Advertisement

The conflict between on-task and off-task actions in the classroom and its consequences for motivation and achievement

  • Britta Kilian
  • Manfred Hofer
  • Stefan Fries
  • Claudia Kuhnle
Article

Abstract

The relations between students’ value orientations, decisions in conflicts between on-task and off-task actions in the classroom, and experiences of motivational interference following these conflicts were investigated. It was expected that well-being value orientation was positively linked and achievement value orientation was negatively linked to decision for off-task behavior in such conflicts and that the higher students’ well-being value orientation, the higher their motivational impairment when deciding for the on-task behavior and the lower when deciding for the off-task behavior. For achievement orientation, the relationships were predicted to be reversed. The experience of motivational interference while performing on-task behavior was, in turn, expected to be related to worse grades. Data from 817 students (mean age 13.44) from 35 classrooms were collected using self-report questionnaires and analyzed in a series of hierarchical linear models. Analyses showed the relationships as predicted. All relationships found were comparable to the relationships found for a conflict between school and leisure actions after class. Results point out that even if students resist the off-task temptation in class, the mere possibility of off-task behavior can impair motivation and achievement.

Keywords

Learning motivation Motivational interference Off-task behavior School–leisure conflict Value orientation 

Résumé

Dans le présent ouvrage, les décisions des élèves en cas de conflits entre un comportement attentif et inattentif en classe ont été analysées en même temps que leurs sentiments durant cette interférence motivationnelle. L’hypothèse de travail était que l’orientation vers les valeurs de bien-être avait une corrélation positive tandis que celle vers les valeurs de réussite scolaire corrélait négativement avec la décision pour l’inattention en classe et que, avec une plus grande orientation vers le bien-être, l’élève se trouvait moins motivé dans la décision pour la réussite scolaire et plus motivé, s’il optait pour l’inattention et vice versa en cas d’orientation inverse. Il était supposé que cette interférence motivationnelle correspondait à des résultats scolaires inférieurs. Les données de 817 élèves (moyenne d’âge 13.44) dans 35 classes ont été collectionnées à l’aide d’un questionnaire d’autoévaluation et analysées en utilisant des modèles hiérarchiques linéaires. Ces analyses confirment les relations comme prévues. Toutes les relations étaient comparables aux relations de conflits entre le travail pour l’école et les activités de loisirs d’après-midi. Les résultats montrent que même si l’élève résiste à la tentation de l’inattention en classe, la seule possibilité du comportement inattentif peut gêner la motivation et la réussite scolaire.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study presented in this paper was supported by the research grant HO 649/19-1 by the German Research Foundation.

References

  1. Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. A. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L., & Soeda, J. M. (2008). Fixed-time teacher attention to decrease off-task behaviors of typically developing third graders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. Y., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boekaerts, M. (2003). Adolescence in Dutch culture: A self-regulation perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education, Volume III: International perspectives on adolescence and education (pp. 99–122). Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  7. Boekaerts, M., de Koning, E., & Vedder, P. (2006). Goal-directed behavior and contextual factors in the classroom: An innovative approach to the study of multiple goals. Educational Psychologist, 41, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bru, E. (2006). Factors associated with disruptive behavior in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clare, S. K., Jenson, W. R., Kehle, T. J., & Bray, M. A. (2000). Self-modeling as a treatment for increasing on-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz, F., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values, learning routines and academic procrastination. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development, 78, 430–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derous, E., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). When earning is beneficial for learning: The relation of employment and leisure activities to academic outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 97–125). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrolment: Testing the role of personal values within an expectancy–valence framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fries, S., & Dietz, F. (2007). Learning with temptations present: The case of motivational interference. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fries, S., Schmid, S., Dietz, F., & Hofer, M. (2005). Conflicting values and their impact on learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fries, S., Schmid, S., & Hofer, M. (2007). On the relationship between value orientation, valences, and academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fries, S., Dietz, F., & Schmid, S. (2008). Motivational interference in learning: The impact of leisure alternatives on subsequent self-regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action-phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  23. Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behavior patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helmke, A. (1986). Student attention during instruction and achievement. In S. E. Newstead, S. H. Irvine, & P. L. Dann (Eds.), Human assessment: Cognition and motivation (pp. 273–286). Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  25. Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2006). The relationship between the quality of cooperative learning, students’ goal preferences, and perceptions of contextual factors in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofer, M. (2007). Goal conflicts and self-regulation: A new look at pupils’ off-task behavior in the classroom. Educational Research Review, 2, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hofer, M., Schmid, S., Fries, S., Dietz, F., Clausen, M., & Reinders, H. (2007). Individual values, motivational conflicts, and learning for school. Learning and Instruction, 17, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofer, M., Schmid, S., & Zivkovic, I. (2008). Schule-Freizeit-Konflikte, Wertorientierungen und motivationale Interferenz in der Freizeit. Eine kulturübergreifende Studie. [School–leisure conflicts, value orientations, and interference of motivation during leisure time. A cross-cultural study]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 40, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lens, W., Lacante, M., Vansteenkiste, M., & Herrera, D. (2005). Study persistence and academic achievement as a function of the type of competing tendencies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McCraw Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1992). Effects of two cooperative conditions on peer-group discussions, reading comprehension, and metacognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nafpaktitis, M., Mayer, G. R., & Butterworth, T. (1985). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval and their relation to student behavior in intermediate school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Randolph, J. J. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation and off-task behaviour. Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions, 9, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ratelle, C. F., Vallerand, R. J., Senécal, C., & Provencher, P. (2005). The relationship between school–leisure conflict and educational and mental health indexes: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1800–1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Salili, F. (1996). Learning and motivation. An Asian perspective. Psychology and Developing Societies, 8, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmid, S., Hofer, M., Dietz, F., Reinders, H., & Fries, S. (2005). Value orientations and action conflicts in students’ everyday life: An interview study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmid, S., Fries, S., Hofer, M., Dietz, F., Reinders, H., & Clausen, M. (2007). The theory of motivational action conflicts–Empirical studies and practical consequences. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools. The final report on the DFG Priority Programme (pp. 317–331). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  41. Thuen, E., & Bru, E. (2000). Learning environment, meaningfulness of schoolwork and on-task-orientation among Norwegian 9th grade students. School Psychology International, 21, 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. B. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Britta Kilian
    • 1
  • Manfred Hofer
    • 1
  • Stefan Fries
    • 2
  • Claudia Kuhnle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations