Abstract
Teachers’ motivation is a core professional competence that influences their choices in their decision-making, such as promoting self-regulated learning (SRL). Promoting SRL supports students’ SRL development and might affect students’ motivation to apply strategies. However, the link between teachers’ motivation to promote SRL and students’ motivation to apply strategies has yet to be empirically investigated. In a multilevel analysis that included 167 lower secondary teachers and their 2,785 students, we analysed the direct and indirect relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and attainment value, the teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion and students’ self-efficacy, utility value, attainment value and cost at the class and individual level. Additionally, we investigated the contribution of teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion to find indirect relations. Teachers’ self-efficacy was related to teacher-reported SRL promotion, and student-reported SRL promotion was associated with all motivational outcomes at the class and student level except for cost. Further, we found indirect effects between teachers’ self-efficacy for SRL promotion and students’ values and self-efficacy for SRL via teachers- and students-perceived SRL promotion. No direct effects between teacher and student motivation could be found, and no significant indirect relationships were found for the cost aspect. Regarding how the signal is transmitted, the results show that including student reports of SRL promotion is especially crucial to finding indirect links. However, future studies should employ longitudinal designs and incorporate more nuanced teacher and student motivation measures in SRL to better understand the motivational links between teachers and students.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Teachers play a central role in fostering students to become self-regulated learners. According to the integrated framework of teachers’ professional competences in self-regulated learning (SRL), teachers’ motivation is a core professional competence for SRL promotion (Karlen et al., 2020). As such, teacher motivation is expected to influence teachers’ SRL promotion and, thus, students’ SRL development. Teachers’ SRL promotion in everyday classes is essential as some students of every age lack the knowledge, motivation, and confidence to become self-regulated learners (Heirweg et al., 2019; Karlen, 2016). This is not surprising, as SRL is a complex process that refers to several skills, such as the capability to set meaningful learning goals and apply and combine cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational-emotional strategies to achieve those goals (Schraw et al., 2006). However, learning a new strategy and successfully using that strategy to self-regulate learning takes time, effort, and persistence to overcome deficiencies or inefficiencies (Efklides, 2011; Flavell, 1970; Hasselhorn, 1995; Veenman, 2013). Thus, SRL models emphasise the fundamental role of students’ motivation in regulating their learning (e.g. Efklides, 2011). Empirical evidence indicates a connection between various facets of students’ motivation for SRL and the use of strategies to self-regulate their learning (e.g. Bandura et al., 2003; Karabenick et al., 2021). This linkage underscores the importance of understanding how teachers support students’ motivation for SRL, including their motivation to use strategies.
Based on motivational theories such as the Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT) (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), research in educational science has started investigating links between teachers’ motivation and students’ outcomes, including their motivation. Various studies analysed the direct and indirect relationship between teachers’ values or self-efficacy and students’ motivation (e.g. Lazarides et al., 2018; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015). Results indicate that relations between teachers’ and students’ motivation are often small, inconsistent and elusive (Bardach & Klassen, 2021; Lauermann & Butler, 2021). In the context of SRL, evidence exists that various motivational constructs are related to teachers’ promotion of SRL (De Smul et al., 2019; Hirt et al., 2022; Jud et al., 2023), and that teachers’ strategy instruction is linked to students’ use of strategies (Dignath & Veenman, 2021). However, hardly any research links teachers’ motivation to promote SRL to students’ motivation for SRL.
The present research uses a multilevel approach to analyse the link between teachers’ motivation to promote SRL and students’ motivation for SRL. Including various motivational constructs based on SEVT, the study provides new knowledge about whether, which and how teachers’ motivation to promote SRL matters for students’ SRL motivation. As such, the study contributes to the ongoing challenge of determining how to foster students’ motivation for SRL.
Self-regulated learning and expectancy-value-theory
Self-regulated learning and the role of motivation
Self-regulating one’s learning is an active process where learners control and regulate their entire learning process to acquire new knowledge and skills (Pintrich, 2000; Schraw et al., 2006). Self-regulated learners set meaningful goals, plan, and monitor their learning, and select strategies to achieve their goals (Pintrich, 2000; Schraw et al., 2006; Schunk, 1996). These strategies include a variety of metacognitive (e.g. goal setting), cognitive (e.g. self-testing), motivational-emotional (e.g. positive self-talk) or resource-oriented (e.g. time management) strategies (Greene, 2018). At the outset of learning new strategies, students must acquire and consciously apply metacognitive knowledge, learn about the benefits of strategy application, and be motivated to apply new strategies (e.g. Anderson, 1982; Pressley et al., 1989). Successfully using new strategies to self-regulate learning requires cognitive skills and metacognitive knowledge about when and how to apply them according to task- and situation-specific requirements (Veenman et al., 2006). Accordingly, successfully using strategies requires time, and students should believe in the relevance of a strategy and be motivated to use it (Hertel & Karlen, 2021; Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 2008).
The core function of students’ motivation for SRL is represented in various SRL models, such as Efklides’ (2011) metacognitive and affective model of self-regulated learning (MASRL). In the MASRL model, learners’ motivation is situated at the personal level, referring to personal characteristics (e.g. self-efficacy) that function across tasks and situations. At this level, motivation is supposed to interact with other personal characteristics, such as metacognition (e.g. metacognitive knowledge), which informs learners about when and which strategies to use and how much effort should be invested in SRL processes (top-down process). Conversely, experiences gained in specific situations at the task level (e.g. the perceived usefulness of a particular strategy in a given situation) may influence learners’ motivation and metacognition through a bottom-up process. Thus, motivation is a crucial driver of SRL. It encourages learners’ willingness to strategically engage with learning tasks, to make choices about strategies, and supports their perseverance in the face of strategy application challenges (Pressley et al., 1989).
Situated expectancy-value theory
The Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) is often applied to conceptualise teachers’ and students’ motivation. It has recently been updated to the Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT), focusing on the social and dynamic character of the theoretical framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). According to SEVT, one’s choices, effort, or persistence are influenced by a person’s values and expectancies for success. Success expectancies refer to personal beliefs about how well one will perform in an upcoming task. They are closely related to self-efficacy beliefs, an individual’s belief that one can accomplish a task (Bandura, 1997; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The value component is further specified in different constructs: Intrinsic value corresponds to the enjoyment when doing the task, attainment value is the personal importance of engaging in a task, and utility value is defined as the usefulness of a particular task for an individual’s present or future plans. Further, SEVT conceptualises costs as negative aspects of the subjective task value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). These negative aspects include perceptions of how much effort would be needed to fulfil a task (effort cost) or the limitations of engaging in another task rather than the chosen task (opportunity cost) (Eccles et al., 1983). SEVT highlights the situated and dynamic nature of expectancies and values, meaning that values, expectancies and resulting decisions are not static but are assumed to depend on specific situations and change over time. For instance, individuals arrive at situations with limited and different available options. The hierarchies of values and expectancies are tied to this current situation, influenced by the view of the individual and the views of those around them (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020).
Linking students’ self-regulated learning and situated expectancy-value-theory
Following SEVT, students’ success expectancies and task values influence their choices, including how they self-regulate their learning (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Pintrich, 1999). Regarding students’ utility value for SRL, evidence exists that students’ perceived usefulness of a particular strategy relates to their reported use of that strategy (Hertel & Karlen, 2021; Karabenick et al., 2021). Further, SEVT considers how students attribute their successes and failures. These attributions can affect students’ self-efficacy and engagement in SRL (Suter et al., 2022). For example, if students attribute success to a specific strategy, they are more likely to perceive this strategy as useful and use it again in similar situations. Conversely, if they attribute failure to a strategy, they may adapt or abandon it in future learning tasks. Whether students use or abandon strategies might also relate to their perceived costs, such as the time and effort required to execute a strategy. Research has shown that intra- and interindividual differences exist regarding students’ perceived costs towards different strategies. However, only weak inverse relations were found regarding the use of strategies (Karabenick et al., 2021).
Attainment values might also be a relevant source of students’ motivation for SRL. According to SEVT, cultural values and norms influence one’s decision at a particular time (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). SRL skills have become a means to achieve desirable educational outcomes and are valuable educational outcomes in their own right (OECD, 2019; White & DiBenedetto, 2017). As such, students might not only perceive strategies as a valuable tool to accomplish their current learning goals but also attach personal importance to them as a long-term goal of their school career, as strategies are essential to successfully self-regulate their learning.
Finally, next to task values, students’ beliefs about their ability to successfully self-regulate their learning are key determinants of whether students use strategies (Zimmermann et al., 2006). These beliefs refer to students’ self-efficacy for SRL and are related to students’ use of strategies across different academic domains (Bandura et al., 2003; Usher & Pajares, 2008). Students with low self-efficacy for SRL are less likely to implement strategies and will give up their learning (Usher & Pajares, 2008; Zimmermann & Cleary, 2006).
Linking teachers’ promotion of self-regulated learning and situated expectancy-value-theory
Focusing on teachers, SEVT can be related to teachers’ SRL promotion by providing a framework for understanding their motivation, goal setting, and value perceptions in the context of their instructional decision-making (Karlen et al., 2020). Based on SEVT, the value teachers place on a particular activity (e.g. promoting SRL), their expected success in that activity (e.g. “I can promote SRL”), and the expected cost (e.g. “I need to invest much time”) are key factors influencing their effort and performance (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). The role of teachers’ self-efficacy (expectancies component) has been investigated in several studies and is among the most important predictors of teachers’ self-reported SRL promotion (e.g. De Smul et al., 2019; Heirweg et al., 2020; Jud et al., 2023). Teachers’ self-efficacy to promote SRL refers to “teachers’ perceived ability to successfully integrate activities promoting SRL in their daily classroom practices” (De Smul et al., 2018, p. 217). Recent contributions also investigated the relationship between teachers’ expectancies, values, and costs to teachers’ promotion of SRL. A person-centred approach revealed that teachers’ motivational profiles vary regarding expectancies, values, and costs. Teachers in the profile with relatively high expectations, high values, and low costs promoted SRL significantly more often than teachers with lower motivation (Hirt et al., 2022). Further, studies highlight that the importance teachers attach to SRL for their students and promoting SRL, corresponding to their attainment value, is significantly linked to their promotion of SRL and metacognition (Jud et al., 2023; Karlen et al., 2023). However, looking at several motivational variables simultaneously, teachers’ self-efficacy is the stronger predictor of their reported SRL promotion than their perceived value or cost of SRL (Heirweg et al., 2020; Jud et al., 2023). Jud et al. (2023) showed that value and cost become particularly relevant as teachers face more complex tasks, such as promoting metacognition as a central part of SRL.
Links between teachers’ and students’ motivation
Motivational theories, such as the SEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), suggest that teachers, as part of students’ social environment, influence their students’ expectancies and subjective task values through their beliefs and instructional behaviours. A growing body of research has provided evidence for the connection between various aspects of teacher motivation and student motivation (Lauermann & Butler, 2021; Lazarides & Schiefele, 2021). Two main pathways from teachers’ to students’ motivation have been investigated (Lauermann & Butler, 2021): An indirect path via teachers’ instructional practices and a direct path from teachers’ motivation to students’ motivation. Evidence exists for both direct and indirect paths. For instance, direct effects could be found in the contagion of teachers’ enthusiasm for students’ enjoyment (Frenzel et al., 2018) or teachers’ self-efficacy in student outcomes (Miller et al., 2017). Indirect relations could be found between teachers’ and students’ intrinsic value through autonomy-supportive teaching styles (Zou et al., 2023) or between teacher educational interest and student subject interest through classroom management and mastery-oriented practices (Schiefele, 2017). Moreover, broader evidence of the transmission from various teacher values to student values mediated through different instructional practices has been found. However, the transmission mechanism varied between the different value dimensions (Parrisius et al., 2020). In further studies, teachers’ self-efficacy was indirectly related to various students’ motivational outcomes, such as students’ self-efficacy through instructional quality (Burić & Kim, 2020) or students’ values through mastery orientation (Lazarides et al., 2018). Finally, some studies found direct and indirect relations between teachers’ and students’ motivational outcomes at the same time (Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015).
Regarding indirect paths, the degree of (mis)alignment between teacher- and student-reported instructional practices is crucial when investigating links between teacher and student motivation (Lauermann & Berger, 2021). Students and teachers are differently informed and can be affected by self-serving biases. Teachers, especially, tend to overestimate their instructions, and teachers’ reports regarding their instructional behaviour are often not congruent with students’ perceptions of these instructions (Fauth et al., 2020a; Fauth et al., 2020b; Wagner et al., 2016). Previous investigations have shown that teachers’ self-reported motivation is more strongly linked to teacher-rated variables than to student-rated variables. In contrast, students’ self-reports of instructional practices are stronger predictors of student outcomes (Lauermann & Butler, 2021; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015). Therefore, it is important to account for rater-specific effects for analysing indirect links between teachers’ motivation and students’ outcomes (Lauermann & ten Hagen, 2021).
In the context of SRL, theoretical frameworks assume that teachers’ motivation is indirectly related to students’ SRL, mediated by their promotion of SRL (Karlen et al., 2020). For instance, teachers’ SRL promotion includes explicit instructions, which means that teachers inform students about the how, when, and why of strategy application (Dignath & Veenman, 2021). In this way, students learn about the benefits of strategies and might have higher utility or attainment values regarding the use of these strategies. Furthermore, teachers have several roles in promoting SRL and can also promote students’ use of strategies by creating a learning environment that requires learners to regulate their learning processes by applying strategies (Karlen & Hertel, 2024). The experience of using strategies while solving meaningful tasks might raise students’ perceived utility of strategies and help them feel more self-efficacious in SRL (White & DiBenedetto, 2015).
However, SRL research has mainly investigated relations between teacher competences and their SRL promotion or between SRL promotion and students’ SRL outcomes. Investigations linking teachers’ professional competences and students’ outcomes are scarce. One of the few quantitative studies using multilevel analyses found that teachers’ self-efficacy and value beliefs were related to their SRL promotion. However, the effects on various SRL skills of their students, excluding students’ SRL motivation, remained mostly absent or negative (Heirweg et al., 2020). In another study, Dignath (2021) found that teacher competences, including motivation, were not related to students’ use of strategies. Finally, Heirweg et al. (2021) found significant but negative effects between teachers’ SRL promotion and students’ motivation and metacognition. The lack of student perspectives on teachers’ SRL promotion may be one reason for previous studies’ lack of relationships between teacher and student variables. For instance, Heirweg et al. (2020) uniquely used teachers’ self-reports of SRL promotion. The analyses did not include students’ perceptions of SRL promotion and motivational outcomes. In the study of Dignath (2021), there was a misalignment between teachers’ and students’ SRL reports. The author highlighted that students’ reports should complement teachers’ SRL reports in future studies. This argument corresponds to previous findings that researchers must carefully consider which perspective is included when analysing links between teachers’ and students’ motivation (Lauermann & Butler, 2021).
The present study
Teachers’ motivation, such as self-efficacy or attainment value, are core professional competences for teachers to promote SRL (Karlen et al., 2020). In turn, SRL promotion can positively influence students’ SRL motivation. Supporting students’ motivation for SRL, especially their motivation to use strategies, is important because learning new strategies can be effortful, involve overcoming motivational challenges, and take time to have a positive impact on learning (Pressley et al., 1987; Zimmermann et al., 2006). While educational research has started investigating direct and indirect links between teachers’ and students’ motivation and examining how the “signals” between teachers’ and students’ motivation are transmitted, findings of such research in the context of SRL are scarce. Therefore, research including teacher and student perspectives is crucial to determine whether and how teachers’ motivation is linked to students’ motivation in the context of SRL.
This study aimed to examine associations between teachers’ motivation to promote SRL and students’ SRL motivation. To analyse the whole link between teachers’ and students’ motivation, we first investigated the link between teachers’ self-efficacy and attainment value to promote SRL and their self-reported SRL promotion (Research Question 1 [RQ1]). Second, we analysed the relation between student-reported SRL promotion and students’ self-efficacy, utility value, attainment value, and perceived cost for SRL on both the class and student level (RQ2). Third, we investigated whether there is a direct and indirect path from teachers’ motivation to students’ motivation via teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion (RQ3). Finally, we systematically tested whether including teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion is critical for finding links between teachers’ and students’ motivation for SRL (RQ4).
Based on theoretical assumptions and prior research (De Smul et al., 2019; Hirt et al., 2022; Jud et al., 2023), we expected that teachers’ (H1a) self-efficacy and (H1b) attainment value would be positively related to their promotion of SRL. Second, based on theoretical assumptions (Dignath & Veenman, 2021; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and empirical evidence (e.g. Perry et al., 2020), we assumed that student-reported SRL promotion would be positively linked (H2a) with students’ utility value, attainment value, and self-efficacy and negatively associated (H2b) with students’ perceived cost. Third, grounded on research regarding students’ motivation for learning (Burić & Kim, 2020; Parrisius et al., 2020), theoretical assumptions of SEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), and frameworks of professional competences in SRL (Karlen et al., 2020), we expected indirect and not direct paths between teachers’ motivation and students’ SRL motivation, mediated via teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion (H3). Previous studies revealed a relatively strong relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and SRL promotion (De Smul et al., 2019; Jud et al., 2023), and indirect links were found between teachers’ self-efficacy and various students’ motivational outcomes in other contexts (e.g. Burić & Kim, 2020). Therefore, we expected (H3a) indirect links between teachers’ self-efficacy to promote SRL and students’ SRL motivation. Further, based on previous research on value transmissions (Parrisius et al., 2020), we hypothesised (H3b) indirect relations between teachers’ attainment values and students’ values via teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion. Finally, previous studies suggest that the incorporation and aligning both teachers’ and students’ perceptions are crucial to finding links between teachers’ and students’ outcomes (Lauermann & Berger, 2021). Further, student reports but not teacher reports of instruction predicted student motivation in previous studies (e.g. Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015). Therefore, we expected that including especially student reports on SRL promotion and their alignment with teacher reports would be necessary to find indirect links between teachers’ and students’ motivation for SRL (H4).
Method
Procedure and participants
Several principals from lower secondary schools in Switzerland were invited to take part in our study. Finally, a total of 17 schools agreed to participate voluntarily. From these schools, teachers and students completed an online survey between February and March 2021, from which they could withdraw at any time. For students to participate in this study, their parents or legal guardians had to give their consent. The university’s ethics committee has approved the study.
At the time of data collection, schools in Switzerland had been reopened for several months after the COVID-related closure. Therefore, students in grades 7 (38.6%), 8 (31.7%) and 9 (29.7%) were able to complete the survey during a class period and were supervised by their class teacher. In Switzerland lower secondary schools, classes are taught by different teachers in different subjects. However, they usually have one class teacher who teaches the class in different subjects and monitors and supports the student’s learning process throughout the three years of schooling. Therefore, students are usually taught mainly by their class teachers, who discuss general learning matters with them, including the development of their SRL skills. Because of their central role in their students’ learning outcomes and processes, only class teachers were included in this study. From a total sample of N = 280 teachers (including all teachers), the final sample of this study included N = 167 class teachers (56.7% male) and N = 2,785 students (51.1% male). On average, classes had M = 18.3 students (SD = 4.2) and M = 16.7 (SD = 6.4) students participated per class. Teachers had an average teaching experience of M = 16.39 years (SD = 11.05, min. = 1, max. = 41) and taught different subjects. The students were mostly native speakers (German = 72%) and were, on average, M = 14.44 years old (SD = 0.96, min. = 12.42, max. = 17.58).
Measures
Teachers’ questionnaires
Teacher Self-Efficacy for SRL Promotion. We used De Smul et al.’s (2018) scale to assess teachers’ self-efficacy about direct SRL promotion. For economic reasons, we selected only four items out of seven (example item: “How well can you teach your students in what situations they can use and apply self-regulated strategies?”). The items were scored on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (I cannot do that at all) to 6 (I can do that very well).
Teacher Attainment Value for SRL Promotion. A validated scale (Hirt et al., 2022; Jud et al., 2023) was used to assess teachers’ attainment value for SRL promotion. The scales consisted of three items (example item: “Fostering abilities in self-regulated learning is very important to me personally.“). Responses ranged from 1 (does not apply at all) to 6 (entirely true).
Teacher-Reported Promotion of SRL. A self-report scale to measure the promotion of SRL was used (e.g. Hirt et al., 2022). The scale includes six items and assesses teachers’ direct (example item: “In my lessons, I explain to students why and how they can use a learning strategy for learning.“) and indirect promotion of SRL (example item: “In my lessons, I create tasks that require students to use strategies they have learned.“). The answers were provided on a four-point scale from 1 ((almost) never) to 4 (in (almost) all lessons).
Students’ questionnaires
Students’ Utility and Attainment Value for SRL. Gaspard et al. (2017) developed scales based on the EVT to assess several value facets of lower-secondary students. For this study, we adapted this instrument to measure students’ utility values (example item: “Strategies are very useful for school.“) and attainment values (example item: “For me personally, strategies are very important.“) regarding the use of strategies (see Appendix for all items). Utility value was assessed by four items, and attainment value by three items. Answers were provided on a six-point scale from 1 (does not apply at all) to 6 (applies).
Students’ Cost for SRL. We used a 4-item scale to assess students’ perceived cost (example item: “Using strategies requires too much time.“). The items were drawn from a validated scale to assess different aspects of students’ SEVT for their math and science classes (Kosovich et al., 2015) and adapted to students’ perceived cost regarding using strategies (see Appendix for all items). Answers were provided on a six-point scale from 1 (does not apply at all) to 6 (applies).
Students’ Self-Efficacy for SRL. To assess students’ self-efficacy for SRL, we used a scale validated by (Usher & Pajares, 2008). The scale includes seven items regarding students’ self-efficacy about different SRL skills (example item: “How well can you concentrate on your schoolwork?“). Answers were provided on a 4-point Likert scale and ranged from 1 (I cannot at all) to 4 (I can do very well).
Student Reported Promotion of SRL. To assess student-reported promotion of SRL, we developed a scale corresponding to the teachers’ self-reported SRL promotion scale. Accordingly, the scale consisted of six items (example item: “During class, my teachers often explain why and how strategies are used.“). The responses ranged from 1 (does not apply) to 4 (applies).
Control variables. Previous studies have indicated that SRL skills may differ depending on different background characteristics, such as students’ gender (e.g. Vandevelde et al., 2012), age (Paris & Newman, 1990), or socioeconomic status (SES) (Karlen et al., 2014). The number of books at home and cultural possessions were used as proxies for students’ SES. The students self-reported the number of books at home (OECD, 2017). Students could choose between six different answers: “0–10 books “(1), “11–25 books “(2), “26–100 books “(3), “101–200 books “(4), “201–500 books “(5), and “more than 500 books “(6). For better understanding, a bookshelf visualised each option corresponding to the number of books. Cultural possession represents family wealth (OECD, 2017). Five possessions were presented to the students. The students could answer whether the presented possessions were present at their homes in a dichotomous format. The answers built a sum score (0 = few cultural goods; 5 = many cultural goods).
Analytical approach
To calculate descriptive analyses, we used SPSS Statistics version 29. We calculated different random-intercept multilevel path analyses with students nested within classes using Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) to investigate the research questions. To investigate research questions 1–3, we conducted a model including both teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion (full-perspective model). For research question 4, focusing on the contribution of the teacher- and student-perspective, we calculated two more models, including either teacher- or student-reported SRL promotion (partial-perspective models). For all models, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was applied to account for missing values, and the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLR) option was defined to correct for the non-normality of variance (Li, 2016). For analyses on the class level, ICC1 and ICC2 values give important information (Lüdtke et al., 2009). ICC1 hereby refers to the amount of variability at the class level, and ICC2 represents the reliability of the class level construct (Marsh et al., 2012). Values for ICC1 greater than 0.05 reveal that individual ratings are attributable to group memberships (LeBreton & Senter, 2008), and ICC2 values should be greater than 0.70 (Lüdtke et al., 2008). Following Lüdtke et al. (2008), we used latent aggregated student class level outcome variables and, thus, latent class level means on the between level to estimate bias-corrected class level means. Control variables for effects on student characteristics (age, books at home, and cultural possessions) were introduced on both levels of analysis. They were group-mean centred, which allows the disentangling of class level and student level effects of the control variables regarding the outcome variables (Lüdtke et al., 2009). The control variables were also based on latent aggregation, except for gender.
The goodness of the model fits was evaluated by the Chi-Square-Degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardised root-mean-square residual (SRMR). The cut-off scores for good fits are: χ²/df < 3, CFI > 0.97, RMSEA and SRMR < 0.05. For the latter, values < 0.10 are regarded as acceptable (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
Results
Descriptive results
The lower part of Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, the between-class/between-teacher differences (ICC1) and the within-class consistency (ICC2) of student-rated SRL promotion and students’ motivational constructs. All scales showed good to excellent reliability, with Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.71 to 0.85.
The upper part of Table 1 shows the bivariate class/teacher and student level correlations. Undirected correlations between the variables of interest and control variables at the class/teacher level show that teachers’ self-efficacy and attainment value are positively correlated (see Table 1) (r = 0.29). Further, both constructs correlated positively with teacher-reported SRL promotion (self-efficacy: r = 0.55; attainment value: r = 0.25) and student-reported SRL promotion (self-efficacy: r = 0.30; attainment value: r = 0.22). Student-reported SRL promotion significantly correlates to all students’ motivational constructs (r = [0.31, 0.52]), except for cost. Further, students’ self-efficacy and values were all positively correlated with each other (r = [0.28, 0.69]) and students’ self-efficacy correlated to students’ perceived costs (r = 0.20).
Regarding the student level, SRL promotion was positively related to self-efficacy and values (r = [0.19, 0.36]) and negatively related to costs (r = -0.04). Students’ self-efficacy and values were positively related to each other (r = [0.27, -0.65]), and all negatively correlated to costs (r = [-0.06, -0.23]). Correlations with the control variables at the student level revealed that male students showed lower values (attainment value: r = -0.17; utility value: r = -0.14) and higher costs (r = 0.14). Older students reported slightly lower attainment and utility values (attainment value: r = -0.10; utility value: r = -0.08) and higher costs (r = 0.06). Finally, students with higher SES reported slightly higher self-efficacy (books at home: r = 0.08; possession of cultural goods: r = 0.09) and lower costs (books at home: r = -0.07; possession of cultural goods: -0.08). Additionally, students with more possessed cultural goods also showed higher attainment and utility value (attainment value: r = 0.09; utility value: r = 0.08).
Results of the full-perspective model
To investigate research questions 1–3, a multilevel structural equation model (MSEM) was calculated, including teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion. The model showed acceptable to good fits (see Fig. 1).
Concerning RQ1, relations revealed that teachers’ self-efficacy for SRL promotion was the only motivational construct positively correlated to teacher-reported SRL promotion (β = 0.68). Corresponding to RQ2, at the class level, student-reported SRL promotion was significantly related to three motivational constructs: Classes who reported higher promotion of SRL also showed higher values for self-efficacy (β = 0.44), higher utility value (β = 0.78) and higher attainment value (β = 0.58). However, student-reported SRL promotion was not significantly associated with students’ costs. The model explained a significant amount of variance for all variables (R2 = [0.39, 0.79]). At the student level, similar effects could be found (β = [0.18, 0.32]). However, the model explained less variance in students’ motivation (R2 = [0.02,0.13]) at the student level compared to the class level.
Regarding RQ3, no significant direct effects between teachers’ and students’ motivation could be found (see Fig. 1; Table 2). Indirect effects for the full-perspective model are shown in Table 2. Only teachers’ self-efficacy for SRL promotion showed several significant indirect effects on students’ SRL motivation via teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion (β = [0.11, 0.19]). However, no indirect relation was found to students’ perceived costs. Teachers’ attainment values did not show significant indirect relations with any of the students’ motivational constructs.
Multilevel model for relations between teacher and student motivation via teacher- and student-reported SRL motivation. Note. Continuous lines indicate significant standardized path coefficients. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed). Model fits: χ2(178) = 246.453; p = 0.000, χ2/df = 1.38, CFI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.012, SRMRwithin= 0.013; SRMRbetween= 0.088
Results of the partial-perspective models
Regarding the contribution of including the teacher- and student-reported SRL on how teachers’ and students’ motivation are linked, we conducted two additional models, with either teacher- or student-reported SRL promotion. The two models showed acceptable to good fits (see Figs. 2 and 3). The model including teacher-reported SRL promotion (Fig. 2), revealed that teacher-reported SRL promotion was not directly linked to students’ motivational outcomes. Additionally, no indirect relations between teachers’ motivation and students’ motivation could be found (see Table 3). The model with the student-reported SRL promotion (Fig. 3) showed that teachers’ motivation is significantly related to student-reported SRL promotion (β = 0.309). Further, the model showed significant indirect relations between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ values and self-efficacy (self-efficacy: β = 0.14; attainment value: β = 0.18; utility value: β = 0.24) via student-reported SRL promotion (see Table 4).
Multilevel model for relations between teacher and student motivation via teacher-reported SRL promotion. Note. Continuous lines indicate significant standardized path coefficients. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed). Model fits: χ2(154) = 192.291; p = 0.019, χ2/df = 1.252, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.010, SRMRwithin= 0.005; SRMRbetween= 0.078
Discussion
This study investigated the relationship between teachers’ motivation to promote SRL and students’ motivation for SRL. To align both teachers’ and students’ motivation with a common theoretical framework, we have combined SEVT and SRL theory (Karlen et al., 2020). As we were interested in the entire link from teachers’ to students’ motivation, including teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion, we applied an MSEM focusing on class and student level effects. Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on SRL promotion have been included and systematically investigated, as this relation has been identified as crucial in detecting links between teachers’ and students’ motivation (Lauermann & ten Hagen, 2021). In the forthcoming sections, we will discuss the main findings and their implications for future research.
Multilevel model for relations between teacher and student motivation via student-reported SRL promotion. Note. Continuous lines indicate significant standardized path coefficients. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed). Model fits: χ2(74) = 122.541; p = 0.000, χ2/df = 1.655, CFI = 0.982, RMSEA = 0.016, SRMRwithin= 0.013; SRMRbetween= 0.087
Teachers’ motivation to promote self-regulated learning
The first research question investigated the link between teachers’ motivation and teachers’ promotion of SRL. The correlational analyses (see Table 1) indicate that teachers’ self-efficacy for SRL promotion and teachers’ attainment value each positively correlate with teacher-reported SRL promotion. However, the results of the MSEM revealed that only teachers’ self-efficacy remains significantly related to teacher-reported SRL promotion when both constructs are simultaneously entered into a model, confirming hypothesis H1a and rejecting hypothesis H1b. This finding confirms prior research (De Smul et al., 2019; Jud et al., 2023), highlighting the vital role of teachers’ self-efficacy in promoting SRL. Nevertheless, teachers’ values might still be relevant for promoting SRL. Using a person-centred approach, Hirt et al. (2022) showed that teachers with high values also had increased perceived competence regarding promoting SRL. Teachers with higher self-efficacy and value profiles reported promoting SRL more often than teachers in profiles with lower self-efficacy and values. Thus, the authors conclude that teachers’ values contribute to the ratio between the success expectations and values, on the one hand, and the costs, on the other hand. Further, when focusing solely on promoting metacognition as a core aspect of SRL, Jud et al. (2023) found a significant relation between teachers’ attainment value and teachers’ promotion of metacognition. Thus, including attainment value might be interesting for future research evaluating the relation of various motivational constructs and the promotion of different aspects of SRL.
Finally, SEVT highlights the situative nature of motivation and, thus, teachers’ classroom decisions, including promoting SRL (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Research indicates that teachers’ self-efficacy varies substantially between students, classes, and lessons (Zee et al., 2018). However, teachers might generally acknowledge the value of SRL for their students, independent of a particular class or teaching situation (Hertel & Karlen, 2021). Consequently, teachers’ attainment value might vary less between classes than their self-efficacy and, thus, result in more consistent links regarding the promotion of SRL. Therefore, future SRL research, including teachers’ motivation, might consider the situative character of motivation, for example, by considering more teachers’ relation to different classes.
Students’ motivation for self-regulated learning
Regarding research question two, we analysed the relation between student-reported SRL promotion and students’ motivation to self-regulate their learning, including their motivation to use strategies. The results showed that classes and students who reported higher SRL promotion also felt more self-efficacious for SRL and held higher attainment and utility values, confirming Hypothesis 2a. This aligns with frameworks regarding SRL promotion, indicating that teachers can foster students’ SRL motivation (Karlen et al., 2020), for instance, by providing them with information about the use and benefit of strategies and opportunities to apply them in a structured context to build their self-efficacy (Dignath & Veenman, 2021; White & DiBenedetto, 2015). The effects on the class level in the model were stronger compared to those on the student level. This could mean that teachers’ SRL promotion, on average, was more important than individual promotion within a class and that teachers seldomly promote SRL individually or adaptive to specific students. However, systematic investigations about effect differences on the different levels should be investigated in further studies.
Additionally, the result further specifies existing research on how teachers’ SRL promotion contributes to students’ use of strategies: So far, results showed that teachers’ amount of strategy instruction was related to students’ use of strategies (Dignath & Veenman, 2021) and that students’ SRL motivation is related to their use of strategies (Karabenick et al., 2021; Usher & Pajares, 2008). Showing a link between teachers’ SRL promotion and students’ SRL motivation, the results of this study further strengthen the assumption that teachers’ SRL promotion seems to positively influence students’ SRL motivation, which, in turn, impacts students’ strategy use, as previous research has shown (Karabenick et al., 2021).
Our hypothesis H2b, assuming negative relations between teachers’ SRL promotion and students’ perceived costs, could not be confirmed, as no significant correlation was found on the class or the student level. Although this effect is not in line with theoretical assumptions, previous research has shown that costs on the individual level are not related to students’ strategy use as theoretically assumed (Karabenick et al., 2021). The reason for the non-existent effects might be due to the dynamic characteristic of the cost construct. Theoretically, teachers’ promotion of SRL is assumed to lead to a more automated and skilled application of strategies. Thus, skilled students should experience less cognitive load and effort (Zimmerman, 2008). However, this would only apply if students had the opportunity to use the same strategy several times in class, thus automating the strategy application to self-regulate their learning. When learners are less experienced with using a certain strategy, they need to retrieve information from the working memory and, thus, experience cognitive load and effort. When they get more experienced, students can apply strategies without consciously thinking about them and thus experience them as less effortful or time-consuming than inexperienced learners (Wirth et al., 2020). Therefore, costs are assumed to be high when students are learning to use a new strategy, and they are expected to be lower for students with experience in using this strategy. Further, students’ perceived costs regarding various strategies might differ. Some strategies are perceived as costly (e.g. organisational strategies), while others, such as help-seeking, are perceived as low in cost (Karabenick et al., 2021). In our study, students were asked for their perceived costs on a general level, not regarding different strategies. Therefore, it is possible that students answered for different strategies with varying levels of cost. Thus, future research, including students’ perceived costs regarding different strategies, would deliver more specific insights on how or whether teachers can reduce students’ perceived costs regarding using strategies.
Links between teachers’ and students’ motivation
The third research question aimed to analyse links between teachers’ motivation to promote SRL and students’ SRL motivation via teachers’ reported SRL promotion. Socio-cognitive theories such as SEVT assume that teachers’ motivation, such as their success expectancies or attainment values, affect students’ motivational outcomes through classroom behaviour (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Analogous, the integrated framework of teachers’ professional competences for SRL suggests an indirect effect of teachers’ motivation to promote SRL to students’ SRL skills via teachers’ SRL promotion (Karlen et al., 2020). In line with these theoretical assumptions, teachers’ motivation was indirectly but not directly related to students’ motivation. Thus, hypothesis 3 could be confirmed.
Looking at which motivational constructs are indirectly related, teachers’ self-efficacy to promote SRL in this study indirectly predicted students’ self-efficacy, utility value, and attainment value via teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion. This is in line with previous findings, showing that teachers’ self-efficacy for students’ motivational outcomes has been important for other educational contexts (Burić & Kim, 2020; Lauermann & Berger, 2021) and has also been identified as crucial for teachers’ SRL promotion (De Smul et al., 2019; Jud et al., 2023). Thus, hypothesis 3a could only partially be confirmed.
No indirect effects regarding teachers’ attainment value on students’ motivational outcomes could be found, leading to the rejection of Hypotheses 3b. Although proof of a transmission from teachers’ to students’ values has been found, there is a need to differentiate the mechanisms of how these values are transmitted (Parrisius et al., 2020). First, it must be considered that teachers’ values must be translated into observable behaviour before they influence students’ values (Eccles, 2007; Lauermann & Berger, 2021). Thus, the degree to which teachers’ attainment values manifest in observable SRL promotion needs consideration. On a correlational basis, student-reported SRL promotion was related to teachers’ attainment values, which indicates that teachers’ attainment values might somehow manifest themselves into concrete actions. However, in the path model, only self-efficacy remained a significant predictor of teacher-reported SRL promotion, corresponding to previous results (Jud et al., 2023). A reason for the missing relations between teachers’ attainment value and students’ SRL motivation in the path model could be the limited amount of variance at the class level (Bardach & Klassen, 2021). As self-efficacy was repeatedly shown to be the most important predictor of teachers’ promotion (e.g. Jud et al., 2023; Karlen et al., 2023), there might not be enough variance to be explained by other motivational constructs at the teacher level. Additionally, our study focused on teachers’ attainment value regarding the specific task of promoting SRL. Teachers’ values regarding the importance of students’ self-regulating skills have been shown to be related to teachers’ SRL promotion (e.g. De Smul et al., 2019). Thus, teachers’ students-oriented attainment value might be more related to SRL promotion than teachers’ attainment value for the promotion itself. Second, teachers’ values might be an enabling resource for different classroom practices but are potentially not sufficient, and teachers need a deep understanding of SRL and professional development to implement teaching practices successfully (Cheon et al., 2018; Parrisius et al., 2020). Therefore, although teachers might put a high attainment value on promoting SRL, they still might not know how to translate it into effective classroom actions that might impact students’ SRL motivation. For effective promotion of SRL, it can be assumed that various professional competences must work together (Karlen et al., 2020).
Taken together, the results indicate that in the context of SRL, teachers’ perception of ability in the form of self-efficacy is a decisive factor for links between teachers’ and students’ motivation. Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy to promote SRL leads them to engage in SRL, which in turn influences students’ SRL motivation.
Contribution of teacher- and student-perspectives – how is the signal transmitted?
The fourth research question analysed the effect of incorporating teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion. Previous studies relating teachers’ competences and students’ outcomes in the context of SRL included only teachers’ perceptions of SRL promotion. They did not find positive relations between teachers’ and students’ competences (Dignath, 2021; Heirweg et al., 2020). Therefore, including student perspectives and alignment of teacher and student perspectives on classroom practices, including SRL promotion, has been considered pivotal (Dignath, 2021; Lauermann & Berger, 2021).
The results of the three different models align with these arguments and underline the importance of including the student perspective and the alignment of teacher and student perspective when looking for links between teachers’ and students’ motivation for SRL. First, results from model 2 indicate that the indirect relations disappear when the student-reported SRL promotion is not included. This becomes apparent as teacher-reported SRL promotion is not related to students’ SRL motivation. Second, the results from model 3 reveal that the same indirect relations from the full-perspective model appear. These two findings confirm previous results that teachers’ motivation is related to teacher-reported variables rather than student-reported variables, and students’ self-reports of instructional practices are stronger predictors of student outcomes (Karlen et al., 2023; Lauermann & Butler, 2021; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015). Additionally, it highlights previous arguments that teachers’ motivation must first be transferred into observable behaviour in the classroom, and students must notice such behaviour before it can influence their motivation (Eccles, 2007; Lauermann & Berger, 2021). Additionally, the relation between teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion was significant in the full-perspective model. This model showed almost the same indirect relations as the model, including only the student-reported SRL promotion, although modest relations were found in previous research (Fauth et al., 2020a). These results show that the alignment between the two perspectives is crucial when integrating both, as argued in previous research (Lauermann & Berger, 2021).
Taken together, the findings of this study confirm the urgent need to account for rater-specific effects when analysing the relationship between teachers’ and students’ motivation. The alignment between teacher and student perspectives and especially students’ perspectives on teachers’ SRL promotion is essential when looking for indirect links between the two levels (Karlen et al., 2023; Lauermann & ten Hagen, 2021).
Limitations and future directions
Several limitations must be considered in the interpretation of the results of this study. First, the ICC values for students’ motivational constructs were relatively low (see Table 1). This circumstance has already been the case in former studies (e.g. Karabenick et al., 2021), which means that within a class, there is only a small amount of shared motivation, and individual differences between students regarding their SRL exist. This is not surprising as analyses showed that different profiles of self-regulated learners exist with differences in the use of strategies (Heirweg et al., 2019; Karlen, 2016). The use of strategies, in turn, is related to students’ motivation to use strategies (Karabenick et al., 2021). Therefore, although the ICC 1 values were still high enough to account for the effects of class membership (LeBreton & Senter, 2008) the effects on the class level must interpreted with caution due to the low ICC values.
Second, in our study, we nested students within classes and related them to their class teachers. However, the measure of student-reported SRL promotion did not refer specifically to the class teachers (example item: “During class, my teachers often explain why and how strategies are used.“). Therefore, the students might have referred in their answers to teachers teaching in general and the answers are not perfectly aligned with their class teachers’ SRL promotion. However, class teachers are the most important teachers to their classes as they usually teach them most of their subjects and are responsible for developing their learning process. Nevertheless, looking for more differentiated findings, future studies might consider aligning the measures more specifically.
Third, our results relied on a cross-sectional data design. Therefore, no conclusions on the temporal effect of teachers’ motivation and their SRL promotion on students’ motivation could be drawn from the results. Longitudinal research in the context of motivational transmission processes is highly needed because it would allow us to discover more about the causality and temporal order between teacher motivation, teacher behaviour, and student motivational outcomes (Bardach & Klassen, 2021). Although frameworks highlight teacher motivation as an antecedent construct of instructional behaviour in the context of SRL (Karlen et al., 2020), longitudinal research from other contexts revealed that the effect could be the other way around (Holzberger et al., 2013). For instance, teachers’ self-efficacy might not only be an antecedent of students’ SRL motivation, but highly motivated students might also influence teachers’ perception of their abilities to promote SRL. Further, students’ motivation for SRL is likely to develop, as with continuing practice and skills, the cognitive load, and consequently, the effort costs, decrease (Wirth et al., 2020). Therefore, longitudinal research could give further insights into how students’ SRL motivation develops with corresponding teacher motivation and SRL promotion.
Fourth, our study did not differ between students’ motivation and teachers’ promotion of different strategies. SRL includes a variety of strategies, and students’ motivation for various strategies differs. For instance, in a former study, help-seeking was more valued and less costly than planning strategies (Karabenick et al., 2021). The results of our study suggest that teachers can promote students’ values and self-efficacy for SRL, and teachers’ self-efficacy to promote SRL matters in this process. However, teachers might not equally feel self-efficacious regarding different strategies, which might influence the promotion of the strategies and the resulting student motivation. Thus, studies that include teachers’ and students’ motivation regarding different strategies could deliver more nuanced suggestions on fostering students’ SRL motivation.
Finally, our study included teachers’ and students’ perspectives on SRL promotion, which is decisive for understanding the effects of teachers’ motivation to promote SRL on students’ SRL motivation. However, further measures of teachers’ SRL promotion, such as classroom videos, would strengthen the results (Bardach & Klassen, 2021).
Theoretical and educational implications
Previous research recommends considering how to conceptualise teachers’ motivation when analysing relations between teachers’ motivation and students’ outcomes. While using more specific constructs (e.g. teachers’ motivation to teach a specific class) might lead to more consistent findings, research using more general constructs might be of more theoretical importance when finding significant relations (Bardach & Klassen, 2021). Our study used more general constructs as empirical findings on theoretically assumed relations between teachers’ and students’ motivation in the context of SRL are scarce. Regarding the findings of our study, they strengthen theoretical frameworks in the context of SRL, indicating an indirect link between teachers’ motivation, their SRL promotion, and students’ motivation. Additionally, it strengthens the pivotal role of SRL promotion not only on a class but also on an individual level. For research on the transmission of teacher motivation to student motivation, our findings confirm the importance of including teacher- and student-perspectives. Further, it opens the ground for more in-depth analysis regarding the interplay of teachers’ motivation to promote SRL and students’ SRL motivation, including integrating longitudinal research designs, incorporating more constructs at the teacher, class and student level (e.g. teachers’ motivation to self-regulate their learning, students’ metacognitive knowledge about SRL), and using more precise measures to assess context-specific aspects (e.g. students’ SRL motivation in a certain task, teacher specific measures).
For education and professional development, the study highlights that special attention should be drawn to teachers’ motivation, specifically teachers’ self-efficacy, as it is not only related to teachers’ SRL promotion but also indirectly to students’ SRL motivation. Central sources of fostering self-efficacy are the successful performance of a task (mastery experiences), modelling how to perform a task (vicarious learning), or giving positive appraisals (verbal persuasion) (Bandura, 1997). To support teachers’ successful implementation of SRL promotion, teachers should be provided with various teaching materials that can be easily incorporated into their lessons. (e.g. working sheets, which include the application of strategies, information about different strategies, etc.). Further information on various techniques for successfully promoting strategies and the importance of strategy promotion regarding students’ SRL motivation should be provided. Next, working materials and information should be complemented with specific examples to best model how to integrate this material and techniques in their regular classes. Additionally, teachers should be given the possibility to discuss SRL promotion practices and collaboration possibilities with their colleagues, as these occasions have been shown to influence teachers’ self-efficacy positively (Heirweg et al., 2020).
Conclusion
The findings from this multilevel research contribute valuable empirical evidence regarding the relationships between teachers’ and students’ motivation in the context of SRL. The results indicate an indirect signal between teachers’ self-efficacy for promoting SRL and students’ self-efficacy and different values through teacher- and student-reported SRL promotion. Consequently, teachers’ motivation can foster teacher behaviour conducive to adopting beneficial SRL practices in the classroom, ultimately supporting students’ motivation for SRL. However, the findings of the study reveal that it is crucial for research in the context of SRL to account for rater-specific considerations: The alignment between teacher- and student-perceptions and, especially including student-reported SRL promotion is essential when trying to trace signals between teachers’ and students’ characteristics.
Data availability
The data are available from the corresponding author on request.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Co.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74(3), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00567.
Bardach, L., & Klassen, R. M. (2021). Teacher motivation and student outcomes: Searching for the signal. Educational Psychologist, 56(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1991799.
Burić, I., & Kim, L. E. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: An analysis using multilevel structural equation modeling. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101302.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Why autonomy-supportive interventions work: Explaining the professional development of teachers’ motivating style. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.022.
De Smul, M., Heirweg, S., Van Keer, H., Devos, G., & Vandevelde, S. (2018). How competent do teachers feel instructing self-regulated learning strategies? Development and validation of the teacher self-efficacy scale to implement self-regulated learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.001.
De Smul, M., Heirweg, S., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2019). School and teacher determinants underlying teachers’ implementation of self-regulated learning in primary education. Research Papers in Education, 34(6), 701–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1536888.
Dignath, C. (2021). For unto every one that hath shall be given: Teachers’ competence profiles regarding the promotion of self-regulated learning moderate the effectiveness of short-term teacher training. Metacognition and Learning, 16(3), 555–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09271-x.
Dignath, C., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2021). The role of direct strategy instruction and indirect activation of self-regulated learning—evidence from classroom observation studies. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 489–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09534-0.
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Families, schools, and developing achievement-related motivations and engagement. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (Paperback ed, pp. 665–691). Guilford Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Moitvational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., & Meece, J. L. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic vehaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of Metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.
Fauth, B., Göllner, R., Lenske, G., Praetorius, A. K., & Wagner, W. (2020a). Who sees what? Conceptual considerations on the measurement of teaching quality from different perspectives. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik (Beiheft), 66. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:25870.
Fauth, B., Wagner, W., Bertram, C., Göllner, R., Roloff, J., Lüdtke, O., Polikoff, M. S., Klusmann, U., & Trautwein, U. (2020b). Don’t blame the teacher? The need to account for classroom characteristics in evaluations of teaching quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(6), 1284–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000416.
Flavell, J. H. (1970). Developmental studies of mediated memory. In H. W. Reese & L. Lipsitt P. (Eds.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 181–211). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60467-X.
Frenzel, A. C., Becker-Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Lüdtke, O. (2018). Emotion transmission in the classroom revisited: A reciprocal effects model of teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(5), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000228.
Gaspard, H., Häfner, I., Parrisius, C., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2017). Assessing task values in five subjects during secondary school: Measurement structure and mean level differences across grade level, gender, and academic subject. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.003.
Greene, J. A. (2018). Self-regulation in education. Routledge.
Hasselhorn, M. (1995). Beyond production deficiency and utilization inefficiency: Mechanisms of the emergence of strategic categorization in episodic memory tasks. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Memory performance and competencies (pp. 141–159). Mahwah.
Heirweg, S., De Smul, M., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2019). Profiling upper primary school students’ self-regulated learning through self-report questionnaires and think-aloud protocol analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 70, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.02.001.
Heirweg, S., De Smul, M., Merchie, E., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2020). Do you reap what you sow? The relationship between primary school students’ self-regulated learning and student, teacher, and school determinants. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(1), 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1797829.
Heirweg, S., De Smul, M., Merchie, E., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2021). The long road from teacher professional development to student improvement: A school-wide professionalization on self-regulated learning in primary education. Research Papers in Education, 37(6), 929–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1905703.
Hertel, S., & Karlen, Y. (2021). Implicit theories of self-regulated learning: Interplay with students’ achievement goals, learning strategies, and metacognition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 972–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12402.
Hirt, C. N., Jud, J., Rosenthal, A., & Karlen, Y. (2022). How motivated are teachers to promote self-regulated learning? A latent Profile Analysis in the context of expectancy-value theory. Frontline Learning Research, 10(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v10i2.1113.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198.
Jud, J., Hirt, C. N., Rosenthal, A., & Karlen, Y. (2023). Teachers’ motivation: Exploring the success expectancies, values and costs of the promotion of self-regulated learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 127, 104093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104093.
Karabenick, S. A., Berger, J. L., Ruzek, E., & Schenke, K. (2021). Strategy motivation and strategy use: Role of student appraisals of utility and cost. Metacognition and Learning, 16, 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09256-2.
Karlen, Y. (2016). Differences in students’ metacognitive strategy knowledge, motivation, and strategy use: A typology of self-regulated learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.942895.
Karlen, Y., & Hertel, S. (2024). Inspiring self-regulated learning in everyday classrooms: Teachers’ professional competences and promotion of self-regulated learning. Unterrichtswissenschaft. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-024-00196-3. s42010-024-00196–3.
Karlen, Y., Merki, K. M., & Ramseier, E. (2014). The effect of individual differences in the development of metacognitive strategy knowledge. Instructional Science, 42(5), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9314-9.
Karlen, Y., Hertel, S., & Hirt, C. N. (2020). Teachers’ Professional competences in Self-regulated learning: An approach to integrate teachers’ competences as self-regulated learners and as agents of self-regulated learning in a holistic manner. Frontiers in Education, 5(159), 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00159.
Karlen, Y., Hirt, C. N., Jud, J., Rosenthal, A., & Eberli, T. D. (2023). Teachers as learners and agents of self-regulated learning: The importance of different teachers competence aspects for promoting metacognition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 104055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104055.
Kosovich, J. J., Hulleman, C. S., Barron, K. E., & Getty, S. (2015). A practical measure of student motivation: Establishing validity evidence for the expectancy-value-cost scale in middle school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5–6), 790–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614556890.
Lauermann, F., & Berger, J. L. (2021). Linking teacher self-efficacy and responsibility with teachers’ self-reported and student-reported motivating styles and student engagement. Learning and Instruction, 76, 101441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101441.
Lauermann, F., & Butler, R. (2021). The elusive links between teachers’ teaching-related emotions, motivations, and self-regulation and students’ educational outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 56(4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1991800.
Lauermann, F., & ten Hagen, I. (2021). Do teachers’ perceived teaching competence and self-efficacy affect students’ academic outcomes? A closer look at student-reported classroom processes and outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 265–282.
Lazarides, R., & Schiefele, U. (2021). Teacher motivation: Implications for instruction and learning. Introduction to the special issue. Learning and Instruction, 76, 101543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101543.
Lazarides, R., Buchholz, J., & Rubach, C. (2018). Teacher enthusiasm and self-efficacy, student-perceived mastery goal orientation, and student motivation in mathematics classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.017.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642.
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7.
Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2008). The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, more reliable approach to group-level effects in contextual studies. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012869.
Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J. S., Abduljabbar, A. S., & Köller, O. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.670488.
Miller, A. D., Ramirez, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2017). The influence of teachers’ self-efficacy on perceptions: Perceived teacher competence and respect and student effort and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.008.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide (8th edition).
OECD. (2019). Future of education and skills 2030. OECD Learning Compass 2030. OECD.
OECD (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. OECD Publishing.
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Development Aspects of Self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_7.
Parrisius, C., Gaspard, H., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2020). The transmission of values from math teachers to their ninth-grade students: T different mechanisms for different value dimensions? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101891.
Perry, N. E., Lisaingo, S., Yee, N., Parent, N., Wan, X., & Muis, K. (2020). Collaborating with teachers to design and implement assessments for self-regulated learning in the context of authentic classroom writing tasks. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 416–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2020.1801576
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3.
PressIey, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategies users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta, & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals of child development (4th ed., pp. 89–129). JAI.
Pressley, M., Borkwski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(8), 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90069-4.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Schiefele, U. (2017). Classroom management and mastery-oriented instruction as mediators of the effects of teacher motivation on student motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.004.
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.005.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002359.
Suter, F., Karlen, Y., Merki, K. M., & Hirt, C. N. (2022). The relationship between success and failure causal attributions and achievement goal orientations. Learning and Individual Differences, 100, 102225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102225.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308475.
Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). Measuring the complexity of upper primary school children’s self-regulated learning: A multi-component approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.09.002.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Training metacognitive skills in students with availability and production deficiencies. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 299–324). Information Age Publishing.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.
Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Werth, S., Voss, T., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Student and teacher ratings of instructional quality: Consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000075.
White, M. C., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2015). Self-regulation and the common core (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315882840.
White, M. C., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2017). Self-Regulation. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed., pp. 208–222). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-14.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
Wirth, J., Stebner, F., Trypke, M., Schuster, C., & Leutner, D. (2020). An interactive layers model of self-regulated learning and cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 1127–1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09568-4.
Zee, M., Koomen, H. M. Y., & De Jong, P. F. (2018). How different levels of conceptualization and measurement affect the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and students’ academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.006.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.
Zimmermann, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 45–69). Information Age Publishing.
Zou, H., Yao, J., Zhang, Y., & Huang, X. (2023). The influence of teachers’ intrinsic motivation on students’ intrinsic motivation: The mediating role of teachers’ motivating style and teacher-student relationships. Psychology in the Schools, pits.23050. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23050.
Funding
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation [Grant 100019_189133].
Open access funding provided by University of Zurich
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors have approved the final article. Johannes Jud: Conceptualization, data curation and collection, writing original draft, formal analysis, review & editing. Yves Karlen: Funding acquisition, administration, data curation and collection, formal analysis, writing original draft, review & editing. Carmen Nadja Hirt: Data curation and collection, review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and their legal guardians.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Jud, J., Karlen, Y. & Hirt, C.N. Linking teachers’ and students’ motivation for self-regulated learning: is there a signal and how is it transmitted?. Metacognition Learning (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09393-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09393-y