Self-Regulation in School
Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades des Doktors der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.)
Eingereicht an der
Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Sektion der Universität Konstanz
Fachbereich Psychologie
Vorgelegt im Januar 2010 von Ulrike Elisabeth Nett
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 14. April 2010 1. Referent: Prof. Dr. Thomas Götz,
Universität Konstanz
2. Referentin: PD Dr. Anne C Frenzel, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Für meine Eltern, Waltraut und Johann Nett
Danksagung
Während der Arbeit an der vorliegenden Dissertation wurde ich von sehr vielen Menschen unterstützt. Auf den Augenblick, wenn diese Arbeit abgeschlossen ist und ich mich bei all den Menschen, die zu ihrem Gelingen beigetragen haben, bedanken kann, habe ich mich oft schon im Voraus gefreut. Nun ist dieser Moment endlich gekommen und ich muss feststellen, dass das Schreiben einer Danksagung schwieriger als erwartet ist, insbesondere wenn sie nicht länger als die Dissertation werden soll. Daher wird dieser Dank nun eigentlich viel zu knapp und unvollständig, kommt aber nicht weniger von Herzen:
Prof. Dr. Thomas Götz, mein Doktorvater, hat mir große Freiräume und Möglichkeiten gewährt, in denen ich meine eigenen Forschungsinteressen entwickeln und verfolgen konnte. Zeitgleich stand er mir jederzeit mit fundiertem Rat zur Seite und nahm sich stets Zeit um inhaltliche und methodische Probleme zu diskutieren. Für diese wertvolle und fördernde Kombination aus Vertrauen in meine selbständige Arbeit und tatkräftiger Unterstützung möchte ich ihm ganz besonders danken.
Prof. Dr. Anne C. Frenzel, meiner Zweitgutachterin, möchte ich vor allem für ihre mitreißende Begeisterungsfähigkeit und zahlreiche spannende Gespräche danken.
Den Mitarbeiterinnen und Doktorandinnen der Arbeitsgruppe, Elena C. Daschmann, Dr. Hanna Cronjäger, Birgit Wimmer, Antonie Collier, Viktoria Link und Jun.-Prof. Dr. Sarah E. Martiny, danke ich für die jederzeit fröhliche Zusammenarbeit, ihre fachlichen Anregungen, die freundschaftliche Hilfsbereitschaft und nicht zuletzt für die Möglichkeit, während gemeinsamer Pausen auch einmal nicht über die Arbeit zu sprechen.
Alle studentischen Hilfskräfte der Arbeitsgruppe, ganz besonders aber Olivia Küster, Jule Lehr, Johannes Moser, Eva Müller, Christina Nufer, Sarah Ruppe, Larissa Seitz, Franziska Steuer und Annemarie Straka haben die Arbeit an dieser Dissertation begleitet, angefangen bei den ersten Anschreiben an die Schulen, der Datenerhebung und -eingabe, bis hin zur Formatierung des Literaturverzeichnisses. Ihnen danke ich für ihren unermüdlichen Einsatz und ihre große Flexibilität zu jeder Zeit.
Dr. Lia Daniels, Dr. Nathan C. Hall und Lauren Musu-Gillette danke ich für die unkomplizierte Überseekooperation, ihre inhaltlichen Anregungen und ihre sprachliche Geduld.
Den Schülerinnen und Schülern, Lehrerinnen und Lehrern die an den Studien teilgenommen haben, danke ich für Ihre Teilnahme und für Ihre Wertschätzung der Empirischen Bildungsforschung.
Robert Dietl danke ich für seine Ruhe, seinen Optimismus und die Sicherheit, die er mir gibt in allem, was ich tue. Meiner Familie, meinen Schwestern Christine Nett und Stephanie Nett und meinen Eltern Waltraut und Johann Nett danke ich für die Geborgenheit und das Zutrauen, die ich während meines ganzen Lebens erfahren durfte. Ihnen verdanke ich eigentlich alles.
Ulrike E. Nett August, 2010
Vorveröffentlichungen der Dissertation
Teilergebnisse dieser Dissertation wurden bereits in folgenden Beiträgen vorgestellt:
Publikationen
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Hall, N. (submitted). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Daniels, L. (submitted). What to Do When Feeling Bored? Students' Strategies for Coping with Boredom.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., Hall, N., & Frenzel, A. C. (submitted). Metacognitive Strategies and Test Performance: An Experience Sampling Analysis of Students' Learning Behavior.
Konferenzbeiträge
Nett, U. E., Daniels, L., Goetz, T., Cronjaeger, H., & Kuegow, E. C. (2008, August). Coping with Boredom in Mathematics. Poster presented at the 11th International Conference on Motivation, Turku, Finnland.
Nett, U. E., Daniels, L., Cronjaeger, H., Kuegow, E. C., & Goetz, T. (2009, April). How do you cope with boredom? Common strategies for dealing with a negative emotion.
Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA, USA.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., Kuegow, E. C., Wimmer, B. M. (2009, September). Langeweile- Coping im Unterricht. Unterschiedliche Muster im Umgang mit einer alltäglichen Emotion. Vortrag auf der 10. Arbeitstagung der Fachgruppe Differentielle
Psychologie, Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Psychologische Diagnostik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Landau, Deutschland.
Nett, U. E., Hall, N. C., Daschmann, E. C., Wimmer, B. M., & Goetz, T. (2010, April).
Coping with Boredom in School: An Experience Sampling Analysis. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Denver, CO, USA.
Contents
1.1 Self-regulation in School 9
1.1.1 The Concept of Self-regulated Learning 10
1.1.2 Traits and States in Self-regulated Learning 13
1.2 The Present Dissertation 14
1.2.1 Research Goals 14
1.2.2 Dissertation Outline 17
2.1 Summary 19
2.2 Introduction 20
2.2.1 Boredom at School 20
2.2.2 Occurrence of Boredom at School 21
2.2.3 Relevance of Boredom at School 22
2.2.4 Causes of Boredom at School 23
2.2.5 Coping with Boredom at School 24
2.2.6 Classification System of Students’ Strategies of Coping with Boredom 24 2.2.7 Effectiveness of Different Strategies of Coping with Boredom 26
2.2.8 Contributions of the Present Study 27
2.3 Research Aims and Hypotheses 27
2.3.1 Aims of the Study 27
2.3.2 Research Hypotheses 28
2.4 Method 29
2.4.1 Participants and Data Collection 29
2.4.2 Variables and Study Measures 29
2.5 Results 32
2.5.1 Structural Validity of the Scales 32
2.5.2 Identification of Boredom Coping Groups 34
2.5.3 Group Differences 39
Summary 1
Zusammenfassung 5
1 General Introduction 9
2 What to Do When Feeling Bored? Students’ Strategies for Coping with Boredom 19
2.6 Discussion 44 2.6.1 The Structure of Strategies of Coping with Boredom 45 2.6.2 Different Types of Students’ Behavior in Coping with Boredom 46 2.6.3 Relationships between Coping with Boredom and Aspects of Academic
Achievement Situations 47
2.6.4 Overall Pattern 49
2.7 Implications 49
2.7.1 Implications for Research 49
2.7.2 Implications for Practice 50
3.1 Summary 51
3.2 Introduction 52
3.2.1 Boredom in the Classroom 53
3.2.2 Boredom-related Coping Strategies 55
3.2.3 Boredom-related Coping: Trait versus State Assessments 58
3.2.4 The Present Research 60
3.3 Research Aims and Hypotheses 60
3.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Trait Assessment 61
3.3.2 Hypothesis 2: State Assessment 62
3.3.3 Hypothesis 3: Trait and State Assessment Relations 63
3.4 Method 63
3.4.1 Participants and Data Collection 63
3.4.2 Variables and Study Measures 64
3.4.3 Statistical Analysis 65
3.5 Results 66
3.5.1 Trait Assessment 66
3.5.2 State Assessment 73
3.5.3 State and Trait Assessment Relations 76
3.6 Discussion 80
3.6.1 Trait Assessments of Coping Strategies 80
3.6.2 State Assessments of Boredom and Coping Behavior 81 3.6.3 Relations between Trait and State Assessments 83 3 Coping with Boredom in School: An Experience Sampling Perspective 51
4.1 Summary 89
4.2 Introduction 90
4.2.1 Metacognitive Strategies 91
4.2.2 Metacognitive Strategies and Academic Performance 93
4.2.3 Measuring Metacognitive Strategies 94
4.2.4 The Present Study 96
4.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses 96
4.3.1 Research Question 1 97
4.3.2 Research Question 2 97
4.4 Method 98
4.4.1 Participants and Data Collection 98
4.4.2 Study Variables 99
4.4.3 Statistical Analysis 100
4.5 Results 101
4.5.1 Hypothesis 1a: Frequency of Test-related Cognitions 101 4.5.2 Hypothesis 1b: Test-related Cognitions and Test Performance 105 4.5.3 Hypothesis 2a: Frequency of Metacognitive Strategy Use 107 4.5.4 Hypothesis 2b: Metacognition and Test Performance 108
4.6 Discussion 114
4.6.1 Hypotheses 1a and 1b: Test-related Cognitions 114 4.6.2 Hypotheses 2a & 2b: Metacognitive Strategies 115 4.7 Implications for Future Research and Practice 118
5.1 Overall Summary and Discussion 121
5.2 Strengths and Limitations 127
5.2.1 The Measurement Instruments 127
5.2.2 Statistical Methods 128
5.2.3 Situational Aspects of Regulation Behavior 129 5.2.4 Interrelations and Generalizability of Results 129
5.3 Implications 131
5.3.1 Implications for Further Research 131
4 Metacognition and Test Performance: An Experience Sampling Analysis of
Students’ Learning Behavior 89
5 General Discussion 121
5.3.2 Implications for Practice 132
6 References 134
7 Index of Figures 148
8 Index of Tables 149
Summary
For people living in our society with its ever shifting positions and responsibilities in the workplace, it is becoming increasingly important to be able to acquire knowledge as well as new skills as quickly, comprehensively and independently as possible. Thus, one of the most important duties of our schools is to facilitate students’ ability to regulate themselves and their learning processes. Self-regulation and self-regulated learning are complex concepts, as demonstrated by current definitions and models. Successful self-regulation depends on the ability to regulate the self both motivationally and emotionally in order to protect the self and the learning process against competing personal needs as well as situational distractions.
Successful self-regulation further requires students to adequately use metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies to organize the learning process efficiently. The studies presented in this dissertation focus on students’ strategies for regulating themselves in order to protect the learning process in school (Study I and Study II) and on students’ metacognitive strategies for organizing the learning process for a test (Study III).
One very important issue of self-regulation is protecting the learning process against internal and external distractions including distracting or deactivating emotions such as anxiety or boredom. Coping successfully with such negative emotions is an important component of self-regulation. Study I focused on the exploration of different strategies for coping with boredom as boredom is one of the most common negative emotions experienced by students in school. Two dimensions of coping, namely approach- versus avoidance- oriented coping and cognitive- versus behavioral-oriented coping were targeted with a questionnaire newly developed for the study. Based on the answers of 976 students (51% female) from grades 5 to 10, confirmatory factor analysis verified the structure of the coping with boredom scales. Following scale verification, latent profile analysis identified 3 different boredom-coping groups: Reappraisers, Criticizers, and Evaders. In a further step, differences between these three groups regarding frequency of boredom experiences, academic achievement, and further emotional, motivational, and cognitive aspects of academic achievement situations, were analyzed. Reappraisers favored cognitive-approach strategies and reported being bored less frequently, they further experienced the most positive pattern of emotional, motivational, and cognitive outcomes as compared to the other two groups. Study II similarly focused on students’ self-regulation skills in terms of protecting the self against experiences of boredom, which could lead to a deactivation of the learning
process. Students’ use of boredom-related coping strategies, as assessed using both trait- and state-based methods, were explored in order to extend the results of Study I. A self-report questionnaire administered to 537 grade 11 students (55 % female) assessed the same trait- based dimensions of coping relevant to boredom as were assessed in Study I, namely approach- versus avoidance-oriented and cognitive- versus behavior-oriented coping strategies. Additionally, 79 participants completed structured, state-based coping measures over a two-week period via the experience sampling method to assess boredom-related coping behaviors. Analyses of trait measures showed participants differed based on two overall approaches to coping with boredom; this was consistent with the Reappraisers and Evaders found in Study I. Further, results also showed that Reappraisers experienced lower boredom levels when assessed using either trait- or state-based methods.
Students’ metacognitive skills of self-regulated learning were the focus for Study III.
Therefore, students’ occupation with thoughts about a test was explored; in particular their use of metacognitive strategies as assessed using the experience sampling method. Altogether 70 grade 11 students (59 % female) completed structured, state-based measures over a two- week period up until the day before the test via the experience sampling method. Results showed that students think more often about the test in learning related situations than they do during their leisure time. Students also apply metacognitive strategies more often as the date of the test draws nearer. This finding underpins students’ self-regulatory ability to preserve their motivational and cognitive resources as well as highlights the goal-oriented nature of situated learning behaviors. Both the frequency with which students think about the test as well as the growth of this frequency toward the test is positively related to test performance.
Amongst the specific metacognitive strategies, monitoring was the only one shown to be related directly to test performance.
Two major conclusions can be drawn from the results of the presented studies: First, generally speaking, students possess the ability to influence their learning process in a self- regulated manner and are able to improve their learning results through use of appropriate strategies. Second, however, students do not employ effective strategies in every situation, thus underpinning the importance of examining situational influences on regulation behavior in addition to dispositional aspects.
The use of trait-based as well as state-based measures provides the opportunity to assess the structure of students’ regulation strategies as well as situational inputs on students’
dissertation extends the understanding of the resources students employ to regulate their own learning. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.
Zusammenfassung
Der Fähigkeit, sich selbständig möglichst schnell und umfassend neues Wissen und neue Fertigkeiten anzueignen, wird in unserer heutigen Gesellschaft immer größere Bedeutung beigemessen, da sich Aufgabenbereiche und Verantwortlichkeiten in beruflichen Positionen schnell verändern und immer neue Anforderungen und Herausforderungen an die Arbeitnehmer gestellt werden. Auch Lehrerinnen und Lehrer betrachten es mittlerweile als eine ihrer wichtigsten Aufgaben, Schülerinnen und Schülern die Fähigkeit zu vermitteln, selbstständig zu lernen. Dennoch ist gerade in Bezug auf die Frage, auf welche Weise und unter welchen Bedingungen optimales selbstreguliertes Lernen funktioniert, noch Vieles ungeklärt. Selbstregulation und selbstreguliertes Lernen sind sehr komplexe Konzepte, wie aktuelle Definitionen und Modelle zur Selbstregulation unterstreichen. Erfolgreiche Selbstregulation hängt nicht nur von der Fähigkeit ab, die eigene Motivation und die eigenen Emotionen regulieren und steuern zu können und so den Lernprozess gegen störende und ablenkende persönliche Bedürfnisse und Reize durch die Umwelt zu schützen. Erfolgreiches selbstreguliertes Lernen erfordert zudem den angemessenen Einsatz von metakognitiven und kognitiven Strategien, um den Lernprozess selbst effizient zu organisieren. In der vorliegenden Dissertation werden drei Studien vorgestellt, in denen einerseits unterschiedliche Strategien untersucht wurden, die Schülerinnen und Schüler einsetzen, um den Lernprozess in der Schule gegen störende Bedürfnisse und Reize zu schützen (Studie I und Studie II), sowie diejenigen metakognitiven Strategien erfasst wurden, die Schülerinnen und Schüler nutzen, um das Lernen auf eine Klassenarbeit zu regulieren (Studie III).
Eine sehr bedeutsame Komponente von Selbstregulation ist es, den Lernprozess gegen internale sowie externale Störungen zu schützen. Dazu zählen auch negative und deaktivierende Emotionen wie beispielsweise Langeweile. In Studie I wurden unterschiedliche Strategien zum Umgang mit Langeweile untersucht, da gerade diese Emotion im Unterricht von Schülerinnen und Schülern besonders häufig erlebt wird. Für Studie I wurde ein Fragebogen entwickelt, der zwischen vier Strategien, nämlich Annäherungs- versus Vermeidungsstrategien sowie kognitiven versus behavioralen Strategien differenziert. Dieser Fragebogen wurde von 976 Schülerinnen und Schülern (51% weiblich) der 5. bis 10.
Jahrgangsstufe beantwortet. Die angenommene Struktur der vier Skalen konnte durch eine konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse bestätigt werden. Aufbauend auf diesem Ergebnis wurden durch eine latente Profilanalyse drei Schülergruppen identifiziert, die unterschiedliche Muster
in ihrem Langeweile-Coping zeigten. Während die erste Schülergruppe sich die Bedeutung des Unterrichts vergegenwärtigte, äußerten Schülerinnen und Schüler der zweiten Gruppe ihren Unmut. Schülerinnen und Schüler der dritten Gruppe lenkten sich durch die Beschäftigung mit anderen Dingen ab. Schülerinnen und Schüler der ersten Gruppe berichteten, sich signifikant seltener zu langweilen und hoben sich auch in weiteren emotionalen, motivationalen und kognitiven Aspekten positiv von den anderen Gruppen ab.
Auch in Studie II wurde untersucht, wie Schülerinnen und Schüler sich im Unterricht selbstregulieren, ebenfalls mit Fokus auf den Umgang mit Langeweile. Aufbauend auf Studie I wurden wiederum die Langweile-Coping-Skalen eingesetzt, in dieser Studie wurde jedoch die Fragebogenerhebung durch eine Experience-Sampling-Erhebung ergänzt. Somit wurde die Trait-Erhebung durch eine State-Erhebung erweitert. Insgesamt nahmen 537 Schülerinnen und Schüler der 11. Jahrgangsstufe (55% weiblich) an der Fragebogenuntersuchung teil, 79 Schülerinnen und Schüler dieser Stichprobe beantworteten zusätzlich während eines Zeitraums von zwei Wochen kurze Fragebögen, die mehrmals am Tag randomisiert auf einem PDA erschienen. Durch Auswertung der Trait-Fragebogendaten konnten in dieser Studie zwei unterschiedliche Schülergruppen identifiziert werden.
Übereinstimmend mit Studie I wurde eine Schülergruppe gefunden, die sich die Bedeutung des Unterrichts vergegenwärtigte und eine Schülergruppe, die sich durch die Beschäftigung mit anderen Dingen ablenkte. Sowohl bei der Analyse der Fragebogendaten als auch der Auswertung der Experience-Sampling-Daten zeigte sich, dass kognitives Annäherungsverhalten, wie zum Beispiel die Vergegenwärtigung der Bedeutung des Unterrichts, mit weniger Langweile in Zusammenhang steht.
Inwieweit Schülerinnen und Schüler die Fähigkeit besitzen, metakognitive Strategien effizient einzusetzen, um den Lernprozess selbstreguliert zu steuern, war die zentrale Fragestellung in Studie III. In diesem Zusammenhang wurde untersucht, wie sehr sich Schülerinnen und Schüler gedanklich mit einer bevorstehenden Klausur auseinandersetzen, insbesondere welche metakognitiven Strategien sie dabei einsetzen. Zu diesem Zweck wurden 70 Schülerinnen und Schüler der 11. Jahrgangstufe (59% weiblich) mit Hilfe der Experience- Sampling-Methode zwei Wochen lang bis einen Tag vor einer stattfindenden Klausur begleitet. Während dieses Zeitraums beantworteten sie mehrmals am Tag randomisiert erscheinende Kurzfragebögen auf einem PDA. Es zeigte sich, dass sich Schülerinnen und Schüler in Lern- und Leistungssituationen weitaus häufiger gedanklich mit der
mehr metakognitive Strategien ein, je näher die Klausur rückte. Dies scheint ein Indiz dafür zu sein, dass Schülerinnen und Schüler tatsächlich in der Lage sind, ihre motivationalen und kognitiven Ressourcen während ihrer Freizeit zu schützen. Zudem bestätigt es die Annahme, dass gerade metakognitive Strategien sehr zielorientiert eingesetzte werden. Sowohl die Häufigkeit, mit der sich Schülerinnen und Schüler mit der Klausur beschäftigen, als auch der Anstieg dieser Häufigkeit bei vorrückendem Klausurdatum hingen positiv mit dem Klausurergebnis zusammen. Unter den spezifischen metakognitiven Lernstrategien stand jedoch nur Monitoring einen direkten Zusammenhang mit dem Klausurergebnis.
Insgesamt können vor allem zwei Schlussfolgerungen aus den Ergebnissen der drei Studien gezogen werden. Einerseits scheinen Schülerinnen und Schüler allgemein betrachtet durchaus die Fähigkeit zu besitzen, ihren Lernprozess selbstständig zu regulieren sowie ihre akademischen Leistungen durch den angemessenen Einsatz bestimmter Strategien positiv zu beeinflussen. Andererseits wurde jedoch auch deutlich, dass Schülerinnen und Schüler nicht in jeder Situation diese angemessenen Strategien auch anwenden. Dies bestätigt den essentiellen Einfluss von situativen Aspekten auf das Lernverhalten von Schülerinnen und Schülern und untermauert somit die Bedeutung von psychologischen Erhebungsmethoden, die nicht nur Persönlichkeitseigenschaften sondern auch diese situativen Aspekte erfassen. Eine Kombination von Erhebungsmethoden, die sowohl die Trait- als auch die Statekomponente von Selbstregulation und selbstregulierten Lernen einbeziehen, stellt daher eine der besonderen Stärken dieser Arbeit dar. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie ermöglichen es, besser zu verstehen, welche Möglichkeiten zur Selbstregulation Schülerinnen und Schüler nutzen können aber auch wann selbstreguliertes Lernen nicht auftritt. Folgerungen und Vorschläge für weitere Forschungsansätze, aber auch für die praktische Umsetzung in der Schule werden abschließend diskutiert.
1 General Introduction
1.1 Self-regulation in School
Research on self-regulated learning has grown over the past three decades from being comparatively neglected to being one of the most intensively studied fields of research in educational psychology (Winne, 2005). The huge increase in interest is in large part attributable to the consensus of policy makers, teachers, educators, parents and researchers concerning the importance of students’ ability to self-regulate themselves and their learning processes (Boekaerts, 1999; Paris & Paris, 2001). The idea of lifelong learning is assuming ever greater importance in our society (Schober et al., 2007). The ever changing positions and responsibilities in the workplace as well as rapidly developing new technologies make it extremely important to be able to acquire knowledge and new skills not only as quickly and comprehensively as possible but also as independently as possible. Thus, one of the most important duties of our schools is to give students the ability to regulate themselves and their own learning. This central interest in self-regulated learning raises many different questions.
For example: Which components are most important for effective self-regulation? How can the learning process be best protected against distracting thoughts and emotions? Which strategies are most often used by students to regulate their learning process? Which strategies are most effective for successful self-regulation? To what extent do dispositional and situational aspects influence learning behavior? How can self-regulated learning best be assessed? Past researchers have employed an immense diversity of definitions, models and studies on self-regulated learning in their attempts to address these problems. This is matched by an immense variety of results.
Current definitions and models of self-regulation and self-regulated learning illustrate the complexity of these concepts (e.g., Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2005; Borkowski, 1996; Pintrich, 2005; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 2005). Effective self-regulation requires not only the ability to regulate the self motivationally and emotionally and to protect the self and the learning process against competing personal needs, but also the ability to reduce situational distractions and use metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies to successfully organize the learning process (Boekaerts, 1999). The studies presented in this dissertation focus on students’ regulation of the self in terms of protecting the learning process against internal and external disruptions (Study I and Study II) and on students’ use of
metacognitive strategies when organizing the learning process for a test (Study III). Thus, the present studies contribute to research on the ways in which students efficiently regulate their learning and to the question of which strategies are not often used, assessing both the dispositional factors underpinning the ability to regulate the self as well as the situational factors influencing the employment of strategies. To this end, traditional questionnaires were used to assess the dispositional nature (Study I and Study II) and the experience sampling method (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007) was used to assess the situational nature of regulation strategies (Study II and Study III).
1.1.1 The Concept of Self-regulated Learning
Most theorists would agree students who self-regulate their learning display an active and constructive engagement in the process of meaning generation. Skilled self-regulators adapt their emotions, as well as their cognitions and actions as needed in order to optimize their learning and motivation (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005). More specifically, self-regulated learning is often described as the combination of the ability to employ appropriate and powerful strategies to attain learning goals important to the individual, together with adapting the application of those strategies in order to monitor one’s own learning to detect and eliminate possible learning problems (e.g., Nueckles, Huebner, & Renkl, 2009; Paris & Paris, 2001; Schraw, 1998; Zimmerman, 2005). In addition to metacognitive and cognitive strategies (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005), motivational and emotional components of self- regulated learning represent an important part of current self-regulated learning models (e.g., Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2005; Borkowski, 1996; Pintrich, 2005; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 2005). Most current models are consistent in the inclusion and description of these essential components of self-regulated learning (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001).
Boekaerts (1999) provides a detailed description of the components that are essential for effective self-regulated learning in her three-layered model of self-regulated learning (Figure 1.1). Going from the outside to the inside, the first layer describes the regulation of the self with special concern for motivational and emotional aspects. These are essential for the initiation and maintenance of learning activities with respect to the choice of goals and the administration of resources employed to meet these specific goals. The second layer represents the regulation of the learning process and includes the use of metacognitive knowledge and skills in order to control the learning process and make it as efficient as
monitoring and evaluation of one’s own learning behavior (Schraw, 1998). The third layer, describing the regulation of processing modes includes cognitive learning strategies that include domain-specific knowledge about the proper application and effectiveness of cognitive learning strategies for certain tasks in specific situations (Boekaerts, 1999).
Figure 1.1: The Three-layered Model of Self-regulated Learning by Boekaerts (1999).
These three fundamental components of self-regulated learning can be found in most of the current models, although slightly differently conceptualized and defined in each model.
The first two components, ability to regulate the self and the ability to employ metacognitive knowledge, are thought to be general skills applicable to all domains. The third layer, that is, the use of cognitive strategies, is very domain specific in nature. In this dissertation, we focus on students’ strengths in the area of general abilities, namely on the regulation of the self (Study I and Study II) and on the use of metacognitive strategies (Study III).
1.1.1.1 Regulation of the self
The initiation of a learning process and the maintenance of this learning process require general skills such as the ability to regulate one’s own goals, motivation and emotions (Boekaerts, 1999). This includes a variety of strategies needed to regulate specific aspects of the self, namely choosing one’s goals, regulating motivation, and fostering specific positive emotions or coping with specific negative emotions. The relation between students’ goal
orientation and motivation towards their learning behavior and success has already been especially well researched (Boekaerts, 1999; Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2005), additionally the relation between academic emotions and learning behavior has been the focus of recent research (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002).
Study I and Study II presented in this dissertation focus on one specific aspect of the regulation of the self, namely on the regulation of the self in terms of coping with a specific negative emotion, boredom. Although there is empirical proof that boredom is one of the most often experienced negative emotions in the classroom (Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, & Hall, 2006;
Larson & Richards, 1991), there is remarkably little theoretical or empirical attention on how students’ cope with this negative emotion (Vodanovich, 2003b). However, boredom in the classroom as well as boredom at the workplace has been connected to many negative correlates, such as drop-out rates (Bearden, Spencer, & Moracco, 1989; Farrell, Peguero, Lindsey, & White, 1988; Tidwell, 1988; Wegner, Flisher, Chikobvu, Lombard, & King, 2008), truancy (Sommer, 1985), and deviant behavior (Wasson, 1981) and job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and lack of loyalty to the organization (e.g., Kass, Vodanovich, &
Callender, 2001) in classrooms and the workplace, respectively. Although it might be seen as a teacher’s job to provide non-boredom inducing learning environments and instead design interesting and activating classroom settings, it is probably impossible for any teacher to prevent all students from being bored at all times. Further considering that boring settings likely happen at some point in most jobs, it seems to be a very important part of regulating the self to learn to cope with such an omnipresent emotion as boredom efficiently.
1.1.1.2 Regulation of the learning process
Motivational and emotional strategies are compulsory to define learning goals and protect the learning process against personal and situational disruptions. However, arguably more essential for the learning process itself is the attainment of metacognitive knowledge in the service of organizing one’s learning in such a way that domain-specific knowledge and skills can be acquired (Boekaerts, 1999). Current models of self-regulated learning (e.g., Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2005; Borkowski, 1996; Pintrich, 2005; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 2005) agree on the central role metacognitive strategies play, and accentuate their relationship with respect to self-regulated learning (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001). In Study III, we focus on students’ use of metacognitive strategies in terms of
A large number of metacognitive regulatory skills have been specified in the literature (Schraw, 1998), yet researchers generally highlight only three essential metacognitive strategies as important for regulating any learning process, namely planning, monitoring and evaluation (Boekaerts, 1999; Schraw, 1998; Spoerer & Brunstein, 2006).
Planning refers to the setting of goals followed by the selection of adequate cognitive strategies and appropriate allocation of resources, such as time needed, to achieve these goals.
Monitoring refers to being aware of one’s level of comprehension and performance on the task. As one monitors results, they often simultaneously use evaluation to correct learning problems and adjust planning as needed (Boekaerts, 1999; Schraw, 1998). While all three strategies are important components of self-regulated learning, the metacognitive strategy of monitoring seems to be of special interest. Winne and Hadwin (1998) include an omnipresent metacognitive monitoring process in their model of self-regulated learning. Within this model monitoring can provide feedback during any phase of the self-regulated learning process, thus it is accountable for subsequent regulation. Although dispositional and situational factors influence their application, such that students are unable to use them in the same way and with the same efficiency in all domains (Boekaerts, 1999), metacognitive strategies and skills are assumed to be domain general in nature.
1.1.2 Traits and States in Self-regulated Learning
Intra-individual self-regulation can differ according to the goal being pursued, as some goals activate self-regulated learning, whereas others retard it (e.g., Boekaerts, 1999;
Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2005; Pintrich, 2005; Zimmerman, 2005), the domain specificity of the assessment of self-regulated learning gains in importance here. Although the capacity for self-regulated learning might be dispositional in nature, competing goals might lead to the use of self-regulated learning skills within one domain, while neglecting to employ the same skills in another domain. Thus, Boekaerts and Niemivirta (2005) distinguish between optimal and non-optimal conditions for self-regulated learning. Optimal conditions refer to situations in which an opportunity for learning and the felt necessity for learning come together.
According to Winne and Hadwin (1998), properties of both an aptitude and an event are combined in self-regulated learning. Students’ ability to self-regulate their own learning differs in these two aspects. First, they can differ in ‘aptitude’, relatively stable personality features that have an impact on self-regulated learning (Winne & Perry, 2000), such as students’ volition and ability. But these dispositions are not the only factors that are of
consequence for self-regulation; the environment can also facilitate or disrupt effective self- regulated learning (De Corte, Verschaffel, & Masui, 2004). Situational factors, or ‘events’, contribute to self-regulation in that situational components affect the occurrence of self- regulated learning.
Consistent with the concepts of aptitudes and events are the more common methodological concepts of traits and states. These concepts were established to explain two different potential sources of variability in psychological attributes, namely inter-individual differences due to dispositional factors and intra-individual differences caused by situational factors (Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992). With respect to students’ classroom experiences and behavior, in order to more accurately assess students’ self-regulation of learning it is essential to regard traits as well as states as possible antecedents. Spielberger (1972) identifies personality traits as relatively stable inter-individual differences pertaining to one’s tendency to perceive certain situations in a specific manner or to behave in these situations in a predictable way (see also Cattell & Scheier, 1961). Conversely, the concept of personality
‘states’ is relatively unstable in nature as it depicts intra-individual differences in reaction to specific stimuli (Steyer et al., 1992). Traditional approaches to conceptualizing and measuring regulation behaviors have most often regarded regulation strategy use as a notably stable and dispositional trait (e.g., Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Nevertheless, as a complement to this trait approach, which is well-suited for evaluating the overall conceptual structure and personality correlates of regulation strategies (see Study I), more recent evaluation methods attempt to additionally incorporate situational aspects of coping behavior (e.g., the experience sampling method, Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Hektner et al., 2007; Study II and Study III). This approach meets the demand for more naturalistic and empirically valid methods that result in a more dynamic and diversified picture of the nature of self-regulated learning (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001).
1.2 The Present Dissertation
1.2.1 Research Goals
The general aim of this dissertation was to evaluate students’ current ways of regulating themselves and their learning processes in school. We intended to gain information on the strategies students currently use, which of these strategies facilitate an efficient
students’ regulation of the self, Study III focuses on students’ use of metacognitive strategies when learning for a test.
By investigating students’ learning behavior, the assessment of students’
dispositional ways of regulating themselves provides important information about the structure and relation of different strategies. These fundamental observations are especially important when a very new area of self-regulation is being explored (Study I), but to gain a comprehensive insight into students’ regulation behavior, it is also important to take situational aspects into account (Study II and Study III) and therefore also address the situational characteristic of self-regulation. The use of the experience sampling method (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Hektner et al., 2007) provides the possibility of assessing students’ actual behavior in specific situations very accurately (Study II). In addition it describes the development over time as the students prepare for one specific event (Study III).
Previous educational theories and research suggest that students’ self-regulated learning is a goal-oriented process (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005). Self-regulated learning therefore should be assessed by defining a specific goal, thought to be domain specific in nature, and by considering students’ emotional experiences towards the learning situation (Goetz et al., 2006). Following on from this, it is also important in the present dissertation to analyze students’ regulation behavior with respect to domain specificity. As such, the trait and state measures employed in all three studies were domain-specific, consistently pertaining specifically to mathematics classes. This academic domain was selected based on previous research showing students experience a moderate degree of boredom in regards to mathematics classes (Goetz et al., 2006), thus allowing for greater generalization across subject areas as compared to a more extreme boredom-eliciting subject area and ensuring a sufficient degree of variability in boredom experiences and coping strategy use (Study I and Study II).
Study I evaluated one specific component of self-regulation, namely coping with boredom in the classroom, by developing trait-based scales measuring four different categories of strategies for coping with boredom in school. The questionnaire was designed in line with a theoretical framework adapted from the coping with stress literature (Holahan, Moos, & Schaefer, 1996) which differentiates between four different categories comprised of two dimensions: approach versus avoidance and cognitive versus behavioral coping. To this end, we evaluated (1) the structure of these scales, which was validated, (2) students’ different patterns in their use of strategies for coping with their boredom; these groups were identified
and are referred to as “boredom-coping groups” from this point forward. These groups reflect the relative likelihood of each strategy being used to combat boredom and thus lent themselves to further analyses regarding (3) whether the use of certain patterns of coping strategies are more effective in reducing boredom than others. Specifically, we tested differences between frequencies of boredom experiences, as well as differences in academic achievement, and in their emotions, motivation, and cognitions towards mathematics within the boredom-coping groups.
Study II similarly examined how students protect themselves and their learning process from the boredom in the classroom. This study replicated and extended the trait-based results of Study I by evaluating both trait and state measures of boredom-related coping strategies in order to determine techniques students use to manage and overcome boredom in academic settings. The structural relations between coping strategies as well as relations between these strategies and other variables assessed using both trait and state-based methods were central to the study’s hypotheses. Briefly, the aims of Study II were to (1) analyze relations between trait-based coping group membership and other personality traits (e.g., extroversion) to validate their dispositional nature as well as to examine the interrelations between specific trait boredom-related coping strategies, (2) investigate frequencies of state-assessed boredom and coping behaviors, as well as relations between coping behaviors and other state-assessed constructs (emotions, value) to explore how effective different coping behaviors are, and (3) explore the relations between trait and state assessments of boredom-related coping.
Study III focused on students’ use of metacognitive strategies as part of the self- regulated learning process by exploring students’ use of metacognitive strategies in studying for an upcoming test, as well as the relationship between metacognitive strategy use and test performance. We intended to take the process nature of learning for a test into account in addition to investigating correlational relationships. We investigated (1) how often students occupy themselves with thoughts about the test and whether cognitive engagement changes as the test gets closer in time, (2) the possible relationship between students’ test performance and cognitive engagement with the test, (3) the metacognitive strategies employed when students are thinking about the test and (4) the influence of these metacognitive strategies on test performance.
1.2.2 Dissertation Outline
The present dissertation contains three empirical studies that investigate students’
self-regulation in school, more specifically students’ coping with boredom behavior (Study I and Study II) and students’ use of metacognitive strategies when studying for a test (Study III). These studies are presented in the following chapters (Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and Chapter 4). All three studies are presented in these respective chapters, and can be read and understood independent of one another.
In Study I (Chapter 2) four different strategies for coping with boredom were explored. Considering an adapted theoretical framework of coping with stress (Holahan et al., 1996), a questionnaire was developed focusing on two dimensions of coping, namely approach- versus avoidance-oriented coping and cognitive- versus behavioral-oriented coping.
The structure of the coping with boredom scales was first verified. Students’ use of these strategies as well as the relation between the use of these strategies to the frequency of experiencing boredom, the academic achievement, and further emotional, motivational, and cognitive aspects of academic achievement situations were then analyzed. Results showed lower boredom levels corresponded with the cognitive-approach orientation.
In Study II (Chapter 3), the results of Study I were extended and students’ use of boredom-related coping strategies, as assessed using both trait- and state-based methods, were explored. Consistent with Study I, results showed that using either trait- or state-based methods, the cognitive-approach orientation corresponded to lower boredom levels. However, trait and state measures are not consistently connected to each other, therefore emphasizing the importance of assessing trait-based measures in addition to state-based measures.
In Study III (Chapter 4), students’ occupation with thoughts about a test was explored with particular emphasis on students’ use of metacognitive strategies as assessed using the experience sampling method. Results showed that students apply metacognitive strategies more frequently as the test date draws closer and they think more often about the test in learning related situations than during their leisure time. Both the frequency with which students think about the test as well as the growth of this frequency as the time of testing approaches is positively connected to test performance. Monitoring was the only specific metacognitive strategy related directly to test performance. Implications for further research promoting the experience sampling method for assessing students’ learning behavior are discussed.
The final chapter (Chapter 5) summarizes the results of the empirical studies and discusses the general conclusions that can be drawn from this dissertation as well as implications for future research and practice.
2 What to Do When Feeling Bored?
Students’ Strategies for Coping with Boredom
2.1 Summary
The goal of this study was to explore different strategies for coping with boredom. A questionnaire was developed targeting two dimensions of coping, namely approach- versus avoidance-oriented coping and cognitive- versus behavioral-oriented coping. First, based on the responses of 976 students (51% female) from grades 5 to 10, the structure of the coping with boredom scales was verified by confirmatory factor analysis. In a second step, 3 different boredom-coping groups were identified by latent profile analysis. These three groups were named Reappraisers, Criticizers, and Evaders. Third, differences between these groups concerning their frequency of experiencing boredom, their academic achievement, and other emotional, motivational, and cognitive aspects of academic achievement situations were analyzed. Relative to the other 2 groups, Reappraisers preferred cognitive-approach strategies, were less frequently bored, and experienced the most positive pattern of emotional, motivational, and cognitive outcomes. Finally, methodological and educational implications and directions for future research are discussed.
2.2 Introduction
“Most people pray only out of boredom; others fall in love out of boredom, still others are virtuous or depraved ...“. This is what Georg Buechner’s (1835/2004, p.61) ‘Lenz’
concludes to answer the question “What to do when feeling bored?”
Although this description is from a very different time and context, it also seems to describe the behavior of many bored students in our schools today. Some of them just hope that the lesson will end quickly, others chat and flirt with their classmates, others fight the boredom and try to be compliant to the teacher and attend to the lesson, and finally others interrupt the lesson and bother the teacher and their classmates. These examples highlight what each of us knows from our own experience: There are many very different ways to cope with boredom. However, very little systematic research has examined how these strategies to cope with boredom are structured and classified. Other questions also remain unexplored including: Which strategies are most adaptive in terms of coping with boredom and which are not? Do some strategies allow students to stay engaged and learn something despite their boredom?
The goal of the present study was to develop and evaluate scales that assess different strategies students use to cope with boredom at school. We assume that not only do students cope with boredom in very distinct ways, but also that students could be grouped by their habitual preference towards certain strategies for coping with boredom. First, based on a theoretical classification system, we created scales of different strategies for coping with boredom. In a second step we analyzed the structure of these scales and searched for different groups of students that relied on certain patterns of strategies. Third, we investigated whether these groups differed on various outcomes such as frequency of experiencing boredom, academic achievement, and emotional, motivational, and cognitive variables. We hypothesized that students who used certain patterns of strategies would be more successful in combating boredom in school than others.
2.2.1 Boredom at School
2.2.1.1 Research activities on boredom
Even though there has been an increase of research on emotions, there remains a
specifically (Goetz, 2004; Lohrmann, 2008). In fact, in major appraisal theories of emotions, boredom is not mentioned at all (Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). Likewise boredom is normally omitted from major handbooks of emotions, aside from a short paragraph on related nonverbal features of speech (e.g., Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2000, p. 227). Generally boredom has been excluded from the increase in interest related to the theoretical and empirical contributions of emotions to education during the past decade (Efklides & Volet, 2005; Linnenbrink, 2006; Schutz & Lanehart, 2002; Schutz & Pekrun, 2007).
Consider for example that test anxiety has been examined in more than 1,000 studies to date (Hembree, 1988; Zeidner, 1998, 2007), yet only a handful of studies have explored boredom in school and university, at work, or in leisure time (Pekrun et al., 2002). The existing studies largely focus on two questions (Belton & Priyadharshini, 2007). Either they explore the extent to which individuals are prone to experiencing boredom (e.g., Vodanovich, 2003b) or they investigate how boredom correlates with specific outcomes like drop-out rates (e.g., Wegner et al., 2008) or job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and loyalty to the organization (e.g., Kass et al., 2001).
2.2.2 Occurrence of Boredom at School
This very low rate of research on boredom conflicts with the frequency of boredom experienced by students. Larson and Richards (1991) reported that middle school students are bored during 32 % of the time spent in class. Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, & Hall (2006) reported that boredom is experienced more often than anxiety during class, and that boredom correlates significantly and negatively with enjoyment. However, because boredom consists of specific affective, cognitive, physiological, expressive, and motivational processes, thus matching contemporary component process definitions of emotions (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981;
Scherer, 2000), it is more than just a neutral state implying a lack of enjoyment or interest (Frenzel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Watt, in press). Specifically, boredom can be described by unpleasant, aversive feelings (affective components), an altered perception of time (cognitive components), reduced arousal (physiological components), facial, vocal, and postural expression of boredom (expressive components), and the motivation to change the activity, or to leave the situation (motivational components).
Given this profile, boredom is best regarded as a specific emotion, which may often be overlooked in schools because it is inconspicuous and nondisruptive, especially in comparison to emotions like anger and anxiety (Frenzel et al., in press). While boredom may
not immediately disturb a class, there is evidence that boredom is connected to many negative attitudes and behaviors.
2.2.3 Relevance of Boredom at School
Studies suggest that boredom during leisure time (Wegner et al., 2008) or during school is positively related to drop out rates (Bearden et al., 1989; Farrell et al., 1988;
Tidwell, 1988), truancy (Sommer, 1985), and deviant behavior (Wasson, 1981). Overall, the results of the few studies existing show that boredom is a highly relevant emotion in students’
lives and that it tends to be associated with negative outcomes.
Because school can be interpreted as the workplace of children and adolescents, results of studies looking at boredom in the workplace may be relevant to the understanding of the impact of boredom at school. Researchers studying workplace boredom point out that boredom is highly correlated with job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and lack of loyalty to the organization (Kass et al., 2001). Thackray (1981) reports that when workers experience boredom during a task that requires high levels of alertness they report considerable stress. By extension, students may experience stress when they feel boredom impinging on the attention needed to focus on their schoolwork.
Farmer and Sundberg (1986) showed that boredom proneness was highly positively correlated with depression, hopelessness, loneliness, amotivational orientation, and perceived effort, whereas it was negatively associated with life satisfaction and autonomy orientation. In addition Rupp and Vodanovich (1997) found a significant relationship between boredom proneness and aggression as well as anger. Furthermore, there is evidence that boredom in general seems to be related to nicotine and alcohol consumption among adolescents (Amos, Wiltshire, Haw, & McNeill, 2006), substance abuse (Anshel, 1991), excessive gambling (Blaszczynski, McConaghy, & Frankova, 1990), distress (Barnett, 2005), and juvenile delinquency (Newberry & Duncan, 2001).
These findings show that boredom can be associated with a range of detrimental outcomes. Sometimes, however, scholars argue that boredom is not always a negative and counterproductive emotion and can instead be viewed as the source of balance and creativity (Suedfeld, 1975; Vodanovich, 2003a). This does not appear to be the case for boredom in school, which disturbs students’ ability to concentrate and focus on their schoolwork.
Summarized, boredom is problematic in schools and a better understanding of how students
2.2.4 Causes of Boredom at School
To be able to combat boredom, the underlying causes of boredom need to be analyzed first. There are two perspectives on how boredom emerges in people in general and in students in particular. According to the educational sciences boredom is caused by situational attributes (e.g., Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003). In contrast, according to personality psychology boredom is caused by certain dispositional features of the person (e.g., Farmer &
Sundberg, 1986; Vodanovich, 2003b).
Most descriptions of situations that provoke boredom focus on a lack of stimulation (e.g., Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003; Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Reid, 1986;
Vodanovich, 2003b). Kanevsky and Keighley (2003) claim that only a situation that is not boring can be a true learning situation, and, like them, many educational researchers as well as practitioners are searching for ways of using “not boring” teaching strategies and creating
“not boring” learning environments. While this initiative is noble, the responsibility to alleviate boredom should not rest solely on the shoulders of teachers.
The individual student must be, at least to some extent, responsible for his or her experience of boredom. No matter how diligently teachers try to produce “not boring”
learning environments, in the end the student may still perceive and interpret the environment as boring. Thus, these perceptions may be more closely related to students’ experiences of boredom than the objective situation itself. The idea of boredom proneness, defined as the tendency for a person to be more or less often bored, is considered a dispositional aspect of personality and not a consequence of the environment (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986;
Vodanovich, 2003b). These assumptions are supported by some empirical findings. Larson and Richards (1991) found that the same students reported high rates of boredom across schoolwork and leisure time contexts. They concluded from these findings that individual dispositions contributed highly to boredom. Barnett and Klitzing (2006) found an inverse relationship between boredom and the characteristic traits of extroversion and intrinsic motivation orientation. Fisher (1998) showed that during work external as well as internal interruptions lead to a higher rate of boredom and less satisfaction. Assuming that internal interruptions, such as irrelevant thoughts, are often induced by dispositions such as neuroticism, it can be concluded that these sorts of dispositions lead to a higher rate of boredom during work.
Boring activities are not always avoidable, especially in school. When faced with
with the situations may prevent the onset of boredom. Towards this end, students seem to use different strategies to cope with, and therefore avoid or alleviate, boredom. Students who cope with boredom effectively might be more successful in school as well as happier, more satisfied, and self-confident.
2.2.5 Coping with Boredom at School
The focus of the present study was to examine the strategies students use to cope with boredom. By identifying the most effective strategies to cope with boredom, researchers and practitioners will be better able to help students cope with their boredom in an adaptive manner. To date, however, there are no interventions specifically designed to reduce boredom this way, at least in part because little is known about how students cope with boredom.
As outlined above, students’ strategies for coping with boredom remain virtually unexplored (Vodanovich, 2003b). The only exception seems to be the development of the boredom coping scale by Hamilton, Haier, and Buchsbaum (1984). This scale consists of 10 items in a forced choice format (e.g., “When I’m bored at home… ‘…it usually is a short time before I find something that interests me’ or ‘…it usually requires a change of people or place to enjoy myself again.’”). It appears that these items measure ways in which the boring situation needs to be changed for the respondent to no longer feel bored. This does not reflect true coping behaviors that involve an active self-regulated process. Vodanovich (2003b) claims that these scales are not based on theoretical conceptualizations that underpin coping behavior. To resolve this, we ensured that the conceptualization of coping represented in our boredom coping scales was based on an appropriate and valid theoretical framework.
2.2.6 Classification System of Students’ Strategies of Coping with Boredom
In comparison to coping with boredom a lot of research has explored how people cope with stress. In order to study how students cope with boredom and develop an appropriate categorization system, we borrowed from the existing research on coping with stress. One of the very well researched conceptualization of coping with stress was forwarded by Charles J. Holahan, and Moos (1996) and focuses on approach versus avoidance and cognitive versus behavioral coping strategies (see also Davis, DiStefano, & Schutz, 2008;
Holahan, Moos, Holahan, Brennan, & Schutte, 2005; Holahan et al., 2007; Moos & Holahan, 2003). According to this conceptualization four categories of coping strategies classified by
as either approach or avoidance: Approach strategies involve coping by solving the problem, whereas, avoidance strategies involve coping by evading or fleeing the problem. The second dimension distinguishes between cognitive and behavioral strategies related to coping. We adopted this classification system to categorize students’ styles of coping with boredom (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Classification System of Students’ Strategies of Coping with Boredom
Type of Coping Approach Coping Avoidance Coping
Cognitive Thinking differently to change the perception of the situation.
Thinking of something else not associated with the situation.
Behavioral Taking actions to change the situation.
Taking actions not associated with the situation.
All approach coping strategies, whether cognitive or behavioral, involve trying to resolve the problem itself. Cognitive-approach strategies involve changing the perception of the situation. Imagine a student who reminds himself that even though a mathematics lesson is boring it is really important. This reminder may change his perception without changing the objective situation, and he may not feel bored. Behavioral-approach strategies, on the contrary, involve trying to change the boring situation. For example, imagine a student who simply asks the teacher for more interesting tasks. If his demand is met, he will have successfully changed the situation and remedied his boredom. Indeed, it is possible that even if his demand is not met, he may inadvertently change the situation by making the teacher aware that the students are bored thus leading to modifications to the lesson.
Strategies that help the student to forget about the boring situation, either by thinking of something or doing something not associated with the situation, are classified as avoidance.
Thus, students can avoid boring lessons without leaving their classroom. Cognitive-avoidance strategies involve students occupying their thoughts with something not associated with the lesson. In short, these students take refuge from the boring situation by thinking of something more exiting. For example, imagine a student who avoids her boring mathematics lesson by thinking about the exciting content of her debate in the next lesson. Behavioral-avoidance strategies, in contrast, are seen when students distract themselves from boring situations by doing something else. A highly typical example of a behavioral-avoidance strategy is a student, chatting with a classmate during the lesson.
Especially in the context of school, it can be difficult to distinguish between cognitive- and behavioral-avoidance strategies because thinking of something else and doing something else are often linked to each other. For example thinking about the next subject might be linked with preparing the homework for this subject silently. Keeping this in mind, we classified the avoidance strategies into cognitive and behavioral by their predominant aspect. For example, studying for another subject was classified as cognitive-avoidance because the mental aspect is predominant. Often cognitive-avoidance strategies remain unnoticed by the teacher and do not disrupt the lesson itself. Talking to classmates, in contrast, was classified as behavioral-avoidance because the behavioral aspect of this action is more obvious and the lesson itself is normally interrupted.
2.2.7 Effectiveness of Different Strategies of Coping with Boredom
It seems likely that these strategies will exert different impacts on the frequency of experiencing boredom as well as other academic, emotional, motivational, and cognitive aspects of achievement situations. We assume that approach coping, especially through cognitive-approach strategies like cognitive reappraisal that focuses on the value of the situation will result in particularly positive patterns of outcomes. This hypothesis is supported by empirical findings.
Goetz, Frenzel, Stoeger, and Hall (2009) showed that, especially in academic achievement situations, there is a strong negative relationship between the value of the subject and boredom. These results are in line with previous assumptions that boredom is a unique emotion because it coincides with a low level of perceived value (Frenzel et al., in press) whereas other emotions tend to correlate positively with the perceived value of the situation.
For this reason, it seems that strategies that reinforce the value of the situation might be the most efficient in reducing boredom and, by extension, enhancing positive outcomes such as higher academic achievement, more enjoyment and interest, etc. Some pre-existing research supports these assumptions. For example, Green-Demers, Pelletier, Stewart, and Gushue (1998) argued that although boring activities cannot always be avoided, combating boredom with interest-enhancing strategies may actually augment motivation. Likewise, Rana (2007) proposed that boredom can be combated by finding meaning in the task. Both from a theoretical standpoint and based on empirical literature, it seems that cognitive-approach strategies (i.e., positive reappraisal) may be the most beneficial for reducing boredom.
boredom. This has certainly proven to be the case in the context of coping with stress, in which avoidance strategies have been connected to further stress and depressive symptoms (Holahan et al., 2005; Holahan et al., 2007). Research is particularly needed on the effectiveness of different types of strategies for coping with boredom because it seems that in reality students usually cope with boredom by using avoidance-oriented cognitions or behaviors (Goetz, Frenzel, & Pekrun, 2007).
2.2.8 Contributions of the Present Study
Although evidence suggests that boredom is a very relevant and problematic emotion in the context of school, it also reveals that it is largely neglected as well. Because boredom is provoked by characteristics of both the situation and the person, teachers’ attempts to alleviate boredom in school by using instructional strategies that are “not boring” are likely to be insufficient. In addition, students must be able to cope with boredom in an effective and productive way: Strategies for dealing with boredom have not been researched until now. To address the lack of research in this area, we intend to take the first step towards the identification of effective strategies to cope with boredom as we work towards abolishing boredom at school.
2.3 Research Aims and Hypotheses
2.3.1 Aims of the Study
The first aim of this study was to develop scales that measured four different categories of strategies to cope with boredom in school. The questionnaire was designed in line with the aforementioned theoretical framework which differentiates between four categories comprised of two dimensions: approach versus avoidance and cognitive versus behavioral coping. For each category, namely (1) cognitive-approach, (2) behavioral- approach (3) cognitive- avoidance, and (4) behavioral-avoidance, we chose five specific and representative strategies, thus resulting in a total of 20 questionnaire items. We validated the structure of these scales through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Because emotional experiences have been shown to be largely domain specific in nature (Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, & Luedtke, 2007), we assumed that coping with boredom would be domain specific as well, hence we focused on one domain, namely mathematics. We chose mathematics because previous research shows that students report
