task value in Model 3b, and test anxiety in Model
DISCUSSION
3c), regulatory strategy use as mediators, and
performance in language and in mathematics as The main aim of this study was to investigate the
outcomes. As Table 4 shows, performance was existence of contextual differences in the pattern of
predicted by self-efficacy beliefs (Model 3a) relations among various motivational, cognitive,
directly in both subject areas (b 5 .408, p , .001 and metacognitive components of self-regulated
in language and b 5 .386, p , .001 in mathe- learning and performance in language and mathe-
matics), and indirectly, through the mediation matics. Results from correlational as well as
of regulatory strategy use, only in the area of regression analyses confirmed previous research
language (b 5 .124, p , .05). As in the case of data (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters &
cognitive strategy use, regulatory strategy use Pintrich, 1998; Wolters et al., 1996; Young, 1997)
mediated the relation between performance and indicating very few differences in the pattern of
task value. Task value beliefs (b 5 .122, p . .05) relations among self-regulated components within
were found to predict performance only indirectly and across these two subject areas (Hypothesis 1a)
in the case of language (Model 3b), through the and, at the same time, a context-specific character
mediation of student’s beliefs for the use of of self-regulated learning components at the mean-
regulatory strategies (b 5 .293, p , .001). In the level difference (Hypothesis 1b).
case of mathematics, however, they were found to Specifically, correlation coefficients showed that
predict performance directly (b 5 .280, p , .001) most of the relations among self-regulated learning
and indirectly, through the mediation of regula- components were significant and in the expected
tory strategies (b 5 .152, p , .05). Test anxiety was direction. That is, self-efficacy, task value, cogni-
found to predict performance in both areas tive, and regulatory strategies correlated positively
directly and indirectly, through the mediation of 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

Model 3a Model 3b Model 3c


Model 1 Model 2 (Self-efficacy) (Task Value) (Test Anxiety)

Predictors in language
Block 1
Age .072 .123* .146** .152* .126*
Gender 2.230*** 2.208*** 2.193*** 2.202*** 2.195***
Block 2
Regulatory strategy use .343*** .124* .293*** .314***
Block 3
Motivation .408*** .122 2.220***
2
R .058 .173 .289 .184 .220
R2c .115 .116 .011 .047
Fc 8.074*** 35.905*** 42.257*** 3.454 15.636***
Predictors in mathematics
Block 1
Age .021 .060 .057 .071 .098
Gender 2.174** 2.151* 2.157** 2.156** 2.137*
Block 2
Regulatory strategy use .309*** .110 .152* .262***
Block 3
Motivation .386*** .280*** 2.269***
2
R .031 .124 .234 .177 .192
R2c .093 .109 .053 .068
Fc 4.137* 27.639*** 36.847*** 16.646*** 21.598***

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 11

negatively with test anxiety. The relation of test present study. Positive task value beliefs may be
anxiety with cognitive strategy use and task value, significant motivators for young students in the
however, varied across subject areas, being sig- initiation phase of deciding to pursue challenging
nificant only in the area of mathematics (see also achievement goals in a ‘‘threatening’’ subject area,
Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Moreover, at the like mathematics. The higher levels of anxiety of
mean level difference there were no significant older students in mathematics may moderate the
main effects of subject area; there were significant magnitude of the intrinsic value of this subject area
subject area by age interactions, but only in by increasing the perceived negative aspects of
the motivational components. Younger students engagement. Within the expectancy-value frame-
reported higher levels of self-efficacy and task work, the decision made by the person about the
value beliefs as compared to older students in the magnitude of a subject areas’ value takes into
language domain, while older students reported consideration not only interest and usefulness of
lower levels of test anxiety in mathematics. the various tasks but also the perceived negative
The results from regression analyses confirmed aspects of engaging in such tasks. This issue,
to a large extent the second hypothesis of the study however, needs further exploration.
(Hypothesis 2a, b) as well as previous research Test anxiety was also proved to be a significant
evidence stressing the key motivational role of self- predictor of performance, confirming both the
efficacy. Self-efficacy proved the most significant hypothesis of the study and previous research
predictor not only of performance but also of evidence (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters &
cognitive and regulatory strategy use (see also Pintrich, 1998). Specifically, it was found to
Greene & Miller, 1996; Greene et al., 2004; Pajares predict performance ratings both directly and
& Valiante, 1999; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; indirectly, through the mediation of strategy use,
Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Its higher predictive mainly in mathematics. In general, the lower the
value for teachers’ performance ratings as com- levels of students’ test anxiety in a subject area, the
pared to other motivational components (i.e., task higher their cognitive engagement in terms of
value) is consistent evidence, since self-efficacy, as using more cognitive and regulatory strategies,
it is measured, is an index of self-competence that and the higher their teachers’ performance ratings.
involves social comparison. According to the The results of the present study, however, did not
results of hierarchical regression analyses, self- support Wolters and Pintrich’s (1998) research
efficacy beliefs predicted a significant portion of findings for the use of more cognitive strategies in
variance of performance in both areas directly the case of high levels of test anxiety. In fact, the
and indirectly, through the mediation of regula- bivariate relation between test anxiety and cogni-
tory strategy use in language and the mediation of tive strategies was significant only in mathematics,
cognitive strategy use in mathematics. These and was in the opposite direction (that is, the
results, although preliminary, imply the differen- higher the levels of test anxiety, the less the use of
tial role of self-efficacy in the quality of students’ cognitive strategies in mathematics).
engagement during the learning process in differ- The results of the present study confirmed the
ent subject areas. mediatory role of strategies in the motivation–
Task value beliefs predicted, as expected, the use performance relation, and stressed the differential
of cognitive and regulatory strategy use. Previous role of cognitive and regulatory strategies in
research evidence has shown that task value beliefs predicting performance in different subject areas.
relate to the initial ‘‘choice’’ of becoming involved The structural characteristics of a subject area
in academic tasks in terms of higher levels of have been found to affect students’ motivational
cognitive and regulatory strategy use (Schiefele, orientation (Stodolsky, 1988; Stodolsky et al.,
1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2002), but do not 1991), which, in turn, seems to affect the level of
directly predict performance (see Pintrich & De activation of either cognitive or regulatory strate-
Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). The gies within each subject area. As has already been
results of the present study partly confirmed this mentioned, self-efficacy beliefs have been found to
evidence by stressing the differential role of task activate the use of cognitive strategies in mathe-
value beliefs in predicting performance in these matics and regulatory strategies in language.
two subject areas. Task value beliefs predicted As far as gender differences are concerned,
performance indirectly, through the use of strate- contrary to the initial hypotheses, girls did not
gies, only in the case of language. In the case of report less favourable competence and task beliefs
mathematics, however, they predicted perfor- in mathematics or higher ratings of strategy use as
mance both directly and indirectly. These results compared to boys (Hypothesis 3a, b, c). These
may be due to the age of the participants in the results are in line with recent research evidence,
12 METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

which suggest that gender mean level differences in In general, the conclusions are limited not only
motivation are not as established as previously by the age span of the sample but also by the
thought (Metallidou & Efklides, 2004; see also methodological tools. More refined experimental
Syngollitou & Gonida, in press). Probably, the designs are needed that would involve quantitative
upper elementary years is a critical period for and qualitative measures simultaneously in order
interventions before parents’ and teachers’ socia- to capture the ‘‘intrinsic context’’ within which the
lization practices are incorporated into girls’ person functions in different subject areas (see
expectations of themselves and become part of Dermitzaki & Efklides, 2001). That is, to use not
their self-concept (see also Dermitzaki & Efklides, only self-reports and teachers’ performance ratings
2001). Although the lack of gender differences in but also online measurements of motivation and
motivation and strategy use is a very promising strategy use, as well as more objective measures of
finding, it is surprising that we did not find students’ actual performance, such as achievement
differences favouring girls, as girls’ performance tests in specific academic tasks. Further, the use of
was evaluated by their teachers as being signifi- more qualitative approaches (i.e., eco-behavioural
cantly higher than that of boys (see also Kimball, approach) and methods (i.e., discourse analysis),
1989; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Pajares & which focus on the participatory nature of learning
Valiante, 2002). The lack of a good match between and the communicative character of thinking,
girls’ performance outcomes (here, significantly would help to clarify the influence of the context-
higher teachers’ performance ratings) and personal related variables as different strategies of teaching
interpretation of these outcomes may be an in language and mathematics (i.e., towards acquir-
‘‘indirect’’ indication of girls’ lower confidence in ing communication skills versus acquiring proce-
their abilities. At the same time, however, it is also dures).
possible that this mismatch is a consequence of
teachers’ subjectivity in their ratings of girls’ Conclusions and implications
performance. This issue needs further exploration
by using more objective measures of students’ Despite the limitations of the study, the results
actual performance in language and mathematics provide empirical support for the claim that there
(i.e., achievement tests) than the measures used in are general as well as subject-area-specific features
the present study. of self-regulated learning. As regards the general
Interestingly enough, motivation was found to character of various self-regulated learning con-
vary mainly with age but not with gender. Younger structs, successful classroom performance presup-
students reported more favourable motivational poses the existence of both the ‘‘will’’ and the
beliefs in the area of language as compared to older ‘‘skill.’’ Positive motivational beliefs and strategy
students, thus partly confirming the hypothesis of use lead to better performance outcomes.
the study (Hypothesis 4a). This evidence is in line Students’ confidence in their ability to be success-
with research findings consistently showing the ful in class is a key motivational construct for
optimistic view taken by younger students as upper elementary school students, just as it is for
regards their intrinsic motivation for learning and high school students (e.g., Greene et al., 2004;
their sense of competence, as well as the decrease in Miller et al., 1996; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;
motivation from childhood through adolescence Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). Given that the decline
(see Gottfried et al., 2001; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). in self-efficacy beliefs seems to begin in the
Also, the results confirm the initial prediction of elementary school years, according to the present
higher ratings of cognitive and regulatory strategy data, future research has to be focused on the
use from older students’ as compared to younger development of educational practices that
students’ ratings (Hypothesis 4b) in both areas. strengthen young students’ sense of competence.
Given the very small age span used in the study, the Also, the results of the study provide empirical
significant differences between 5th- and 6th- support for the role of strategies as mediators in
graders (though having small to medium effect the motivation–performance relation, showing the
size) imply that motivational and strategy use pathway for initiating or supporting students’
beliefs are dynamic constructs, though motivational efforts for cognitive or regulatory engagement.
beliefs may be more sensitive to contextual differ- At this point, the present results suggest that there
ences as compared to cognitive and regulatory is a need to take into consideration subject-area-
aspects of self-regulated learning. This conclusion, specific characteristics, due to the differential role
however, is limited to upper elementary school of each motivational factor in the activation of
students, and thus further research is needed. strategies in different areas (here in language and
LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 13

mathematics). Mathematics is still perceived as a Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the
‘‘threatening’’ area; one that requires the effective actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task
values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and
application of deep cognitive strategies. This Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225.
cognitive engagement presupposes the develop- Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P.
ment of educational practices that lower negative (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self-
thoughts and feelings about evaluation and foster and task perceptions during elementary school. Child
the usefulness and instrumentality of mathematics Development, 64, 830–847.
Entwisle, D. R., & Baker, D. P. (1983). Gender and
as a subject area. Successful performance in
young children’s expectations for performance in
language is a very effortful process in elementary arithmetic. Developmental Psychology, 19, 200–209.
school, and seems to rely more on confidence Frey, K., & Ruble, D. N. (1987). What children say
beliefs and the use of regulatory strategies. As about classroom performance: Sex and grade differ-
Wigfield et al. (2004) maintained, the issue is ences in perceived competence. Child Development,
whether children conceptualize motivation differ- 58, 1066–1078.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W.
ently in various content areas. ‘‘Reading self- (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation
efficacy involves confidence in language and from childhood through late adolescence: A long-
comprehension skills, whereas mathematics self- itudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
efficacy involves confidence in one’s numeric 3–13.
skills’’ (p. 300). And these skills are qualitatively Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on
course performance: Goals, perceived ability, and self-
different. regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,
Manuscript received March 2005
181–192.
Revised manuscript accepted September 2005
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B.
L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school
REFERENCES students’ cognitive engagement and achievement:
Contributions of classroom perceptions and motiva-
Anderman, L. H. (2004). Student motivation across tion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29,
subject-area domains. The Journal of Educational 462–482.
Research, 97, 283–285. Kardash, C. M., & Amlund, J. T. (1991). Self-reported
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of learning strategies and learning from expository text.
control. New York: Freeman. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 117–138.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s
are today. International Journal of Educational math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105,
Research, 31, 445–457. 198–214.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Lightbody, P., Siann, G., Stocks, R., & Walsh, D.
Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: (1996). Motivation and attribution at secondary
Academic Press. school: The role of gender. Educational Studies, 22,
Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, 13–25.
task value, achievement goal orientations, and Lompscher, J., Artelt, C., Schellhas, B., & Blib, F.
attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational (1995). A complex investigation into learning strate-
Research, 97, 287–297. gies in 4th, 6th, and 8th grade students. Potsdam,
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Germany: University of Potsdam.
Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An
performance among junior and senior high school internal/external frame of reference model. American
age students. International Journal of Behavioral Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149.
Development, 14, 153–164. Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1998).
Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early child- Structure, stability, and development of young
hood: Nature and nurture. New York: Guilford Press. children’s self-concepts: A multicohort-multioccasion
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, study. Child Development, 69, 1030–1053.
self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechan- McDonald, A. S. (2001). The prevalence and effects of
isms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), test anxiety in school children. Educational
Metacognition, motivation, and understanding Psychology, 21, 89–101.
(pp. 65–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum McLeod, D. B. (1989). The role of affect in mathe-
Associates, Inc. matical problem-solving. In D. B. McLeod &
Chouinard, R., Vezeau, C., Bouffard, T., & Jenkins, B. V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical
(2001). Gender differences in the development of problem-solving: A new perspective (pp. 19–36). New
mathematics attitudes. Paper presented at the 9th York: Springer.
EARLI Conference, Freiburg, Switzerland. Mellroy, D., Bunting, B., & Adamson, G. (2000). An
Dermitzaki, I., & Efklides, A. (2001). Age and gender evaluation of the factor structure and predictive
effects on students’ evaluations regarding the self and utility of a test anxiety scale with reference to
task related experiences in mathematics. In S. Volet students’ past performance and personality indices.
& S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 17–32.
Theoretical advances and methodological implications Metallidou, P. (2003). Motives, language performance,
(pp. 271–293). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press. and metacognitive experiences in a text-comprehension
14 METALLIDOU AND VLACHOU

task [in Greek]. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
Psychological Society, 10, 538–555. development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Metallidou, P., & Efklides, A. (2004). Gender differences Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
in mathematics: Performance, motivation, and meta- Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement
cognition. In M. Dikaiou & D. Christidis (Eds.), behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1,
Scientific Annals, School of Psychology, Vol. VI 173–208.
(pp. 37–64). Thessaloniki, Greece: Aristotle University Sharma, S., & Rao, U. (1983). Academic performance in
of Thessaloniki/Art of Text. different school courses as related to self-acceptance,
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., test anxiety, and intelligence. In H. M. Van der
Ravindram, B., & Nicholls, J. D. (1996). Engagement Ploeg, R. Schwarzer & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.),
in academic work: The role of learning goals, future Advances in test anxiety research, Vol. 2
consequences pleasing others, and perceived ability. (pp. 111–117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–442. Associates, Inc.
Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1993). Gender
Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: differences in math and verbal achievement, self-
Literature review and a revised worry–emotionality perception, and motivation. Paper presented at the
scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 5th EARLI Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France.
541–555. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & Dubois, N.
Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathema- (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning
tical problem-solving of gifted students. constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344. 117–139.
Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic Stipeck, D. J., & Gralinski, J. H. (1991). Gender
settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, differences in children’s achievement-related beliefs
543–578. and emotional responses to success and failure in
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motiva- mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
tion constructs, and mathematics performance of 361–371.
entering middle school students. Contemporary Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom
Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139. activity in math and social studies. Chicago, IL: The
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender University of Chicago Press.
differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school Stodolsky, S. S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991).
students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, Student views about learning math and school
390–405. studies. American Educational Research Journal, 28,
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2002). Students’ self-efficacy 89–116.
in their self-regulated learning strategies: A develop- Syngollitou, E., & Gonida, E. (in press). Dimension of
mental perspective. Psychologia: An International the classroom psychological environment and
Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 45, 211–221. achievement in Math: The role of self-efficacy [in
Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The devel- Greek]. In F. Vlachos, F. Bonoti, P. Metallidou,
opmental course of perceived competence and E. Dermitzaki & A. Efklides (Eds.), Scientific Annals
incompetence among competent children. In of the Psychological Society of Northern Greece,
R. J. Sternberg & J. Koligian (Eds.), Competence Vol. 3. Athens, Greece: Ellinika Grammata.
considered (pp. 41–66). New Haven, CT: Yale Van der Ploeg, H. M. (1984). Worry, emotionality,
University Press. intelligence, and academic performance in male and
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in female Dutch secondary school children. In
promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. H. M. Van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer &
International Journal of Educational Research, 31, C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety
459–470. research, Vol. 3 (pp. 201–209). Hillsdale, NJ:
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
and self-regulated learning components of classroom Volet, S. (2001). Emerging trends in recent research on
academic performance. Journal of Educational motivation in learning contexts. In S. Volet &
Psychology, 82, 33–40. S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts:
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Theoretical advances and methodological implications
education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd (pp. 319–334). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York:
in classroom tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece Macmillan.
(Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of
and consequences (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: achievement task values: A theoretical analysis.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.
Schiefele, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Children’s compe-
comprehension. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & tence beliefs, achievement values, and general self-
A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and esteem change across elementary and middle school.
development (pp. 151–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 107–138.
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of
Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and
as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta- achievement values from childhood to adolescence.
analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of
LEARNING LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 15

achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). San Diego, CA: Wolters, A. C., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The
Academic Press. relation between goal orientation and students’
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., MacIver, D., Reuman, D., & motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning.
Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238.
adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific Young, A. J. (1997). I think, therefore I’m motivated:
self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the The relations among cognitive strategy use, motiva-
transition to junior high school. Developmental tional orientation and classroom perceptions over
Psychology, 27, 552–565. time. Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 249–283.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Young, A. J., Arbreton, A. J., & Midgley, C. (1992). All
Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. content areas may be not created equal: Motivational
C. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs orientation and cognitive strategy use in four academic
and subjective task values across the elementary domains. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
school years: A three-year study. Journal of the American Educational Research Association, San
Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. Francisco, USA.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A
(2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaers,
specificity and instructional influences. The Journal P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of
of Educational Research, 97, 299–309. self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications
Wolters, A. C., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
differences in student motivation and self-regulated Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (1989). Self-
learning in mathematics, English, and social studies regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,
classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47. research, and practice. New York: Springer.
View publication stats

Вам также может понравиться