Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 239–253 | Cite as

Motivational Effects on Self-Regulated Learning with Different Tasks

  • Regina VollmeyerEmail author
  • Falko Rheinberg
Original Article


In our cognitive motivational process model (Vollmeyer & Rheinberg, Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 12:11–23, 1998) we assume that initial motivation affects performance via motivation during learning and learning strategies. These variables are also central for self-regulation theories (e.g., M. Boekaerts, European Psychologist, 1:100–122, 1996). In this article we discuss methods with which the model can be tested. Initial motivation with its four factors challenge, probability of success, interest, and anxiety was measured with the Questionnaire on Current Motivation (QCM; Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Burns, Diagnostica, 47:57–66, 2001). As an indicator for the functional state we assessed flow with the FKS (Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Engeser, Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept [Diagnosis of Motivation and Self-Concept], Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 261–279, 2003). We also used different tasks, including a linear system, a hypermedia program, and university-level classes. In general, our methods are valid and with them we found support for our model.


Flow-experience Motivation Performance Self-regulation Strategies 



We would like to thank Bruce Burns and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.


  1. Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Artelt, C. (2000). Wie prädiktiv sind retrospektive Selbstberichte über den Gebrauch von Lernstrategien für strategisches Lernen? [How predictive are self-reported strategies for their actual use?]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 14, 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Baumert, J., Heyn, S., & Köller, O. (1992). Das Kieler Lernstrategien-Inventar (KSI) [Kiel’s Questionnaire on learning strategies]. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Education in the Sciences at the University Kiel.Google Scholar
  7. Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (1996). Lernstrategien und schulische Leistungen [Learning strategies and performance at school]. In J. Möller & O. Köller (Eds.), Emotionen, Kognitionen und Schulleistung [Emotions, cognitions, and perormance at school] (pp. 137–154). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.Google Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, California: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1, 100–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boekaerts, M. (2002). The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report instrument to assess students’ context sensitivity. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, volume 12: New directions in measures and methods (pp. 77–120). New York: JAI.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, J. B. (1985). The model of school learning: Progress of an idea. In C. W. Fisher & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Perspectives on Instructional Time (pp. 29–58). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.Google Scholar
  15. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 529–536.Google Scholar
  18. Engeser, S., Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Bischoff, J. (2005). Motivation, Flow-Erleben und Lernleistung in universitären Lernsettings [Motivation, flow experience, and performance in learning settings at university]. Zeit9–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  20. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, C. W. (1996). Academic learning time. In E. de Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 675–694). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Ford, M. (1992). Motivating humans. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (1996). Kognitive und motivationale Bedingungen des Studierverhaltens: Zur Rolle der Lernzeit [Cognitive and motivational conditions of study behavior: The role of learning time]. In J. Lompscher & H. Mandl (Eds.), Lehr- und Lernprobleme im Studium [Teaching and learning problems in university courses] (pp. 39–53). Bern, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The flow state scale 2 and dispositional flow scale 2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 133–150.Google Scholar
  25. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. McHunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders vol. 1 (pp. 333–378). New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
  27. Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 274–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Young, Y.-F. (1998). Measuring the Flow construct in online environments: A structural modeling approach. construct.html.
  31. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 10 (pp. 1–49). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.Google Scholar
  32. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal-orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  33. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.Google Scholar
  34. Rheinberg, F. (2004). Motivationsdiagnostik [Diagnostics of motivation]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  35. Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktueller Motivation in Lern- und Leistungssituationen [QCM: A questionnaire to assess current motivation in learning situations]. Diagnostica, 47, 57–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens [The assessment of flow]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept [Diagnosis of motivation and self-concept] (pp. 261–279). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  37. Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503–529). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1990). Model conditions for asymptotic robustness in the analysis of linear relations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 10, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 549–570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Volet, S. E. (1997). Cognitive and affective variables in academic learning: The significance of direction and effort in students’ goals. Learning and Instruction, 7, 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2002). Goal specificity and learning with a hypermedia program. Experimental Psychology, 49, 98–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Rheinberg, F. (2000). Goal specificity and learning with a multimedia program. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 541–546). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Vollmeyer, R., Rheinberg, F., & Burns, B. (2002). Motivational patterns during hypermedia learning. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the cognitive science society (p. 1048). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (1998). Motivationale Einflüsse auf Erwerb und Anwendung von Wissen in einem computersimulierten System [Motivational influences on the acquisition and application of knowledge in a simulated game]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 12, 11–23.Google Scholar
  46. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (1999). Motivation and metacognition when learning a complex system. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2000). Does motivation affect performance via persistence? Learning and Instruction, 10, 293–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2003). Aktuelle Motivation und Motivation im Verlauf [Current motivation and on-line motivation]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept [Diagnosis of motivation and self-concept] (pp. 281–295). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  49. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2004). Influence de la motivation sur l’apprentissage d’un système linéaire [Motivational effects when learning a linear system]. Revue des Sciences de l’Éducation, 30, 91–104.Google Scholar
  50. Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinstein, C. E. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). Clearwater, Florida: H & H.Google Scholar
  52. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91–122). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  53. Wild, K.-P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium. Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und Reliabilität eines Fragebogens [learning strategies for studying. Results on the factor structure and reliability of a questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15, 185–200.Google Scholar
  54. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  55. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Pädagogische PsychologieJohann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Institut für PsychologieUniversität PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations