Overall Summary and Discussion

The first two studies presented in this dissertation deal with one specific component of the first layer of self-regulated learning according to Boekaerts (1999), namely the regulation of the self. While a large amount of previous research has focused on students’

goal orientations as well as motivational regulation processes (Boekaerts, 1999), little research has focused yet on how students cope with specific negative emotions with the exception of test anxiety; specifically the emotion boredom has been previously overlooked (Pekrun et al., 2002; Vodanovich, 2003b). This lack of research exists despite boredom being a very common emotion (Larson & Richards, 1991) and despite teachers’ efforts to generate interesting lessons (Belton & Priyadharshini, 2007). It seems obvious that teachers cannot prevent every student from being bored all of the time. Some students simply perceive certain issues as boring. Thus, researchers and practitioners need to evaluate students’ personal strategies for coping with boredom. Additionally, while studying at university and in the workplace, boredom-inducing tasks cannot always be omitted and are often necessary requirements. As such, self-regulatory strategies to protect the self against this negative deactivating emotion are highly necessary and should be developed and fostered earlier in

school, before students enter university or the job market. Finally, in regards to theoretical assumptions concerning students’ coping with boredom (Vodanovich, 2003b), a theoretical framework on coping with boredom strategies was developed, based on a well-established framework of coping with stress by Holahan et al. (1996). In the first two studies, this framework was used to evaluate students’ strategies for coping with boredom.

The evaluation and validation of newly developed scales to assess coping with boredom as well as the gain of structural information about students’ coping with boredom was the focus of the first study (Chapter 2). Consistent with results on strategies to cope with stress, the data was expected to confirm to a model in which students’ strategies for coping with boredom were categorized along two dichotomous dimensions, namely approach-avoidance and cognitive-behavioral. As we sought to analyze both inter-individual differences in coping behavior and the intra-individual effectiveness of combinations of coping strategies, patterns in students’ use of different coping strategies were identified by latent profile analysis and a second step tested for their effectiveness.

Results confirmed the theoretical two-dimensional framework of cognitive-approach, cognitive-avoidance, behavioral-approach, and behavioral-avoidance strategies. The cognitive-approach strategy in particular seems to be quite extraordinary, as it was found to be negatively or not related to the other strategies, the rest of which were consistently positively related to each other. This pattern of results may be caused by differences in students’ sense of the source of their boredom. For example, students who are aware that their perceptions of a situation may be connected to their experiences of boredom during this situation may be more likely to put effort into changing their own perceptions than students who view the teacher or situation as being exclusively responsible for their boredom. The unique function of the cognitive-approach strategies was further confirmed when examining the different pattern in students’ use of the four coping strategies. Three different patterns in the use of these strategies emerged amongst the students sampled: Reappraisers, Criticizers and Evaders.

Reappraisers appeared to be the most adaptive in terms of their lower frequency of boredom reports, and they endorsed cognitive-approach strategies more than average and the three other strategies less than the average of the other groups. This supports our belief that cognitive-approach strategies (i.e., reappraisal) may be especially important in ameliorating boredom, as these strategies may allow students to increase the perceived value of the situation or content. Also of note, the Reappraisers were the only group characterized by only

two different strategies on average. Criticizers relied mainly on behavioral-approach strategies. This type of strategy generally involves verbalizing one’s feelings of boredom and making demands of the teacher to alter the lesson to be more engaging and less boring. In addition, Criticizers used cognitive- and behavioral-avoidance strategies more often than average, suggesting these students try to find distractions when presented with a boring lesson. This group was the smallest group and provided the least characteristic profile. Unlike the other two groups, Evaders’ favored avoidance strategies over approach strategies. Rather than try to directly resolve their boredom using cognitive or behavioral strategies, these students were more likely to distract themselves. Evaders and Criticizers similarly showed low endorsement of cognitive-approach strategies as well as similarly above average levels of cognitive- and behavioral-avoidance strategies. They differed, however, with respect to behavioral-approach, which was highest in Criticizers and below average in Evaders.

In the second study (Chapter 3) the first study was replicated as well as extended by not only assessing trait measures of coping strategies by questionnaires, but additionally employing the experience sampling method to gain situational measures of students’ coping behavior. The theoretical two dimensional framework differentiating the four strategies of cognitive-approach, cognitive-avoidance, behavioral-approach, and behavioral-avoidance was again confirmed. Furthermore, consistent with the previous study, the distinctness of cognitive-approach was confirmed by the negative or not significant relation with the other strategies, which were again consistently positively related or not significantly related to each other. Likewise, as in the first study, groups of students with coping strategy patterns corresponding with Reappraisers and Evaders could be found. However, no group similar to the Criticizers could be identified. The relation between Reappraisers and Evaders to their trait-based reported frequency of experiencing boredom in the classroom was similarly consistent with the findings from Study I with Reappraisers being bored less often than Evaders. This strengthens the assumption that the coping style of Reappraisers seems to be preferable to the way Evaders deal with their boredom. The fact that the existence of the group of Criticizers could not be confirmed might be due to smaller sample size as discussed in Chapter 3, but it also might be due to the fact that the behavioral-approach strategy is not possible to use in the classroom, a fact which might be more apparent for older students than younger students. As the average age of the sample in Study I is lower than the age in Study II, where a more homogenous sample of grade 11 students was assessed, this fact may account for the difference in the emergence of Criticizers in the two studies.

These results and conclusions based on the trait-based assessment represent students’

generalized thoughts concerning their coping strategies in response to boring classroom settings. These conclusions were strengthened by the results of the state-based assessment of Study II that measured students’ actual behavior concerning strategy use in response to boring classroom settings. Experiences of boredom were reported very frequently, as was cognitive-approach behavior and behavioral-avoidance behavior. However, behavioral-cognitive-approach behavior was reported very seldom, thus indicating an additional reason why the group of Criticizers might not have been possible to identify. Overall, the state-based results confirm that, on the one hand, the utility of cognitive-approach behaviors is negatively related to the experience of boredom but positively related to value, and on the other hand, the other strategies, especially the avoidance strategies, are less adaptive for coping with boredom.

They provide an insight into actual coping behavior as well as momentary relations between the different constructs of academic achievement emotions. Although this information is very helpful in determining the most adaptive strategies, directional interpretations are unfortunately precluded.

The relationship between the trait and the state assessment was revealed to be quite heterogeneous. While the frequency of boredom, as well as the use of cognitive-approach and behavioral-avoidance behaviors could be predicted at least to some degree, cognitive-avoidance as well as behavioral-approach behaviors were not predicted by trait-based measures at all. Overall, these findings indicate that although trait measures might have predictive validity to some degree, they are not able to predict, or even replace, state-based measures. They might provide the opportunity to analyze the structure of newly developed scales and constructs, but they are not able to consider situational aspects of behavior and therefore are limited in the assessment of constructs very closely connected to situational circumstances. Conversely, state-based assessments, especially the experience sampling method, not only provide the opportunity to assess situational aspects of certain behaviors, but they also allow for description of the development of behaviors toward one specific event as shown in the third study in Chapter 4.

Data assessment, and therefore data analysis, for the third study was performed in two steps. First, students were asked if they occupied themselves with test-related cognitions sometime within the previous hour. Only if students indicated that they had thought about the test at least a little bit were further questions about the use of the three metacognitive

provides several advantages. It is the most economical because it does not ask the participants unnecessary questions. Further, it minimizes the amount of repeated questions about learning behavior that might otherwise be interventional in nature and inherent to learning diaries (Huebner et al., 2009). On the other hand, it must be admitted that this item is quite unspecific and does not clearly focus on learning related cognitions. It could also be interpreted to include other thoughts, such as worrying about the test outcome. The results show, however, that students’ test-related cognitions are situation specific in nature and grow in frequency as the test gets closer in time. Students’ test-related cognitions and the growth parameters of the developmental slope over time of these cognitions are related to students’ improvements on the test. Furthermore, this admittedly unspecific measurement item provides quite a good estimator for metacognitive strategies as 86% of the time students were thinking about the test, they were also using one of the three metacognitive strategies assessed.

It is noteworthy that although all three of these metacognitive strategies and the all-inclusive item of general cognitions show a very similar development over time as the date of the test approaches, only the metacognitive strategy of monitoring seems to have a similar, albeit weaker, relation to test improvement than the general test-related cognitions. Two possible conclusions seem most obvious in response to these results. First, it might be possible that students’ general thoughts include specific cognitions, other than the three metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring and evaluation that may be more closely connected to test improvement and may therefore contribute to the relationship between thinking about the test and test performance. To assess this further, open-ended questions are required to analyze the specific content of general test-related thoughts. Second, it might be possible that these findings support the statement from Vancouver and Day (2005) that self-regulation is more than just the sum of its parts and that this item, although quite unspecific, reflects the sum of components more than the items that reflect one specific strategy. This assumption requires further research in terms of the evaluation of the interrelations of the specific strategies.

Overall, although Study I and II differ from Study III in focusing on different strategies related to learning, there are two results that are consistent over all three studies and contribute to the research on students’ learning in school. First, all three studies suggest that, generally speaking, students seem to possess the ability to regulate themselves emotionally as well as metacognitively, at least to some degree. Study II and Study III especially indicate that some appropriate strategies are employed in certain situations, and further, that if these

strategies are employed they can lead to the desired outcome. All three studies further clarify that it is important not only to consider inter-individual differences, but also intra-individual patterns of strategy use. In Study I and Study II it was the intra-individual pattern in the use of different boredom coping strategies that was related to both the frequency of boredom and also the actual boredom coping behavior. In Study III, it was the intra-individual development and use of metacognitive strategies that was connected to test improvement. This shows that in addition to inter-individual relations, which can give information about the success of certain strategies, analyses considering intra-individual pattern provide the possibility to detect the most effective patterns of behavior.

Second, the results of the studies underpin the importance of considering situational components when evaluating learning behavior and regulation processes. Although trait-based data, such as that evaluated in Study I, provides valuable information about the structure of learning behavior and intra-individual differences in the use of different patterns of learning strategies, in Study II and Study III it could be shown that situational components affect the actual use of these learning strategies. The data showed that some strategies are used very spontaneously, such as cognitive-approach behavior in Study II or monitoring in Study III. On the other hand other strategies, even if they might be useful, are very rarely employed, such as behavioral-approach in Study II or evaluation in Study III. Furthermore, some theoretically valuable strategies, such as behavioral-approach in Study II or planning and evaluation in Study III, even if employed are not very effective. These observations lead to the assumption that it might be situational factors that either prevent the use of these strategies or impair or even avert their effectiveness.

According to most prevalent theories of self-regulated learning, learning can only occur if the environment provides the opportunity to use self-regulation strategies and if these strategies are furthermore a requirement in that learning environment (Boekaerts, 1999;

De Corte et al., 2004). For example, Study II showed that behavioral-approach strategies are not used very often, although an open feedback about students’ boredom and suggestions for how to change the classroom setting to reduce the boredom could obviously help teachers to adapt their instruction according to students’ needs. However, this strategy is very rarely used, either because students do not have the opportunity to give feedback about the lesson or because this strategy seems to not be effective and therefore is not sensible to use. On the other hand, in Study III, the metacognitive strategy planning was used in that students

test improvement. As students’ test-related cognitions occurred mostly in learning situations, and very often in the classroom setting, it is possible that planning often happens in conjunction with the teacher; therefore, the self-reflected use of this strategy turns out not to be effective or necessary, as the teacher himself performs this task.

This dissertation contributes to present research in terms of its detailed analysis of not only students trait-based self-reports on regulation processes, but also students’ actual behavior in response to certain situations. The results confirm that this is a very important aspect of academic learning which has been very often ignored in previous research. The experience sampling method provides the possibility to assess these behaviors in an economic, valid and reliable way (Hektner et al., 2007).