Self-regulated learning (SRL) skills, such as accurate self-monitoring and regulation of restudy choices, are important but difficult skills. Previous research has demonstrated that even when students were successfully trained in self-monitoring and making study choices, large differences existed in students’ ability to accurately self-regulate their learning. One of the factors that might be associated with the effectiveness of SRL-skill training is students’ motivation for the specific task under study. In two studies with secondary education students it was investigated if students’ task-specific motivational profiles are associated with task-specific SRL skills after training. Furthermore, association between motivation profiles with learning outcomes, mental effort, and self-efficacy were examined. In Study 1a, latent profile analysis resulted in four motivational profiles: (1) poor quality, (2) moderately positive, (3) moderately negative, and (4) good quality. Findings further showed that students with a “good quality” motivational profile scored higher on monitoring accuracy and learning outcomes than students with “poor quality” motivational profile. In Study 1b, similar motivational profiles were obtained as in Study 1a. Results demonstrated that students with a “moderately positive” motivation profile showed higher monitoring accuracy than students with a “poor quality” motivational profile. These findings show the importance of investigating task-specific motivational profiles in relation to training self-monitoring and making study choices.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Monitoring accuracy, Motivational profiles, Regulation accuracy, Self-determination theory, Self-regulated learning
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.007, hdl.handle.net/1765/106483
Journal Learning and Individual Differences : Journal of Psychology and Education
Citation
Baars, M.A, & Wijnia, L. (2018). The relation between task-specific motivational profiles and training of self-regulated learning skills. Learning and Individual Differences : Journal of Psychology and Education, 64, 125–137. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.007