Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 49, No. 5, November 2005, pp.

461474

Academic Self-concept, Implicit Theories of Ability and Self-regulation Strategies

Yngvar Ommundsena*, Richard Haugenb and Thorleif Lundc
a

Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education, Norway; bUniversity of Troms, Norway; cUniversity of Oslo, Norway

The purpose of the present study is to explore how academic self-concept and implicit theories of ability are related to four self-regulation strategiesmotivation/diligence, concentration, information processing, and self-handicapping. The hypothesis is that academic self-concept and an incremental theory of ability are (1) positively related to motivation/diligence, concentration, and information processing strategies, and (2) negatively related to self-handicapping strategies. On the basis of inventories 168 teacher students and 60 sport students (a total of 178 females and 50 males) were scored on academic self-concept, incremental and fixed theories of ability and the four self-regulation strategies. Multiple regression analysis was used for each self-regulation strategy as dependent variable, and with academic self-concept and the ability theories as independent variables. Results revealed that an incremental theory had, as predicted, a positive relation with motivation/diligence and concentration, but had only trivial relations with information processing and self-handicapping, whereas a fixed theory had only the predicted relation with selfhandicapping. The findings may indicate that, in order to promote meta-theoretical processing and prevent student from self-handicapping, it is important to strengthen academic self-concept, and to foster an incremental conception of ability among students.

Keywords: Self-regulation strategies; Self-concept; Implicit theories of ability

Introduction Self-regulation or meta-cognitive control of cognition and behaviour is considered an important aspect of student learning and school performance (Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Therefore, cognitive engagement and active self-regulated learning have been proposed as central goals in European educational scenarios, be it in school or in teacher education programmes (Niemi, 2002). Teachers and teacher education are considered key factors in promoting
*Corresponding author. The Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education, PO Box 4014, U.S. N-0806 Oslo, Norway. Email: yngvar.ommundsen@nih.no ISSN 0031-3831 (print)/ISSN 1430-1170 (online)/05/050461-14 2005 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research DOI: 10.1080/00313830500267838
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:06

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

462

Y. Ommundsen et al.

active learning, and active methods in teaching and learning have been requested in many educational debates (Randi & Corno, 2000; Stern & Huber, 1997). However, Boekarts (1997) holds that most classrooms are still populated with students who are not self-regulated in their learning, and that most teachers are not yet equipped to turn students into self-regulated learners. Various self-regulated learning strategies have been proposed (Pintrich, 2000; Weinstein & Meyer, 1986; Winne & Perry, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). The following four strategiesthree adaptive and one maladaptivehave received special attention, and are therefore focused on in the present study. Firstly, students motivation and acceptance of responsibility for studying and achievement is clearly a prerequisite for learning (Weinstein, 1987). Such acceptance of responsibility may be reflected in their preparing for classes, finishing assignments in time, diligence, self-discipline, control of their effort as well as willingness to work hard on a difficult academic task (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Self-discipline and diligence concern the management of effort, which seems to be an important aspect of selfcontrol in terms of persisting in the face of difficult or boring tasks (Corno, 1986; Kuhl, 2000). A second self-regulation strategy includes the ability to concentrate and focus attention on study activities, and to keep control of distractions that might otherwise limit the capacity to attend to the tasks at hand (Weinstein, 1987). Concentration and attention help students implement and maintain effective learning procedures. Thirdly, information processing, elaboration and reasoning represent metacognitive strategies reflecting deeper levels of cognitive processing, and have been found to foster active cognitive engagement in learning (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Such strategies help students store information in longterm memory by building internal connections between new information and prior knowledge, and lead to higher academic achievement (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). A fourth self-regulation strategy is self-handicapping. This is a motivational strategy and represents a self-presentational strategy in order to protect and enhance self-esteem (Covington, 1992; Tice, 1991). Some students deliberately put off studying to the last moment, or use other self-handicapping strategies, so that if subsequent performance is at a low level, these circumstances, rather than lack of ability, may be considered the cause. Hence, such handicaps, established by the students themselves, allow them to draw attention to factors other than low ability. Whereas the former three kinds of self-regulation have been found to be beneficial for learning and academic achievement, a self-handicapping strategy is generally maladaptive, particularly over time (Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Since the four self-regulation strategies are regarded as crucial in academic and school contexts, it may be fruitful to search for other relevant personality factors influencing these strategies. Two personality factors are selected for study here, namely academic self-esteem and implicit theories of ability. Below, a short account is given of these concepts and of their possible relations to the strategies, ending with the formulation of the research problem.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:07

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

Academic Self-concept and Self-regulation Strategies

463

The self-concept is broadly defined as an organised schema that contains episodic and semantic memories about the self, and that controls the processing of selfrelevant information (Kihlstrom & Cantor, 1983; Markus, 1977). Whereas the term self-concept usually refers to the knowledge aspects of the self-schema, that is, the beliefs that an individual holds about his or her attributes, the evaluative component of the self-schema is usually conceptualised as self-esteem; a self-reflexive attitude that is the product of viewing the self as an object of evaluation (Campbell & Lavallee, 1993). Despite some dispute on the knowledge/descriptive-evaluative distinction of the self, these two terms are often used interchangeably (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). As Zajonc (1980) has argued, we seldom use pure description. Thus, what we call self-descriptions are often highly evaluative affect-laden statements. The process of self-evaluation is initiated whenever the general self-concept or a restricted dimension of the self (e.g. academic self-concept) is in focus. This seems to be a consequence of cultural valuation of different attributes, which easily turns descriptive categories into evaluative ones (Skaalvik, 1997). Consequently, an evaluation of the self stated in form of high (positive) or low (negative) competence as well as positive or negative affect or esteem should therefore be regarded a common underlying component in most self-conceptualisations (Alsaker, 1990). As far as students are concerned, their academic self-concept or academic self-esteem should be of particular importance when confronted with the many exams built-in to their course of study. More precisely, students with a high academic self-concept are expected to be more confident in their academic qualities, and when they do feel they possess some negative attribute, they typically see it as relatively unimportant (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Tice, 1993). High academic self-esteem motivates students to pursue their goals, even in the face of obstacles and setbacks. In a similar vein, Bandura (1986) suggests that the sense of efficacy that accompanies high self-esteem enhances peoples willingness to strive toward desired goals as well as to persist on difficult tasks. Consistent with this line of reasoning, persons with high academic self-esteem perform better after initial failure than persons with low academic self-esteem, and are more likely to persevere in the face of obstacles (Schrauger & Sorman, 1977). High academic self-esteem students, when they succeed, assume their success is caused by their abilities and investments, and they feel that they have control over their outcomes (Skinner, 1995). These students have little concern for failure, are task-focused, have a high expectancy for success, and know that they have what it takes to succeed (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000; Haugen, Ommundsen, & Lund, 2004; Skinner, 1995). Consequently, they should be expected to exert diligence and show evidence of sustained effort when involved in academic tasks. Secondly, their high self-efficacy, their general expectancy for success, as well as their actual success, should also facilitate attention and concentration while studying (Bandura, 1986; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Thirdly, following success, they will attempt to maintain that success, and further enhance the self-esteem by making use of deeper levels of information processing strategies in

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:07

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

464

Y. Ommundsen et al.

order to better understand tasks and thus ensure success (Baumeister & Tice, 1985; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Students with low academic self-esteem, on the other hand, tend to take precautions in order to protect their self-esteem (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000). Consequently, one would expect low self-esteem students to engage in self-handicapping strategies in order to provide a non-threatening excuse should failure occur (Tice, 1991, 1993). Self-handicapping activities or strategies may therefore reflect a self-serving bias among low self-concept students (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). As for implicit theories of ability, Dweck (1986) and her colleagues (Cain & Dweck, 1989; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) hold that individuals differ in the degree to which they see intelligence as a fixed or modifiable entity. Those who regard intelligence as a fixed entity are of the opinion that intelligence is not, or only modestly, affected by effort, as opposed to those who look upon intelligence as a modifiable entity based on the increasing knowledge and skills arising from sound study habits. Dweck and colleagues refer to the former as an entity theory of ability and to the latter as an incremental theory. They further argue that students holding an entity view versus an incremental view create distinctive frameworks for interpreting and responding to academic tasks in the form of cognition, affect and behaviours. Indeed, students with an entity view, with its idea of fixed ability, have been found to be more concerned with how much ability they have and with showing they are smart. That is, they hold a performance goal that can be characterised by a preoccupation of the importance of demonstrating good performance or ability as compared to others. Moreover, performance goals have been shown to lead to a range of maladaptive cognition, affect and behaviour detrimental to learning and achievement (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1991; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Examples are loss of belief in efficacy of effort, negative affect that interfere with concentration, and divided attention between worry about outcome and strategies for tasks formulation and execution (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Robins & Pals, 2002). By contrast, an incremental view of ability have been found to foster a task or learning goal orientation in which students focus on improvement, learning and developing new skills. This kind of goal orientation leads, in turn, to a generally adaptive motivational pattern and positive affective states in achievement situations (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 1991). Examples are undivided, intensified attention to task, and belief in the efficacy of effort (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Robins & Pals, 2002). Students implicit theories of ability may differentially influence their selfregulatory strategies. Generally, one may expect that holding an incremental view should positively influence meta-cognitive control and cognitive aspect of selfregulation as well as inhibiting self-handicapping strategies, whereas a fixed conception should inhibit students use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies, but facilitate self-handicapping strategies. Thus, the studies of Dweck and Leggett (1988), Pintrich and Garcia (1991), and Ommundsen (2003) suggest that holding

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:07

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

Academic Self-concept and Self-regulation Strategies

465

an incremental view of ability should promote more positive motivation/diligence, concentration, and information processing. In contrast, fixed theories of ability such as viewing ability as stable and/or based on natural giftmay leave students with less optimism for learning and lead to a lack of personal control over the learning process (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Skinner, 1995). This may block attention, concentration, information processing, elaboration and their monitoring of achievement strivings. Further, holding fixed theories of ability has been shown to facilitate the use of self-handicapping strategies among pupils in physical education classes (Ommundsen, 2001c). The present study adds to previous research by examining the combined relationship of academic self-concept and implicit theories of ability to potentially adaptive and maladaptive self-regulation strategies. Based on the preceding account, the research hypothesis for the present study is that (1) academic self-concept and the incremental theory of ability are positively related to the three adaptive self-regulation strategiesmotivation/diligence, concentration, and information processing, whereas the fixed theory of ability is negatively related to the same three adaptive self-regulation strategies; (2) the selfhandicapping strategy has the opposite relationships, that is, negative relation with the academic self-concept and incremental theory, and positive relation with the fixed theory. The hypothesis is tested by use of multiple regression analysis for each strategy as dependent variable, and with academic self-esteem and the ability theories as independent variables.

Method Sample and Procedure A sample of 78 teacher students and 90 pre-school teacher students at Agder College in Kristiansand, and 60 students in the Norwegian College of Sport and Physical Education in Oslo (a total of 178 females and 50 males) took part in the study. Most of the students ranged from 20 to 28 years of age (M525, SD55.1). The students were told that the purpose of the study was to investigate how students think and feel about themselves. They were further informed that their responses would be treated anonymously, and that there were no right or wrong answers. The students were tested in groups (2030 subjects in each). The scale instructions were given in written form, and they were carefully instructed to work by themselves, and informed that there were no time limits. Instruments Academic self-concept. Song and Hatties (1984) 5-item academic self-concept subscale was used. Like Shavelson et al. (1976), Song and Hattie provide a hierarchical model for the organisation of self-concept. However, in contrast to

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:07

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

466

Y. Ommundsen et al.

Shavelsons model, where academic self-concept is divided into four subject matter areas, Song and Hattie subdivide academic self-concept into ability, achievement, and classroom self-concepts. These three facets of academic self-concept refer to whether the individual believes he or she is capable of achieving academic success, how the individual feels or perceives actual achievement, and whether the individual feels confident in classroom activities, respectively. Respondents judge 5 items like I am satisfied with my study work on a 6-point scale where 6 indicates strongly agree and 1 indicates strongly disagree. The score for a student is the mean over the 5 items, resulting in a possible score range from 1 to 6. The score increases for increasing positive academic self-esteem. Hattie (1992) reports alpha-coefficients for the academic subscale varying from .74 to .92, and testretest coefficients varying from .64 to .80. The a-coefficient in the present study is .86. Hence, the reliability may be considered satisfactory. Conception of the nature of sport ability questionnaire (CNAAQ). To assess the students implicit theories of their ability in academic tasks, the CNAAQ developed for sport by Sarrazin, Biddle, Famose, Cury, Fox, & Durand (1996) was modified to be suitable within the context of academics by substituting the word sport with academic tasks. The modified measure consists of six sub-scales corresponding to different implicit theories of academic ability: Stable (four items, e.g., one has a certain level in academic tasks, and there is not much one can do to change that), Incremental (three items, e.g., in academic tasks, if one works hard and often, one necessarily progresses), Natural gift (four items, e.g., to be good in academic tasks, one must be born with basic qualities that permit success in that area), Learning (four items, e.g., to succeed in academic tasks, one must learn techniques and strategies [] and rehearse them over and over), General (three items, e.g., in principle, if one is good in one academic task, one is good at almost every other even if they are not alike), Specific (three items, e.g., a person who has a good level in one academic task may not succeed in others). Responses are given on 5-point scales, anchored by dont agree at all (1) and agree completely (5). Factor analysis of CNAAQ on a Norwegian sample gave a solution similar to the original one. The main differences were that five instead of the original six factors were attained, where the incremental and learning items loaded on one factor, and that the general and specific scales showed poor psychometric qualities (Ommundsen, 2001a, b, c). In the present study the following three scales were used: Incremental/ learning (7 items), Stable (3 items), and Gifted (4 items). The alpha-coefficients were generally satisfactory: Incremental/learning (.76), Stable (.57), and Gifted (.84). Learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI). In order to assess cognitive/metacognitive self-regulation strategies we used parts of the LASSI inventory (Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987). LASSI has 77 items that focus on covert and overt thoughts and behaviours that relate to successful learning. In the present study three

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:07

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

Academic Self-concept and Self-regulation Strategies

467

subscales were applied: Motivation/diligence, concentration, and Information processing. Motivation/diligence (8 items) focuses on students willingness to work hard and persistently, to be prepared when going to classes as well to try to figure out more interesting ways to approach their academic tasks (e.g., Even when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I manage to keep working until I finish). Concentration (8 items) focuses on ability to neglect distractions and to concentrate on study activities (e.g., I am unable to concentrate well because of restlessness or moodiness (reverse scoring). Information processing (8 items) assesses to what extent students use strategies to elaborate and organise information, monitor comprehension, and relate new material to prior knowledge (e.g., I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather than just read it over when studying). The responses were given according to a scale from 1 (very atypical for me) to 5 (very typical for me). Each strategy variable was scored such that the score increases for increasing adaptive behaviour. (For psychometric details of the LASSI in a Norwegian academic context, see Olaussen & Braaten, 1998). In the present study alpha-coefficients were found to be satisfactory: Motivation/diligence .83, Concentration .90, Information processing .87. Self-handicapping strategies. A modified form of 6-item scale constructed by Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman (1998) was used. The 6 items concern proactive selfhandicapping strategies students use to influence self-presentation. The items were modified to fit the study situation of the students, such as: Some students let their friends keep them from paying attention in the study situation. Then, if they dont do well, they can say that is the reason. How true is this for you? Responses were indicated on a 5-point scale, where 5 indicates very much like me, and 1 indicates very much unlike me. The score for a student is the mean over the 6 items, resulting in a possible score range from 1 to 5. The score increases for increasing selfhandicapping tendencies. Urdan et al. (1998) report an alpha-coefficient for the scale to be .84, while Ommundsen (2001c) reports an alpha-coefficient of .76. The a-coefficient in the present study is .81. Hence, the reliability may be considered satisfactory. Analyses and Results Means, standard deviations and correlation between variables are shown in Table 1. The mean values indicate that the students score relatively highly on academic selfconcept and hold a relatively strong incremental/learning conception of ability. Moreover, the means suggest that adaptive self-regulation strategies are more endorsed than the maladaptive self-handicapping strategy. It should also be observed that the variation is moderate for each variable. Generally, the pattern of correlations in Table 1 is as expected: A learning/ incremental view of ability correlates positively with motivation/diligence, concentration and information processing, and negatively with self-handicapping.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:07

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

468

Y. Ommundsen et al.

Table 1. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for cognitive/meta-cognitive and selfhandicapping strategies, academic self-concept and implicate theories of ability, as well as the correlations between the variables. (The response scale is 16 for Academic self-concept and 15 for the seven other variables.) (N5228)
Variable 1. Motivation/ diligence 2. Concentration 3. Information processing 4. Self-handicapping 5. Academic self-concept 6. Stable 7. Gifted 8. Learn/increm. *p,.05. **p,.01. M 3.16 3.19 3.32 1.90 4.02 1.76 2.45 4.29 SD .75 .78 .73 .68 .90 .66 .71 .53 1 2 .52** 3 .39** .38** 4 2.49** 2.43** .15* 5 .67** .56** .37** 2.45** 6 2.12* 2.22** 2.03 .36** 2.28** 7 2.02 2.08 .05 .11* 2.10 .53** 8 .26** .25** .15* 2.22** .21* 2.20* .05

Moreover, a stable view of ability is positively correlated with self-handicapping and negatively correlated with motivation/diligence and concentration. However, endorsing a view of ability as a natural gift is not correlated with the adaptive selfregulation strategies and only weakly positively correlated with self-handicapping. Note, in addition, that academic self-concept correlates moderately to strongly with the strategy variables, and weakly with the other ones, that the correlations between the strategy variables are moderate to weak, and that the only substantial correlation for the ability variables is between Stable and Gifted. In order to study how academic self-concept and the implicit theories of ability are related to the self-regulation variables, several multiple regression analyses were applied (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). For each strategy variable as dependent variable, both hierarchical and simultaneous analyses were conducted, with academic selfconcept and the three ability variables as independent variables. As for hierarchical analysis, two variants were used, one with the ability variables entered before academic self-concept, and another with the academic self-concept entered first. For each variant, the three ability variables were entered simultaneously, that is, as a block. The results are presented in Table 2. For each dependent variable, the betaacolumn gives the regression coefficients in the hierarchical solution with the ability block entered first, while the betab-column contains the regression coefficients in the simultaneous solution. As for the other variant of hierarchical analysis, the regression coefficient for the academic self-concept is identical to the correlation between academic self-concept and the dependent variable in Table 1, whereas the coefficients for the ability variables are presented in the betab-column. Regarding Motivation/diligence, academic self-concept is the dominant predictor, with beta equal to .67 when entered first, and equal to .65 when entered secondly or simultaneously. Among the ability variables, Learning/incremental has significant,

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:07

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

Academic Self-concept and Self-regulation Strategies

469

Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Regressions examining academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability as predictors of cognitive/meta-cognitive and self-handicapping strategies (N5228)
Predictor Motivation/diligence Theories of ability: Learning/incremental Gifted Stable Academic self-concept Concentration Theories of ability: Learning/incremental Gifted Stable Academic self-concept Information processing Theories of ability: Learning/incremental Gifted Stable Academic self-concept Self-handicapping Theories of ability: Learning/incremental Gifted Stable Academic self-concept * p,.05; **p,.01; *** p,.001. 2.14* 2.08 .31*** 2.38*** 2.07 2.09 .31*** 2.38*** .14* .06 2.03 .36*** .08 .07 .03 .36*** .21** .01 2.17** .50*** .13** .01 2.09 .50*** .24*** .01 .08 .65*** .13** .01 .02 .65*** betaa betab R2 R2 change

.07*** .46***

.07*** .39***

.09 .32

.09*** .23***

.03* .15***

.03* .12***

.16*** .30***

.16*** .14***

but small weights (.24 and .13), while Gifted and Stable have no prediction value. Note, in addition, that total explained variance is considerable (R25.46), due to, of course, the dominance of the academic self-concept. A similar pattern is found for the other two positive self-regulation variables, Concentration and Information processing. Irrespective of which of the two strategies is chosen, academic self-concept is the dominant predictor, more important with Concentration than with Information processing. Learning/incremental has a small statistical impact on Concentration and a trivial impact on Information processing. The impact of a Stable theory of ability is practically zero on Information processing, and negative and relatively small on Concentration. By contrast, the impact of a Stable theory of ability on self-handicapping is moderate, positive but nearly equally strong as that of academic self-concept. The statistical impact of Gifted is practically zero for the three remaining strategy variables. Note, finally, that the total explained variance is moderate for Concentration (R25.32) and Self-handicapping (R25.30), and small for Information processing (R25.15).

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:08

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

470

Y. Ommundsen et al.

Discussion This study set out to examine the influence of academic self-concept and implicit theories of ability on self-regulation strategies among teacher and sport study students. On the basis of the multiple regression analyses, one may conclude that the research hypothesis is only partly supported. Academic self-concept is, as expected, positively related to the three adaptive self-regulation strategies Motivation/diligence, Concentration, and Information processing, and negatively related to Selfhandicapping strategies. However, the predicted relation of the implicit theories of ability to the strategies is only partially supported. That is, (1) the Incremental theory is, as expected, positively related to Motivation/diligence and Concentration, but is weakly related to the two other strategy variables; (2) the Stable theory is, as predicted, positively related to Self-handicapping, but only weakly related to Concentration and unrelated to the two remaining strategy variables; and (3) the Gifted theory is unrelated to all four strategy variables. These results concerning academic self-concept are in line with previous research in the academic domain showing the importance of the self-concept in relation to self-regulatory strategies in academic strivings (Burnett & Proctor, 2002; Pajares, 1997). For example, the result regarding information processing is in line with previous studies showing a consistent relationship between school and learner concepts and deep approaches to learning among elementary school students (Biggs & Moore, 1993; Burnett & Proctor, 2002). Biggs and Moore (1993) identified studies where qualitative differences in self-concept were linked with deep or surface approaches to learning, finding that poor academic self-concept was related to the surface approach, and good academic self-concept to the deep approach. Students with a strong sense of confidence in their academic abilities may perceive themselves as being more in control of their own learning (Skinner, 1995). Thus, they seem better equipped to set goals for themselves, work diligently on those goals, and monitor or check their comprehension as they go through different tasks in order to reach those goals. Also, Bandura (1986) contends that self-efficacy or judgements of how well one can execute courses of actions which require dealing with prospective situations, act as a cognitive mediator of behaviour, including task choice, persistence in an activity when faced with adverse conditions, and effort expended during an activity. Apparently, a negative self-concept of ability or academic self-concept may generate inefficacy beliefs in which effort does not pay off. Even when students attempt tasks, they may not put forth much effort, or they may give up easily because they do not believe in their ability to be able to learn by means of effort expenditure. This cycle of behaviour may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, thus strengthening students perceptions of inefficacy, which in turn lead to even lower self-concept of ability, as well as weaker Diligence, Concentration, and Information processing. Moreover, a low academic self-concept may be related to a preoccupation with how one is perceived by others and particularly in worrying that one may be negatively judged (Skaalvik, 1997). Under such circumstances the self easily

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:08

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

Academic Self-concept and Self-regulation Strategies

471

becomes threatened by future ego-relevant outcomes (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Paisley, 1985). Strategies to appear able, or at least to avoid appearing unable, are likely to be used (Covington, 1992). Consequently, students self-presentational concerns may increase (Kolditz & Arkin, 1982), and they may choose to use selfhandicapping strategies to promote their image as able to others and thus protect their self-esteem (Rhodewalt, 1994; Tice, 1991). As for implicit theories of ability, on the other hand, the present findings are only partly in accordance with previous research. For example, the positive relation found here between the Incremental theory of ability and Concentration, the negative relation between the Stable theory of ability and Concentration, and also the positive relation found between the Stable theory and Self-handicapping, are supported by previous studies (Ommundsen, 2001c, 2003). Students holding a belief in the modifiability of intelligence also tend to work diligently and to focus their attention on central academic tasks. By contrast, students adhering to a stable implicit theory of ability tend to concentrate less and develop defensive attributes like self-handicapping strategies. People holding a theory of ability as stable may perceive lack of control over their ability given that they perceive this ability as fixed (Skinner, 1995). It makes sense that believing ones ability is stable and that one has little control over this stable, fixed ability level are related to low levels of concentration and eventually sustained effort. Indeed, previous studies have shown that fixed ability, including perceived lack of control over ability, goes along with achievement attributions reflecting this lack of control of ability (ability for failure, luck for success) and to giving up easily in the face of challenge (Robins & Pals, 2002). When it comes to self-handicapping, one would expect that believing ones ability is fixed and that one has little control over this ability are related to self-handicapping tendencies. Self-handicapping may obscure the relationship between ability and performance so that eventual incidences of poor performance cannot be interpreted in a way that threatens the self. The present findings reveal that the four self-regulation strategies among students are strongly related to academic self-concept, but rather modestly to implicit theories of ability. Although causal interpretations of correlation designs are not possible, our findings are in line with theoretical suppositions holding that individual cognitions regarding ones sense of mastery and ability to learn influence the ways students approach learning situations. Students learning strategies may influence academic and school achievements that in turn give rise to a strengthened academic selfconcept and incremental conceptions of ability. In light of such a line of reasoning, it would be of practical importance to strengthen academic self-concept, and to generate an incremental rather than a fixed conception of ability among students. To this end, the implementation of a mastery-oriented motivational climate may prove to be effective (Ommundsen, 2001b). The results can be a learning culture which values hard work and sustained attention, and with high weight on meta-theoretical processing and low weight on self-handicapping strategies.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:09

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

472

Y. Ommundsen et al.

References
Alsaker, F. (1990). Global negative self-evaluations in early adolescence. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260267. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Self-esteem and responses to success and failure: Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality, 53, 450467. Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self serving biases in reactions to positive and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 5586). New York: Plenum. Boekarts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161186. Boekarts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and protective goals. In M. Boukaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417451). New York: Academic Press. Braaten, I., & Olaussen, B. S. (1998). The relationship between motivational beliefs and learning strategy use among Norwegian college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 182194. Burnett, P. C., & Proctor, M. R. (2002). Elementary school students learner self-concept, academic self-concept and approaches to learning. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18, 325333. Cain, K., & Dweck, C. (1989). The development of childrens conceptions of intelligence. A theoretical framework. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 4782). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Campbell, J. D., & Lavallee, L. F. (1993). Who am I? The role of self-concept confusion in understanding the behaviour of people with low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Selfesteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 3753). New York: Plenum. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Corno, L. (1986). The meta-cognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 333346. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88100. Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 10401048. Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation, Nebraska symposium on motivation 1990 (Vol. 38, pp. 200235). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Dweck, C., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Childrens theories of intelligence. In S. Paris, G. Olson & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256273. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Paisley, C. (1985). Effect of extrinsic incentives on use of test anxiety as an anticipatory attributional defense: Playing cool when the stakes are high. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 11361145.

<

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:09

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

Academic Self-concept and Self-regulation Strategies

473

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Haugen, R., Ommundsen, Y., & Lund, T. (2004). The concept of expectancy: A central factor in various personality dispositions. Educational Psychology, 24, 4355. Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (1983). Mental representations of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 147). New York: Academic Press. Kolditz, T. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1982). An impression management interpretation of the selfhandicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 492502. Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation. The dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boukaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111169). New York: Academic Press. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 6378. Niemi, H. (2002). Active learninga cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763780. Olaussen, B. S., & Braaten, I. (1998). Identifying latent variables measured by the learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 8296. Ommundsen, Y. (2001a). Pupils affective responses in PE: The influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability. European Physical Education Review, 7, 219242. Ommundsen, Y. (2001b). The role of the motivational climate on pupils implicit theories of ability. Learning Environment Research, 4, 139158. Ommundsen, Y. (2001c). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes: The influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achievement goals. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 2, 139156. Ommundsen, Y. (2003). Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation strategies in physical education classes. Educational Psychology, 23, 141157. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulation. In M. Boukaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452502). New York: Academic Press. Pintrich, P., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advancement in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 371402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pintrich, P., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs and engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk, & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom 149183. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In M. Boukaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651686). New York: Academic Press. Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in selfhandicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62, 6785. Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313336. Sarrazin, P., Biddle, S., Famose, J. P., Cury, F., Fox, K., & Durand, M. (1996). Goal orientations and conceptions of the nature of sport ability in children: A social cognitive approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 399414. Schrauger, J., & Sorman, P. (1977). Self-evaluations, initial success and failure, and improvement as determinants of persistence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 784795. Schunk, D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boukaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 631650). New York: Academic Press.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:09

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

474

Y. Ommundsen et al.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407441. Skaalvik, E. (1997). Issues in research on self concept. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 5197). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Solmon, M., & Lee, A. (1997). Development of an instrument to assess cognitive processes in physical education classes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 152160. Song, I. S., & Hattie, J. A. (1984). Home environment, self-concept, and academic achievement: A causal modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 12691281. Stern, D., & Huber, G. L. (Eds.). (1997). Active learning for teachers and students. Reports from eight countries. OECD. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 711725. Tice, D. M. (1993). The social motivations of people with low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 3753). New York: Plenum. Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more is there to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 115138. Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101122. Weinstein, C. E. (1987). Lassi users manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing Company. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315327). New York: Macmillan. Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). LASSI: Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing Company. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulation. In M. Boukaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532566). New York: Academic Press. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking. Preferences need no references. American Psychologist, 35, 151175. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boukaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1339). New York: Academic Press.

>

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:09

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766

Authors Queries Journal: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research Paper: 126766 Title: Academic Self-concept, Implicit Theories of Ability and Self-regulation Strategies Dear Author During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend to these matters and return this form with your proof. Many thanks for your assistance

Query Reference
1

Query

Remarks

Reference missing for: Corno & Rohrkemper. Braaten & Olaussen (1998) This reference is not cited. Please cite or delete. Corno & Mandinach (1983) This reference is not cited. Please cite or delete. Solmon & Lee (1997) This reference is not cited. Please cite or delete.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

cse67944.3d 9/8/05 10:49:09

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

126766