an investigation into the capacity of student motivation and emotion regulation strategies to...

An investigation into the capacity of student motivationand emotion regulation strategies to predictengagement and resilience in the middle schoolclassroom

Leanne Fried • Elaine Chapman

Published online: 23 December 2011

� The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2011

Abstract Although most of the initial research on self-regulated learning focused

on cognitive and meta-cognitive aspects, there has been a growing interest in the

emotion and motivation domains of self-regulation. This article reports on research

undertaken to investigate specific motivation and emotion regulation strategies used

by middle school students and the relationship between the use of such strategies

and student engagement and resilience. The research targeted one type of motiva-

tion regulation—goal-oriented strategies—and two types of emotion regulation:

antecedent and stress release strategies, together with avoidance strategies. Students

who used goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies were more likely than

others to be resilient. Contrasting results were obtained when investigating the

ability of each emotion regulation strategy type to predict engagement and resil-

ience. As expected, students who used avoidant strategies were less likely than

others to develop resilience. This article discusses the implications of the research

for the classroom, including the teaching of particular motivation and emotion

regulation strategies to students and providing the right classroom environment for

strategy development.

Keywords Emotion regulation � Motivation regulation � Self-regulation �Resilience � Engagement � Middle school

L. Fried (&)

University of Western Australia, Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

E. Chapman

Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, Stirling Highway, Crawley,

WA, Australia

123

Aust. Educ. Res. (2012) 39:295–311

DOI 10.1007/s13384-011-0049-1

Introduction

The middle school years (seven to nine in this study) are of particular importance in

considering student emotion and motivation regulation. Students’ motivation for

learning declines during this period (Anderman and Maehr 1994), resulting in

changes in student emotion states. The reverse also occurs, with changes in emotion

states leading to decline in motivation. In addition, emotion experience is especially

intense in adolescence, more so than at any period before or after (Silk et al. 2003).

It is also during this period of their lives that students are becoming more aware of

their own emotions and thought processes, as well as trying to adjust to the strength

of their beliefs and emotions. Many of the hormonal, neural and cognitive systems

necessary for emotion regulation appear to mature throughout the adolescent period

(Spear 2000), and significant remodelling in brain regions occurs, associated with

response inhibition, monitoring, emotion regulation and the capacity for abstract,

reflective and hypothetical thinking (Paus 2005). Individual differences in self-

regulation during adolescence are important in the prediction of adolescent

psychosocial adjustment (Gardner et al. 2008). Despite the importance of emotion

development during the adolescent years and the need for motivation and emotion

regulation, there remains a lack of research to identify the specific strategies that

adolescents can and do use in regulating their own motivation and emotions, and on

how these relate to positive educational outcomes.

There is some, although limited, evidence that students who use motivation and

emotion regulation strategies are more successful than others at school (e.g.

Boekaerts 2002). Such success has been measured in terms of academic

achievement, but school visions often encompass statements about emotional,

physical and spiritual outcomes. ‘Resilience’ and ‘engagement’ have increasingly

appeared in school vision statements. Resilience is now recognised as an important

attribute for students to develop in all aspects of their lives. Research that points to

resilience as a competence rather than a naturally occurring quality suggests that the

middle years of schooling are a time of unique opportunity for teachers and schools

(Nemec 2005). The middle school movement has been concerned with the decrease

in engagement experienced by many students in their adolescent years of schooling

(Australian Curriculum Studies Association 1996). Students who are engaged at

school are known to be more successful academically and more able to avoid risky

behaviours during the adolescent period (Skinner et al. 2008). Therefore, this study

investigated the relationship between particular motivation and emotion regulation

strategies and middle school student engagement and resilience.

Student motivation and emotion issues were prominent in the researchers’

extensive teaching of adolescent students at educational risk, students with learning

difficulties and mainstream middle school students. This alerted them to the need to

address student development at school from a broad perspective. It was obvious to

the researchers that students, particularly adolescent students, experience a range of

emotions in the classroom. Many adolescent students fall victim to their emotions

and to low levels of motivation; these can prevent them from developing

academically. It has become the researchers’ belief that working with student

motivation and emotions may not only allow academic achievement to flourish, but

296 L. Fried, E. Chapman

123

may also instigate the development of skills that enhance resilience, and that can be

transferred to a variety of life situations.

In the next section, literature concerning self-regulation, and in particular

motivation and emotion regulation, is reviewed. This is followed by an outline of

the research undertaken: the method, results, discussion of relationships between

strategies used, engagement and resilience, and a conclusion that incorporates

implications for the classroom and future research.

Literature review

Since the 1980s, and particularly in the last 15 years, much psychological research has

focused on the concept of ‘self-regulation’, with some variation of terms and

definitions. A typical definition of self-regulation, however, is ‘those processes, internal

and/or transactional that enable an individual to guide his/her goal directed activities

over time and across changing circumstances (contexts)’ (Karoly 1993, p. 25).

Self-regulation is seen as vitally important in the area of education. Zimmerman

(1998) posed that there are four main processes that impact on learning, each of

which can be self regulated. These are: cognitive, meta-cognitive, motivational and

emotional processes. Early self-regulated learning research focused on cognitive

and meta-cognitive processes. More recently, research has taken a broad view of

self-regulation, including not only cognitive processes but also regulation of the

environment, emotions, behaviour and attention (Gardner et al. 2008). Interest in

emotion and motivation regulation has grown, as researchers have become

concerned with the interrelationships between each of Zimmerman’s four processes.

For example, Watt (2004) explored the relationship between emotion and cognition,

elevating the importance of emotion by describing cognition as an extension of

emotional activity. Motivation and emotion, historically viewed separately, are now

seen to be intertwined (Meyer and Turner 2006). As these interconnections have

become more obvious, so has the need to increase an understanding of both

motivation and emotion regulation.

Motivation regulation

Motivation regulation strategies are the various actions or tactics individuals use to

initiate, maintain or increase their effort or persistence with a particular task

(Wolters 2003). One of the major differences between successful and less successful

students is that successful students are able to persist, even when they do not feel

like performing a task (Pintrich 2002). According to Zimmerman (2002), students

who self-regulate their motivation levels should remain engaged and successfully

complete academic tasks more consistently than those who do not employ such self-

regulation processes.

Motivation regulation strategies can be classified in three main ways:

(i) According to where they fit into Zimmerman’s three-phase model of a task

(fore-thought stage, activity stage and completion stage; Zimmerman 1998).

Capacity of student motivation and emotion regulation strategies 297

123

Some strategies fit specifically into one particular stage of an activity. For

example, strategies related to attributing the results of an activity are

undertaken on task completion. Other strategies—for example, defining or

focusing on goals—are often used in the early stages of an activity; however,

these can be revisited at other times as student motivation declines.

(ii) In relation to the direction of the strategy. The direction of the strategy is

classified as intrinsic if internal, and extrinsic if external (Ryan and Deci 2000)

and;

(iii) According to where they fit into the main theories of motivation (Pintrich

2004). The five theories of motivation prominent in contemporary educational

psychology are:

• Achievement goal theory (Atkinson 1957). Strategies in this grouping

include focusing on particular goals when feeling low in motivation.

• Task value/expectancy theory (Wigfield and Eccles 1992). These include

strategies of analysing the value a task may have for oneself.

• Self-efficacy theory (Bandura 1997). Strategies in this classification

include ‘self-talk’ strategies.

• Attribution theory (Weiner 1986). Attributing failure to a lack of effort is

an example of a strategy in this grouping.

• Self-determination theory (Deci 1980). These include strategies that

involve the student taking control of the learning process.

No research has been undertaken to clarify which of these classification systems

may be the most suitable for classroom usage. When modifying an instrument for

classroom regulation strategy usage, Fried (2010) found that motivation regulation

strategies used by middle school students were grouped according to motivation

theory. More work on an effective classification model is necessary, in order to

understand student motivation regulation strategies fully. In addition, it is important

to better understand avoidance strategies and where they should be placed in

classification systems. Avoidance strategies are often included within motivation

regulation strategies, as they are considered to be a part of motivation goal theory,

with performance goals classified as approach or avoidance. When students adopt

avoidance goals, they attempt to minimise their effort and avoid being engaged in

activities. Self-handicapping is an example of avoidant motivation regulation

strategy use that is connected to attribution beliefs (Pintrich 2004). Students are said

to be ‘self-handicappers’ when they engage in activities designed to make failure

attributable to events or circumstances and not to their own abilities or efforts.

Emotion regulation

Emotion regulation has been defined as the process of initiating, maintaining,

modulating, or changing the occurrence, intensity, or duration of internal feeling

states, together with the physiological processes, motivational states, behaviour and

attentional processes that are affected by the onset of the emotion (Eisenberg and

Spinrad 2004). Emotion regulation reduces the intensity of emotions so that the

individual is able to control his or her behaviour (Melnick and Hinshaw 2000).


123

Negative emotions can also be prevented from occurring and positive emotions

enhanced. In these cases, emotion regulation is not only concerned with the

management of how emotions are expressed, but also with the underlying arousal

processes leading to those expressions.

The social psychologist James Gross (2001) developed a classification system, or

model, grouping strategies according to where they occur along the timeline of an

emotion response. His taxonomy identified strategies as:

(i) Antecedent strategies Antecedent emotion regulation strategies are those used

in the early stages of an emotion response to change the initial or predicted

emotions through altering the situation or the cognitive interpretation of the

situation. For students in the classroom, such strategies may include removing

themselves from a potentially disruptive situation or using a variety of self-talk

strategies that may prevent the onset of negative feelings.

(ii) Response-focused strategies These work on changing, modifying or suppress-

ing the emotion response. Stress release strategies, including deep breathing

and counting to ten are included in this category, together with strategies of

suppression.

Research has been undertaken to compare response-focused strategies with

antecedent strategies, finding that they differ in their effects on an individual’s

well-being, social and cognitive functioning and health (Mauss et al. 2007).

Antecedent strategies appear to have beneficial effects, without much cost to the

individual. Response-focused strategies tend to have adverse effects, because other

components of the emotion response continue to be active and require constant

effort to be kept ‘under control’. Although not totally applicable to the classroom,

Gross’s timeline response model may have some relevance to middle school

student strategy usage.

Relationship between motivation and emotion

As previously stated, the relationship between motivation and emotion in the

classroom is now seen to be interrelated (Meyer and Turner 2006). If students are

able to reflect upon, recognise and regulate the emotions they are experiencing, they

may not need to enforce motivation regulation strategies during learning tasks. The

reverse may also be true. A recent study showed that motivation and emotion

regulation strategies are highly correlated (Fried 2010). Some confusion also exists

as to what is an emotion regulation strategy and what is a motivation regulation

strategy, with ‘self-talk’ strategies often appearing in both classifications. The

interconnected nature of motivation and emotion has led researchers to advocate

new models or theories that are applicable to classroom and non-classroom

situations and that integrate motivation and emotion (Turner et al. 2003). In this

study, motivation and emotion regulation strategies were considered as separate

structures, with the view that this may enable relationships between the two to be

better understood.


123

Impact of motivation and emotion regulation strategies on key education

outcomes

Engagement and resilience were considered as key educational outcomes for middle

school students in this research. Resilience is often measured by protective factors

including personal competence, social competence and social bonding. Of these

protective factors, social competence has been linked with emotion regulation, with

researchers deducing that emotion regulation skills are considered part of the skills

repertoire of a socially competent student (Eisenberg et al. 1995). However,

depending on the level of emotion regulation and the type of strategy, this may not

always be the case. Various researchers (e.g. Gross and Levenson 1995) have

considered that high levels of emotion regulation may cause ‘over control’, which

can lead to behaviour inhibition and social anxiety. Studies of the correlation

between emotion regulation strategies and personal competence have indicated that

emotion regulation strategies can affect an individual’s interpersonal functioning

and wellbeing, with suppression strategies having a detrimental affect (Gross and

John 2003). Motivation regulation strategy usage has not been investigated in

relation to protective factors.

Self-regulated learning is defined as a positive set of attitudes, strategies and

behaviours for enhancing engagement in the classroom (Zimmerman 2002). It is

assumed that students who have developed strategies to regulate motivation and

emotion will show greater classroom engagement than those who have not developed

such strategies. However, some regulation strategies may have a greater effect than

others on engagement. Research needs to be directed at investigating this possibility.

Research aim

As outlined previously, motivational and emotional issues are particularly relevant

to the middle-school-aged student, and the education outcomes of engagement and

resilience are of considerable importance at this stage of schooling. The aim of this

research therefore, was:

To investigate the extent to which motivation and emotion regulation

strategies predict engagement and resilience in middle school students.

In the process of achieving this aim, the following goals were also addressed:

(a) To further understand the relationship between motivation and emotion

regulation strategies.

(b) To clarify the classroom usefulness of classification models.

Method

A government district high school in Western Australia, with an established middle

school, participated in this research. A total of 212 students completed a survey,


123

read to them by the researcher, to ascertain the motivation and emotion regulation

strategies they used in the classroom and their levels of resilience. The surveyed

student population consisted of 100 boys and 112 girls between the ages of 11 and

15. A survey approach was used in this research to access a range of strategy usage

across the middle school population. The latter part of the data gathering phase

involved the teachers of the surveyed students completing a rating scale (from 1 to

6) of student social and academic engagement. Hierarchical multiple regression

analysis (MRA) was used to determine the predictive capacities of regulation

strategies.

Instruments

Two survey instruments were used:

(i) The regulation strategies questionnaire (RSQ; Fried 2010): an instrument

designed to measure adolescent student motivation and emotion regulation

strategy usage. It measures two types of emotion regulation strategies:

antecedent emotion regulation strategies (RSQ: ER-antecedent), and stress

release emotion regulation strategies (RSQ: ER-stress release). Stress release

emotion regulation strategies are those applied to relieve the effect of an

emotion and are classified in Gross’s taxonomy as response-focused strategies.

The RSQ also comprises a subscale of goal-oriented motivation regulation

strategies (RSQ: MR-goals), which are based on motivation goal theory. In

addition, the RSQ includes a subscale that represents avoidance strategies

(RSQ: avoidance). Both the RSQ: ER-stress release and RSQ: avoidance had

low numbers of items and displayed questionable subscale reliabilities

(Cronbach’s alphas between .6 and .7). However, as these subscales presented

with acceptable inter-item correlations and were conceptually reasonable, they

were retained in the instrument, with the view of developing further items in

the future.

(ii) The individual protective factors index (IPFI: Springer and Phillips 1999): a

71-item self-administered questionnaire designed to measure adolescent

resilience through testing for the existence of protective factors. The

dimensions considered in the questionnaire are those of social bonding (IPFI:

social bonding), personal competence (IPFI: personal competence) and social

competence (IPFI: social competence). A small number of questions were

removed from these subscales due to their sensitivity and inappropriateness for

middle school students. Once modified, tests of reliability showed each of the

dimensions to be in the reliable range. The social bonding subscale consists of

questions related to school, family and pro-social norms. The personal

competence subscale consists of questions related to self-efficacy, self-concept

and self-control, while the social competence subscale comprises questions

related to confidence and assertiveness.


123

Results

Regulation and personal competence

MRA was used to investigate the relationship between personal competence and the

motivation and emotion regulation strategies of the RSQ. The ability of regulation

strategies to predict personal competence is presented in Table 1. The MRA showed

that antecedent emotion regulation strategies, those used in the early stages of an

emotion response, had a significant positive effect on student development of

personal competence. Goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies had a signif-

icant positive effect on student personal competence, after the contribution of

antecedent strategies was taken into account. Avoidance strategies made a

significant negative contribution to student personal competence.

Regulation and social competence

MRA results showed that goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies had a

significant positive effect on student social competence. On the other hand, emotion

regulation strategies aimed at stress release and avoidance strategies had a

significant negative effect on student social competence, once the contribution of

the preceding strategies was taken into consideration (Table 2).

Regulation and social bonding

Results obtained in the MRA between regulation strategies and social bonding

showed that antecedent emotion regulation strategies contributed positively and

significantly to student development of social bonding. When the effects of

antecedent emotion regulation strategies were taken into consideration, goal-

oriented motivation regulation strategies also had a significant positive effect on

student social bonding. Both stress release emotion regulation strategies and

Table 1 Multiple regression outcomes for IPFI: personal competence and RSQ

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error

of estimate

Change statistics

R2 change F change df1 df2 Sig.

F change

1 .24a .06 .05 .36 .06 11.61 1 198 .00

2 .35b .12 .12 .35 .07 15.37 1 197 .00

3 .37c .14 .12 .35 .01 2.90 1 196 .09

4 .55d .31 .29 .32 .17 47.18 1 195 .00

a Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: ER-antecedentb Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: ER-antecedent, RSQ: MR-goalsc Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: ER-antecedent, RSQ: MR-goals, RSQ: ER-stress released Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: ER-antecedent, RSQ: MR-goals, RSQ: ER-stress release, RSQ: avoidance


123

avoidance strategies contributed negatively and significantly to student social

bonding (Table 3).

Regulation and engagement

Engagement was considered as comprising academic engagement and social

engagement, and was rated on a 0–6 scale for each student by the home room

teacher. MRA between the RSQ and academic engagement indicated that goal-

oriented motivation regulation strategies contributed significantly and positively to

academic engagement. The MRA also indicated that stress release emotion

regulation strategies had a significant negative effect on student academic

engagement (Table 4).

MRA results for the RSQ and social engagement are presented in Table 5. Stress

release emotion regulation strategies had a significant negative effect on student

Table 2 Multiple regression outcomes for IPFI: social competence and RSQ


of estimate

Change statistics

R2 change F Change df1 df2 Sig.

F change

1 .09a .01 .00 .47 .01 1.52 1 198 .22

2 .22b .05 .04 .46 .04 8.11 1 197 .01

3 .26c .07 .05 .46 .02 3.76 1 196 .05

4 .34d .11 .10 .45 .05 10.85 1 195 .00


Table 3 Regression outcomes for IPFI: social bonding and RSQ


of estimate

Change statistics


F Change

1 .39a .15 .15 .51 .15 35.52 1 198 .00

2 .50b .25 .24 .48 .10 25.40 1 197 .00

3 .52c .27 .26 .47 .02 4.72 1 196 .03

4 .60d .36 .35 .44 .10 29.25 1 195 .00



123

social engagement, once the contribution of goal-oriented motivation regulation

strategies and antecedent emotion regulation strategies was taken into consideration.

Discussion

The aim of this research was to investigate the effect that emotion and motivation

regulation strategies may have on the development of engagement and resilience.

Resilience was considered in this research in its protective factor components,

which comprised personal competence, social competence and social bonding.

Correlation was expected between emotion regulation strategies and personal

competence, given previous research (Gross and John 2003). The MRA results

indicated that students who use antecedent emotion regulation strategies are likely

to be personally competent. In this research, examples of antecedent emotion

Table 4 Regression outcomes for academic engagement and RSQ

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std error

of estimate

Change statistics


F change

1 .23a .05 .05 1.25 .05 10.91 1 198 .00

2 .23b .05 .04 1.25 .00 .24 1 197 .62

3 .30c .09 .08 1.23 .04 8.40 1 196 .00

4 .32d .10 .08 1.22 .01 2.04 1 195 .16

a Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: MR-goalsb Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: MR-goals, RSQ: ER-antecedentc Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: MR-goals, RSQ: ER-antecedent, RSQ: ER-stress released Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: MR-goals, RSQ: ER-antecedent, RSQ: ER-stress release, RSQ: avoidance

Table 5 Regression outcomes for social engagement and RSQ

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std error

of estimate

Change statistics

Error of the

estimate


F change

1 .01a .00 -.01 1.36 .00 .01 1 198 .92

2 .12b .02 .01 1.36 .02 3.02 1 197 .08

3 .21c .05 .03 1.34 .03 5.75 1 196 .02

4 .13d .02 .00 1.35 .00 .39 1 195 .53

a Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: MR-goalsb Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: ER-antecedentc Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: ER-antecedent, RSQ: MR-goals, RSQ: ER-stress released Predictors: (Constant), RSQ: ER-antecedent, RSQ: MR-goals, RSQ: ER-stress release, RSQ: avoidance


123

regulation strategies were ‘When I’m getting started on an activity I tell myself, Youcan do it!’ and ‘I talk aloud to myself to keep from getting distracted’. As the

personal competence subscale consisted of questions related to self-concept, self-

efficacy and self-control, antecedent emotion regulation strategies may enhance

these aspects of individual development. The results could also imply that students

who are personally competent use antecedent emotion regulation strategies more

regularly. Other research has confirmed this in relation to emotion regulation

strategies in general (Boekaerts 1993).

This research also indicated that students who use goal-oriented motivation

regulation strategies are more likely to be personally competent than those who do

not use such strategies. Teaching goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies to

middle school students may therefore contribute to the development of their

personal competence. Examples of goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies

from this research include ‘If I’m feeling bored I set goals for myself to reach in a

particular time’ and ‘I promise myself something I want as a reward for completing

particular goals’. Students who use motivation regulation goal strategies may

develop a greater sense of control over what happens to them, leading to enhanced

personal competence. There were no corresponding findings by other researchers,

because motivation regulation strategies have not been investigated specifically in

relation to personal competence.

The MRA result between goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies and

personal competence can also imply that students who are personally competent are

more likely than others to regulate their motivation. This is understandable, given

that some of the questions in the personal competence subscale are related to self-

control. Self-control, however, is not the same concept as self-regulation. Self-

control refers mainly to inhibiting of responses, while self-regulation also includes

enhancing or promoting negative and positive emotion. Researchers have found that

students who believe in their competence to do a task, or have high self-efficacy, use

more cognitive regulation strategies and persist longer than others (Pintrich and

Garcia 1994). The higher levels of persistence may indicate that these students are

also using motivation and emotion regulation strategies.

The results obtained from the students participating in this study showed that

once the effects of both antecedent emotion regulation strategies and goal-oriented

motivation regulation strategies were accounted for, the impact on personal

competence of stress release emotion regulation strategies was negligible. This may

indicate that in relation to the development of personal competence, the use of stress

release emotion regulation strategies is unnecessary if goal-oriented motivation

regulation strategies and antecedent emotion regulation strategies have been used.

Thus, counting to ten or focusing on breathing (stress release emotion regulation

strategies included in the survey) may not be necessary if students have used other

regulation strategies earlier on in the activity or in the timeline of emotion response.

The timing of the implementation of strategies may therefore be important to their

contribution to personal competence. More specifically, stress release emotion

regulation strategies are likely to become useful primarily when other strategies

have not been used, or have not been entirely effectual. Thus, their utility can only

be evaluated in these specific contexts.


123

Results also indicated that students who use avoidant strategies are more likely

than others to lack personal competence. This is supported by evidence that

academic self-handicapping, which often involves avoidance, is associated with low

academic achievement and perhaps with depressed levels of self-esteem (Eccles and

Wigfield 2002). The present findings also supported previous research that found

that avoidance proved deleterious for outcomes related to self-concept (Elliott and

Sheldon 1997), with students in a survey stating that the pursuit of avoidance

decreased their self-esteem. An example of an avoidance strategy included in this

research is ‘If I am feeling bored in class, it is not something I can do much about so

I just try to look like I’m doing something’. Students who use avoidance strategies

are less likely than others to present themselves with the opportunities to develop a

strong self-concept. Also, students who lack personal competence are more likely to

use avoidance strategies in the classroom than others. Avoidance is used at times to

protect student self-esteem (Martin et al. 2001).

Student use of goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies had a significant

positive influence on the development of social competence, even after the effect of

antecedent emotion regulation strategies was taken into consideration. No precedent

for this aspect of the research could be found. However, it is generally acknowledged

that the classroom is not the only environment where regulation strategies are used.

For example, goal-oriented strategies are appropriate in social situations; an

adolescent will engage in social interaction in order to achieve particular goals, and

some regulation strategy usage may be transferred across situations, from school to

social interactions. Some of the strategies such as ‘If I am feeling anxious about my

school work I try not to think too far ahead and focus on just the next bit’ may be

adapted slightly to a social setting, encouraging the student not to worry about future

consequences and to be more present in that moment’s social interaction.

As social competence comprised questions related to assertiveness and

confidence, students who use goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies are

more likely than others to be assertive and confident. Alternatively, students who are

socially competent are more likely to use goal-oriented motivation regulation

strategies because they have the confidence and assertiveness to do so. The use of

goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies may enhance student confidence,

helping to develop a feeling that they can have control over their lives. Self-

determination theory emphasises the importance of autonomy and feelings of

competence in the learning process (Deci 1980). This feeling of autonomy or

control may produce a sense of competence in a variety of situations, including

those of a social nature.

No significant relationship was found to exist between antecedent emotion

regulation and social competence. This was not an expected result, given that

emotion regulation strategies are considered part of the skills repertoire of a socially

competent student (Eisenberg et al. 1995; Denham 2003). It may be that the RSQ

did not include a sufficient range of antecedent emotion regulation strategies. It may

also be that ‘over-control’ affects the development of social competence (Gross and

Levenson 1995; Spinrad et al. 2006); when emotion regulation strategies are used

frequently they may no longer have a positive effect on social competence. This

needs to be investigated in future research.


123

Analysis showed that students who use stress release emotion regulation

strategies are less likely than others to be socially competent. As Gross (2002)

found, certain emotion regulation strategies are not conducive to social competence.

As with suppression strategies, stress release strategies may cause a person to mask

emotion expression and shift focus away from emotion cues in social interaction.

The relationship between stress release emotion regulation strategies and social

competence may be clearer if a measure of how often students felt they needed to

use regulation strategies, or how often they felt stressed, was included in the survey.

If students are only using stress release emotion regulation strategies, they may be

regulating when they experience a high level of stress. Stress release emotion

regulation strategies need to be further examined in future research.

In the present research, middle school students who used avoidance strategies

were more likely than others to lack social competence. There were no

corresponding findings, due to a lack of relevant research. This result may imply

that avoidance in the classroom is associated with avoidance in social situations,

preventing the development of social competence. The converse is that low social

competence (as measured in this research by assertiveness and confidence) may lead

to higher levels of avoidance. Avoidance strategies could be indicative of broader

issues within the student, rather than simply a lack of interest in learning activities.

This is an important deduction for teachers and has implications for their classroom

response to avoidant students.

Social bonding comprised questions related to family and school relationships

and pro-social norms. The concept of social bonding has received little attention in

education research, with social competence being a preferred concept—probably

because the education process can address social competence through the teaching

of relevant skills, while social bonding is not directly teachable. Therefore, the

social bonding results could not be compared with previous results.

Based on the results obtained, students who use goal-oriented motivation

regulation strategies or antecedent emotion regulation strategies are more likely than

other students to be strongly bonded socially, whereas students who use stress release

emotion regulation strategies or avoidance are less likely than others to have strong

social relationships. It is difficult to understand the specific contribution that goal-

oriented motivation regulation strategies and antecedent strategies may make to the

development of social bonds, although it is generally recognised that regulation is an

important part of social interaction. The use of response-focused strategies (as stress

release emotion strategies are) or avoidance in the classroom may indicate that the

student uses a similar approach to developing relationships. Using a response-

focused or avoidant approach to relationships may be deleterious to the strength of

the bonds formed. This corresponds with research comparing antecedent and

response-focused strategies (Mauss et al. 2007). The converse is that strongly bonded

students tend to be less likely than others to use avoidance or stress release emotion

regulation strategies, and more likely to use goal-oriented motivation regulation

strategies or antecedent emotion strategies. Strong social bonds may provide an

avenue for regulation strategies to be developed, refined and practised.

Engagement was considered in this research in its components of academic and

social engagement. Results showed that students who use goal-oriented motivation


123

regulation strategies are more academically engaged in the classroom than others.

This is supported by the definition of self-regulated learning, which states that it

consists of a positive set of attitudes, strategies and behaviours for enhancing

engagement in the classroom (Zimmerman 2002). Based on the present research

findings, it can be deduced that teaching students motivation regulation strategies, in

particular goal strategies, may help improve their engagement in the classroom. This

is important, given the fact that the engagement of students in the middle school can

drop away. Conversely, students who are engaged in academic situations show

greater use of goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies. Students can learn

regulation strategies through their engagement.

Students who use response-focused emotion regulation strategies, in the form of

stress release emotion regulation, are less likely than others to be academically

engaged. This was an unexpected result, given that researchers such as Zimmerman

(2002) found that self-regulation strategies in general contribute positively to

engagement. Other researchers who found a positive relationship between emotion

regulation and engagement (e.g. Boekaerts 2002) considered emotion regulation as

one entity, rather than as comprising various types of strategies. It is possible that

student disengagement may occur before the response to the emotion is

undertaken. Also, the process of the stress release response requires the student

to be disengaged from the learning task. However, it was thought that in the long

run, response-focused strategies may contribute positively to academic engage-

ment; in this case, they may help relieve stress and thus enable the student to

re-engage in the activity. Stress release emotion regulation strategies would need to

be investigated further in order to explore these findings. As already stated, a

measure of student stress is also necessary for future strategy investigation, as these

strategies may be employed at a stage in the learning activity when student stress

levels are high.

The contribution of antecedent emotion regulation strategies to engagement was

not significant after the effect of goal-oriented motivation regulation strategies was

taken into consideration. It was expected that they may have a significant positive

effect on student academic engagement, given Zimmerman’s (2002) statement

about self-regulation in general. Perhaps the use of goal-oriented motivation

regulation strategies to address engagement eliminates the need for the student to

employ antecedent emotion regulation strategies. Exploring a range of antecedent

strategies in future research may present more information about these. Avoidance

also did not affect student academic engagement. This was difficult to explain,

given the nature of avoidance strategies. Perhaps expanding the avoidance

subscale in the RSQ would give a better picture of their effect on education

outcomes.

Given the results of this research, students who use stress release emotion

regulation strategies are less likely than others to be socially engaged. This result

was unexpected, given that research has implied that emotion regulation strategies

in general are necessary for social competence (Eisenberg et al. 1995). However,

engaging in social activities does not guarantee high levels of social competence.

Also, research on emotion regulation has tended to group strategies together,

ignoring the effects of different types of strategies within the umbrella term.


123

Conclusion

As the middle school years are a time of physiological and emotional change in the

student, often associated with a decline in motivation at school, it seems important

to rethink the goals of education for these students. Outcomes that measure the

development of the skills of goal-oriented motivation regulation and antecedent

emotion regulation, predictors of student engagement and resilience, may be as

important during this period as academic outcomes. Such measurements would

require standardised indicators on improvement in self-regulation skills (Boekaerts

and Corno 2005). Research into how to encourage student development of these

motivation and emotion regulation strategies is also necessary.

The researchers, as experienced teachers, and with the results of this research in

mind, see it as feasible and important that goal-oriented motivation regulation

strategies and antecedent emotion regulation strategies should be taught to middle

school students, to enhance their engagement and resilience. Students who use such

strategies may have little need to use response-focused strategies or those

implemented later in an emotional response or activity. In addition, students who

constantly use avoidance strategies in the classroom may respond to a program that

teaches alternative regulation strategies, enabling them to develop confidence,

assertiveness and a sense of achievement that builds on strengthening their self-

concept. Further investigation needs to be undertaken to explore the possibility of

‘over-control’ in relation to emotion regulation and social competence.

Regulation strategies could be taught to students through a variety of techniques.

One such technique is the modelling of strategies by the teacher as situations arise.

Direct teaching of strategies and role play could also be useful in student regulation

development. Bringing strategy usage onto a more conscious level of awareness,

through targeted reflective thinking time, will assist students in an understanding of

regulation. This process would need to precede the teaching of regulation strategies,

as students require a certain level of self-awareness or metacognitive knowledge in

order to implement these (Boekaerts and Corno 2005). The use of collaborative

learning in the classroom can also help students to develop self-regulation, creating

opportunities for students to regulate their individual emotions and motivation and

those of the group (Jarvela et al. 2007). These opportunities arise in collaborative

learning situations, because students are compelled to communicate and negotiate

constantly with other group members.

Teachers need a firm intellectual understanding of self-regulated learning in

order to encourage students to develop these skills (Boekaerts and Corno 2005).

Teacher education programs designed to achieve this could include a focus on

motivation, emotion and self-regulation theory. In order for teachers to develop their

self-regulation understanding, a model of self-regulation, incorporating motivation

and emotion regulation, and applicable to classroom usage, is necessary. As the

timeline of an emotion response, as presented by Gross (2001), appears relevant and

important to middle school student emotion regulation strategies, this could be used

to form the basis of a classroom model. Further investigation into the relationship

between motivation and emotion is necessary for development of such a model.


123

References

Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review ofEducational Research, 64, 287–309.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behaviour. Psychological Review, 64,

359–372.

Australian Curriculum Studies Association. (1996). From alienation to engagement: Opportunities forreform in the middle years of schooling. Volumes 1, 2, 3. Canberra: National Advisory Committee

for the Student Alienation During the Middle Years of Schooling Project.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.

Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational Psychologist, 28,

148–167.

Boekaerts, M. (2002). Toward a model that integrates motivation, affect and learning. In L. Smith, C.

Rogers, & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Development and motivation: Joint perspectives. Leicester: British

Psychological Society.

Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and

intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington: D. C. Heath (Lexington Books).

Denham, S. A. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? ChildDevelopment, 74(1), 238.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational belief, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,53, 109–132.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of

emotionality and regulation in children’s social functioning: A longitudinal study. ChildDevelopment, 66, 1360–1384.

Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. ChildDevelopment, 75(2), 334–339.

Elliott, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal goals analysis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171–185.

Fried, L. J. (2010). Emotion and motivation regulation strategy use in the middle school classroom.Doctoral dissertation. University of Western Australia, Perth.

Gardner, T. W., Dishion, T. J., & Connell, A. M. (2008). Adolescent self-regulation as resilience:

Resistance to antisocial behaviour within the deviant peer context. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 36, 273–284.

Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 10, 214–219.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive and social consequences. Psychophysiology,39, 281–291.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 348–362.

Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotion elicitation using films. Cognition and Emotion, 9,

87–108.

Jarvela, S., Hurme, T. R., & Jarvenoja, H. (2007). Self-regulation and motivation in computer supported

collaborative programs. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning in social practices.ICT and new artifacts—Transformation of social and cultural practices. Pergamon: EARLI Series:

Advances in Learning.

Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44,

23–52.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). A quadripolar need achievement representation of

self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583–610.

Mauss, I. B., Bunge, S. A., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Automatic emotion regulation. Social and PersonalityPsychology Compass, 1, 146–167.

Melnick, S. M., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2000). Emotion regulation and parenting in AD/HD and comparison

boys: Linkages with social behaviours and peer preference. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,28, 73–86.


123

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. (2006). Re-conceptualising emotion and motivation to learn in classroom

contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 377–390.

Nemec, M. (2005). Emotional literacy, resilience and a process for change in education: Making the links

clear. SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Australia. Accessed October 20, 2007,

http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/nem05357.pdf.

Paus, T. (2005). Mapping brain maturation and cognitive development during adolescence. Trends inCognitive Sciences, 9(2), 60–68.

Pintrich, P. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31,

313–328.

Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in

college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.

Pintrich, P., & Garcia, T. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-

schema as self-regulatory strategies. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation oflearning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotion regulation in daily life: Links to

depressive symptoms and problem behaviour. Child Development, 74(6), 1869–1880.

Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchant, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the

classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,

765–781.

Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age related behavioural manifestations. Neuroscience andBiobehavioural Reviews, 24, 417–463.

Spinrad, T., Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Fabes, R., Valiente, C., Shepard, S., et al. (2006). Relation of

emotion-related regulation to children’s social competence: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 6(3),

498–510.

Springer, J. F., & Phillips, J. L. (1999). The individual protective factors index (IPFI): A measure ofadolescent resiliency. California: EMT Associates.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Schweinle, A. (2003). The importance of emotion in theories of

motivation: Empirical, methodological, and theoretical considerations from a goal theory

perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4–5), 375–393.

Watt, D. (2004). Consciousness, emotional self-regulation and the brain. Journal of ConsciousnessStudies, 11(9), 77–82.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis.

Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.

Wolters, C. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasised aspect of self-regulated

learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205.

Zimmerman, B. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of

exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning:from teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–18). New York: Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In F. Pajares

& T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic Motivation of Adolescents (Vol. 2) (pp. 1–27). Greenwich: CT.

Information Age.

Author Biography

Leanne Fried is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Fogarty Learning Centre, Edith Cowan

University, Australia. Her work has included modifying a tool to measure classroom adolescent emotion

and motivation regulation strategy usage and investigating the capacity of the home and school

environment to develop student regulation strategies. She is currently developing a classroom model of

emotion and motivation regulation and investigating methods and programs to teach emotion and

motivation regulation strategies. She is also working in projects concerned with early acquisition of

literacy skills.


123

http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/nem05357.pdf

an investigation into the capacity of student motivation and emotion regulation strategies to...

Documents