Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating the regulation of affect, behavior, and cognition into self-regulated learning paradigms among secondary and post-secondary students

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An integrative framework for investigating self-regulated learning situated in students’ favorite and least favorite courses was empirically tested in a sample of 178 high school and 280 college students. Building on cognitive, clinical, social, and educational conceptions of self-regulation, the current paper integrated affective (e.g., reappraisal, suppression), behavioral (e.g., environmental, planning), and cognitive (e.g., cognitive focusing, metacognition) forms of regulation with self-regulated learning strategies (deep and surface processing, organization, engagement) to predict achievement. Overall, self-regulation was employed more frequently in favorite courses and by college students. Path models examined the associations of affective, behavioral, and cognitive regulation with learning strategies and achievement. These analyses suggested that affective, behavioral, and cognitive regulation were related to learning strategies, but the links to achievement were less robust. Moreover, there were significant indirect paths from behavioral and cognitive regulation to achievement through learning strategies, although some of these indirect paths were counter to expectations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, some research suggests that there might be advantages to some negative emotions, such as confusion, that fuels engagement in specific situations (D’Mello and Graesser 2014).

  2. In the United States, high school and college are 4 years. Sophomores are 2nd year students and juniors are 3rd year students. In order to ensure that participants were stable in their respective learning contexts, we opted to exclude 1st year Freshmen who were transitioning into high school/college or 4th year Seniors who were leaving school.

  3. For achievement, skewness was slightly high for both favorite (−1.67; −1.84) and least favorite (−1.14; −2.03) courses for high school and college, respectively; kurtosis was high in favorite courses (2.79) for high school and in both favorite (2.99) and least favorite (4.65) courses for college students. Squaring the values decreased the skewness to −0.78 and −1.52 for favorite courses and −0.29 and −0.80 for least favorite courses, for high school and college students, respectively and the kurtosis to −0.43 for favorite courses for high school students and 1.49 in favorite and −0.05 in least favorite courses for college students.

  4. Traditionally, ten participants per parameter are required as a minimum for CFA. When running the unconstrained model, we encountered an unidentified model because the number of paths were doubled for the multi-group unconstrained model, suggesting that we did not have a sufficient sample size to analyze the data using an unconstrained model (Ho 2006; Muthén and Muthén 1998).

References

  • Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakracevic Vukman, K., & Licardo, M. (2010). How cognitive, metacognitive, motivational and emotional self-regulation influence school performance in adolescence and early adulthood. Educational Studies, 36, 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guiford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Bernacki, M.L. (2015). Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9134-6.

  • Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Extending self-regulated learning to include self-regulated emotion strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 558–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, C. (2002). Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiologial conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P. M., Marting, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75, 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self- regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row, Publisher, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Mello, S. K., & Graesser, A. C. (2014). Confusion. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of emotions in education (pp. 289–310). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: the MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2002). General and specific traits of personality and their relations to sleep and academic performance. Journal of Personality, 70, 177–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental modle of a complext system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J. (2008). Emotion and emotion regulation: personality processes and individual differences. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 701–723). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. F. (2002). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school performance in middle school children. Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 395–413. doi:10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00108-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of Univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R.H. (2010). Handbook of personality and self-regulation: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Jacobs, S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation in education: Conceptual foundations, current applications, and future directions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of emotions in education (pp. 183–201). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2012). Principles and practice of structural equaiton modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guillford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lan, W. Y. (1996). The effects of self-monitoring on students’ course performance, use of learning strategies, attitude, self-judgment ability, and knowledge representation. Journal of Experimental Education, 64(2), 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. (2011). School engagement: What it is and why it is important for positive youth development. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, and J. B. Benson (Eds.). Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Elsevier Inc.

  • MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, M.M., Ponitz, C.C., Messermith, E.E., & Tominey, S. (2010). Self-Regulation: Integration of cognition and emotion. In R. M Lerner, M. E. Lamb, & A. M. Freund (Eds). The Handbook of Life-Span Development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  • McRae, K., et al. (2012). The development of emotion regulation: an fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal in children, adolescents, and young adults. Social Cognition and Neurology, 7, 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nandagopal, K., & Ericcson, K. A. (2012). An expert performance approach to the study of individual differences in self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 597–609.

  • Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Predictors of academic outcomes: big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 116–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Morrow, J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1993). Response styles and the duration of episodes of depressed mood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbok of research on student engagement (pp. 259–292). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 371–402). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P.R. & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In The development of achievement motivation. Academic Press.

  • Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Post secondary Teaching and Learning. (Ann Arbor, Michigan).

  • Plant, E. A., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 96–116.

  • Pomerantz, E., & Shim, S. (2008). The role of goal investment in self-regulation: Benefits and costs. Handbook of motivation science. Shah, James Y. (Ed.); Gardner, Wendi L. (Ed.); New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, 2008. pp. 393–404.

  • Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Self-regulatory strength. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 84–98). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. (2004). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 83–110). New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 463–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and cognative functions. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmayr, R., Ziegler, M., & Trauble, B. (2010). Do intelligence and sustained attention interact in predicting academic achievement? Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Zhang, L. (2008). The role of emotion in self-regulation: Differing roles of positive and negative emotion. In P. Pierre & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation of emotion (pp. 213–226). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 30, 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self- regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated engagement in learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2010). The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 653–678. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J. (2008). Validation of scores on the homework management scale for middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 82–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J., & Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior: homework management at the secondary school level. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social-cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, research, and applications (pp. 13–39). Orlando: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 85–110). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B.J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In A. T. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 287–308).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this manuscript was supported by grants from: American Psychological Association Division 15 Dissertation Research Award; Social Science Research Institute, Duke University; and the Aleane Webb Dissertation Research Fellowship, Duke University. The findings and views reported in this manuscript are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of Duke University or American Psychological Association.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Adar Ben-Eliyahu & Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia

  2. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Adar Ben-Eliyahu

  3. Michigan State University, Michigan, USA

    Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia

Authors
  1. Adar Ben-Eliyahu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adar Ben-Eliyahu.

Appendix

Appendix

Affective (adapted from Gross & John 2003)

Reappraisal:

When I study or work on tasks related to my (least) favorite class…

  1. 1)

    when I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.

  2. 2)

    when I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm.

  3. 3)

    I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.

  4. 4)

    when I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about.

  5. 5)

    when I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking about.

Suppression:

When I study or work on tasks related to my (least) favorite class…

  1. 1)

    I control my emotions by not expressing them.

  2. 2)

    When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.

  3. 3)

    I keep my emotions to myself.

Behavioral

Planning (adapted from Xu 2008 and Pintrich et al. 1991)

  1. 1)

    I set time to work on my tasks for my (least) favorite class ahead of time.

  2. 2)

    I keep track of what remains to be done in my (least) favorite class.

  3. 3)

    I remind myself of the available remaining time for tasks assigned in my (least) favorite class.

  4. 4)

    Throughout the week, I have set times that I dedicate to my academics in my (least) favorite class.

  5. 5)

    I set a plan for how to go about completing my assignments in (least) favorite.

  6. 6)

    Before I begin a task, like writing a paper or answering a question, in (least) favorite, I consider all the different things I need to get done to complete this task.

  7. 7)

    I make lists for work that needs to be accomplished or finished in (least) favorite.

Location (Environmental Regulation) (adapted from Pintrich et al. 1991)

  1. 1)

    I usually study in a place where I can concentrate on my work in (least) favorite.

  2. 2)

    When working on assignments for (least) favorite, I change where I’m studying or working if I’m not getting my work done as I planned.

  3. 3)

    If I feel I can’t study well in my current location, I make an active choice to move, change locations, or change something in my study space (like close the blinds).

  4. 4)

    I choose a different location depending on the type of work I’m working on.

  5. 5)

    I work in an area where I know that I can best concentrate and complete my work for (least) favorite class.

  6. 6)

    I go to study at a place where I know the noise level will not disrupt my work.

  7. 7)

    I choose to study in different areas that will be most well-suited or conducive to my studying for (least) favorite.

Cognitive

Focus

  1. 1)

    I have a hard time concentrating in (least) favorite class.

  2. 2)

    I often lose track of what I am thinking about in (least) favorite class.

  3. 3)

    I have difficulty keeping my mind on school-related things in (least) favorite class.

  4. 4)

    During class time I often miss important points because I’m thinking of other things (like daydreaming).

Metacognition (adapted from Pintrich et al. 1991)

  1. 1)

    When studying for (least) favorite I try to determine or figure out which concepts or ideas I don’t understand well.

  2. 2)

    When I study for (least) favorite, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities every time I study.

  3. 3)

    When I become confused about something I’m reading for (least) favorite class, I go back and try to figure it out.

  4. 4)

    If class materials are difficult to understand, I change the way I read or study the material.

  5. 5)

    I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying in (least) favorite.

  6. 6)

    I try to change the way I study in order to fit the class requirements and teacher’s teaching style.

  7. 7)

    I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather than just reading it over when studying.

Self-Regulated Learning Strategies

Organization (adapted from Pintrich et al. 1991)

  1. 1)

    When I study for (least) favorite class, I write brief summaries of the main ideas from the readings and the concepts from the lectures.

  2. 2)

    When I study for (least) favorite class, I outline the material or readings to help me organize my thoughts.

  3. 3)

    I make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help me organize the class material.

  4. 4)

    When I study for (least) favorite class, I go over my notes and make an outline of important concepts or ideas.

Surface Processing (adapted from Pintrich et al. 1991)

  1. 1)

    When I study for (least) favorite, I practice saying the material to myself over and over.

  2. 2)

    When studying for (least) favorite, I read my class notes and the course readings over and over again.

  3. 3)

    I memorize key words to remind me of important concepts or ideas in (least) favorite.

Deeper Processing (adapted from Pintrich et al. 1991)

  1. 1)

    When I study for (least) favorite class, I pull together information from different sources, such as class time (lectures or discussions) or readings.

  2. 2)

    I try to relate or connect ideas in this subject to those in other classes whenever possible.

  3. 3)

    When reading for (least) favorite class, I try to connect or relate the material to what I already know.

  4. 4)

    I try to understand the materials or information in (least) favorite class by making connections between the readings and the ideas or concepts in the lectures.

  5. 5)

    I try to apply or use ideas from class assignments or readings in other class activities such as lecture, discussion, or groupwork.

Behavioral-Cognitive Engagement (Assor et al. 2002)

  1. 1)

    I pay attention and try to follow what the teacher says in (least) favorite class.

  2. 2)

    I come to (least) favorite class unprepared (without completing assigned readings and assignments, etc.). ©

  3. 3)

    I participate in conversations and discussions that take place in (least) favorite class.

  4. 4)

    I often go through the motions in (least) favorite class, but I’m really not paying attention. ©

  5. 5)

    I skip (least) favorite class. ©

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben-Eliyahu, A., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. Integrating the regulation of affect, behavior, and cognition into self-regulated learning paradigms among secondary and post-secondary students. Metacognition Learning 10, 15–42 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9129-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9129-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation