School Psychology Review

ISSN: (Print) 2372-966x (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uspr20

Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning Influences

on Middle School Mathematics Achievement

Timothy J. Cleary & Anastasia Kitsantas |

To cite this article: Timothy J. Cleary & Anastasia Kitsantas | (2017) Motivation and Self-
Regulated Learning Influences on Middle School Mathematics Achievement, School Psychology
Review, 46:1, 88-107

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2017.12087607

Published online: 14 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uspr20
School Psychology Review,
2017, Volume 46, No. 1, pp. 88 –107

Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning Influences on

Middle School Mathematics Achievement

Timothy J. Cleary
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Anastasia Kitsantas
George Mason University

Abstract. The primary purpose of the current study was to use structural equation
modeling to examine the relations among background variables (socioeconomic
status, prior mathematics achievement), motivation variables (self-efficacy, task
interest, school connectedness), self-regulated learning (SRL) behaviors, and
performance in middle school mathematics courses. Of particular interest was
examining the mediation roles of both self-efficacy and SRL behaviors. Data
about three types of motivation beliefs (self-efficacy, task interest, connectedness)
were obtained from 331 middle school students using self-report questionnaires,
while information regarding student SRL behaviors was obtained from teacher
ratings. Structural equation modeling analyses revealed an acceptable fit of the
data to the proposed model. In addition to the overall model explaining 51% of
the variance in mathematics performance, a key finding was that both cognitive
(i.e., self-efficacy) and behavioral (i.e., SRL) latent factors served as key medi-
ators in the model, with each of these factors exhibiting unique effects on
mathematics performance after controlling for prior achievement. Furthermore,
each of the three motivation beliefs played an important role in the model,
particularly regarding the explanation of SRL behaviors. Directions for future
research and implications for practice are discussed.

The extent to which students are capa-
ble of proactively and effectively regulating
their academic learning is an important area
of interest among researchers and educators,
in part, because of the established empirical
link between self-regulated learning (SRL)
and school success (Boekaerts, Pintrich, &
Zeidner, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).
It is important to recognize, however, that
SRL is a relatively broad construct that inte-
grates motivational processes, strategic behav-
iors, and metacognitive skills (Zimmerman,

We extend our gratitude to the students and administration at East Windsor Middle School, in particular
Lori Emmerson, for partnering with us on this project. We are also grateful for the valuable contributions
made by several doctoral research assistants including Caroline Kleeman, Audrey Lubin, Jaclyn Hogrebe,
Kristen Axelsen, Arielle Gartenberg, Bittany Velardi, Bracha Schnaidman, and Erica Pawlo.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy J. Cleary, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 152 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854; e-mail:timothy.cleary@
rutgers.edu
Copyright 2017 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015, eISSN 2372-966x

88

2000). Furthermore, when one also considers
that the quality of one’s motivation and stra-
tegic behaviors will likely vary across contexts
or learning situations (Cleary & Chen, 2009),
most researchers would agree that no single
determinant can ever adequately explain stu-
dent achievement in school.
Over the past decade, many studies have
employed path analyses and structural equa-
tion model (SEM) procedures to examine the
effects of motivation and regulatory processes
on student outcomes and achievement (Fan-
tuzzo, LeBoeuf, Rouse, & Chen, 2012; Pajares
& Graham, 1999; Sakiz, Pape, & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2012). However, very few studies have
concurrently examined a comprehensive set of
motivational variables and SRL strategic be-
haviors, nor have studies examined the medi-
ation role played by both student self-efficacy
and SRL classroom behaviors. Addressing this
latter point is critical given the importance of
SRL and motivation issues in middle school
contexts and because of the continued interest
in understanding how these factors intersect to
influence mathematics performance during
these years (Sakiz et al., 2012). Furthermore,
because motivation constructs and SRL be-
haviors are malleable in that they can be
changed and improved, examining the direct
and indirect effects of these multiple determi-
nants is likely to have important implications
for instructional and intervention planning.
Thus, in this study we examined how several
motivational beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy, inter-
est, school connectedness) and SRL behaviors
displayed by middle school students in a math-
ematics context intersected to predict student
performance in mathematics classrooms.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION
To guide the development of our struc-
tural model, we utilized social-cognitive and
self-determination theoretical perspectives
and considered the motivation and SRL lit-
erature. Several theoretical models concep-
tualize and delineate a host of processes
underlying academic SRL (Boekaerts & Ni-
emivirta, 2000; Efklides, 2011; Winne,
2001; Zimmerman, 2000). From most per-
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
spectives, SRL is conceptualized as a goal-
directed process whereby individuals deploy
and refine their use of specific tactics or strat-
egies to attain personal goals. It is important to
note that conceptions of academic SRL often
overlap to some degree with other constructs
frequently mentioned in the literature, includ-
ing self-management (Briesch & Briesch,
2015), metacognition (Flavell, 1979), and ex-
ecutive functions (Barkley, 2012). For exam-
ple, SRL and executive functions both empha-
size goal-directed actions that are purposefully
used to attain those goals (Barkley, 2012;
Reddy, Newman, & Verdesco, 2015), whereas
SRL overlaps with metacognition because
both constructs underscore the relevance of
planning, monitoring, and reflection pro-
cesses. However, SRL can be distinguished
from these other constructs in important ways.
Executive functions tend to represent some-
what stable, higher order cognitive processes,
whereas models of academic SRL tend to focus
on malleable and highly contextualized skills,
cognitions, and behaviors (Reddy et al., 2015).
In comparing SRL and metacognition, a few
key differences are that models of SRL often
underscore overt student actions, interactions
between student and environment, and the role
of motivation beliefs.
In this study, we use a social-cognitive
framework as the conceptual foundation and
thus focus on three core elements: (a) strategic
behaviors, (b) motivation beliefs, and (c) con-
textual factors. From a social-cognitive per-
spective, SRL is defined as a process involv-
ing self-initiated thoughts and behaviors that
are planned and cyclically adapted to attain
personal goals (Zimmerman, 2000). Central to
this conceptualization is the focus on the qual-
ity of individuals’ strategic thinking and ac-
tions as they approach a learning activity (i.e.,
forethought phase), during learning (i.e., per-
formance phase), and after learning has oc-
curred (i.e., reflection phase). A strong empha-
sis is also placed on the influence of task- or
context-specific motivational beliefs, such as
self-efficacy perceptions (i.e., perceptions of
capability to perform specific actions) and task
interest (i.e., the level of interest in or enjoy-
ment for academic tasks), on one’s strategic
89
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1
and regulatory behaviors (Cleary, 2006; Zim-
merman, 2000). Of all the potential motivation
determinants, however, social-cognitive theo-
rists place primary importance on self-efficacy
perceptions; these beliefs are theorized to be
the central determinant of human agency and
have been shown to be a substantial predictor
of academic success among adolescents (Pa-
jares & Urdan, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000).
Social-cognitive theorists also posit that
human functioning is determined by the recip-
rocal relations among personal (e.g., beliefs
and perceptions), behavioral, and contextual
factors and that students’ strategic behaviors
and motivational beliefs emerge and develop
within specific contexts (Bandura, 1997).
Thus, the actions students exhibit and the
types of thoughts they have about learning will
often vary across content areas or learning
activities (Cleary & Chen, 2009; Hadwin,
Winne, Stockley, Nesbit, & Woszczyna, 2001;
Urdan & Midgley, 2003). To understand stu-
dent achievement and performance through a
social-cognitive lens, we developed a model
that included contextualized motivation
beliefs, perceptions (self-efficacy, interest,
school connectedness), and behaviors (SRL
actions), as well as other background (prior
achievement) or contextual determinants (so-
cioeconomic status [SES]).
Although social-cognitive theorists pay
particular attention to student beliefs about
their own capabilities, they also believe that
student perceptions of contextual factors, such
as how interesting a learning activity is or how
much support or connectedness they experi-
ence in school, are quite relevant in under-
standing student behavior and performance. In
fact, researchers using different theoretical or
conceptual paradigms have examined the role
of student perceptions of various aspects of the
learning contexts on their motivated behaviors
and achievement, including classroom goal
structures (Urdan & Midgley, 2003), teacher
support (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Sakiz
et al., 2012), and connectedness or belonging
in schools (Niehaus, Rudasill, & Rakes, 2012;
You et al., 2008). Thus, our inclusion of a
construct such as school connectedness in the
structural model is relevant not only to social-
90
cognitive researchers but also to those adopt-
ing a self-determination theoretical perspec-
tive (Ryan & Deci, 2002) or sociocultural per-
spective (Sakiz et al., 2012).
VARIABLES IN THE SEM
In this section we provide an overview
of the key variables to be included in the
structural model. The variables are subsumed
under the general categories of background,
motivation beliefs, SRL, and achievement.
Background Variables
Researchers have long been interested in
examining the effects of various types of con-
textual variables, such as SES and classroom
contexts, on student achievement and behav-
ior. Although some researchers have shown
that controlling for biological or genetic vari-
ables will lessen the impact of SES on out-
comes (Bouchard & McGue, 2003), there is
much evidence demonstrating that family
economic status relates directly to school
achievement and academic behaviors (By-
rnes & Miller, 2006; Matthews, Kizzie,
Rowley, & Cortina, 2010; Pagani, Boul-
erice, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 1999) although
not necessarily to motivation beliefs and stu-
dent perceptions of context. For example,
Eccles, Wong, and Peck (2006) found that
SES had a significant effect on middle school
students’ academic achievement, but it did not
relate to students’ task values or self-concept
perceptions. For these reasons, we included
SES as a background variable in our model but
did not hypothesize that it would have a direct
effect on student motivation processes (school
connectedness, interest, and self-efficacy).
Specifically, we examined whether SES di-
rectly affected mathematics achievement or if
its influence was mediated by students’ regu-
latory actions. We also included prior mathe-
matics achievement as a second background
variable to precisely determine the effects ex-
hibited by motivational and SRL variables on
student mathematics performance in school
after controlling for prior mathematics skill.

Relations Among Motivation Variables
As indicated previously, our structural
model included three motivational processes:
self-efficacy, task interest, and school connect-
edness. Prior research has shown that all three
motivational processes relate in meaningful
and important ways to each other and to
other critical outcomes in schools. In terms of
school connectedness, relatively robust litera-
ture has shown that students who feel con-
nected to school have higher grades and
achievement (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle,
Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Patrick et al.,
2007), exhibit more positive emotions (Resnick
et al., 1997), and exhibit higher levels of en-
gagement (Wang & Eccles, 2013). Further-
more, Goodenow and Grady (1993) found that
school belonging accounted for a significant
portion of the variance in students’ motiva-
tion, expectancy for academic success, and
academic task value.
Task interest has also been shown to be
an important predictor of achievement in mid-
dle school and high school contexts (Cleary,
2006; Cleary & Chen, 2009; Wolters & Pin-
trich, 1998). Cleary (2006) conducted a study
with 142 high school students and found that
both task interest and instrumentality reliably
differentiated high and low achievers, al-
though task interest was a more robust predic-
tor of achievement. Furthermore, in a study
with 880 middle school students, Cleary and
Chen (2009) showed that task interest rather
than task values was the strongest predictor of
the frequency with which students reported
using regulatory strategies during learning in
mathematics class.
One of the most consistent and strongest
findings in the literature, however, is that self-
efficacy is an extremely strong predictor of
academic achievement and behavior, even
when compared to other types of self-beliefs,
such as self-esteem, self-concept, and interest
(Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991;
Pajares & Graham, 1999; Shell, Murphy, &
Bruning, 1989; Zimmerman & Kitsantas,
2005). For example, Pajares and Graham
(1999) conducted a study with middle school
students to examine the relations among sev-
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
eral motivation variables (i.e., self-efficacy,
anxiety, task value), student effort, and prior
achievement and their relations to students’
mathematics achievement. A key finding was
that after controlling for mathematics perfor-
mance, self-efficacy emerged as a significant
predictor of mathematics outcomes but task
values did not.
Furthermore, and of particular relevance
to our study, is that self-efficacy beliefs often
act as a reliable mediator of the relations be-
tween other motivation beliefs, student
achievement, and other important outcomes
(Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Sakiz et al., 2012).
For example, Sakiz et al. (2012) examined
middle school students’ self-efficacy beliefs as
a mediator of the relation between motivation
variables (enjoyment, hopelessness), sense of
belonging (specific to mathematics contexts),
and self-reported academic effort. The authors
found that academic self-efficacy not only had
a direct effect on student self-reported effort in
mathematics class but also mediated the im-
pact of students’ sense of belonging and hope-
lessness on self-reported effort. Furthermore,
Wang and Eccles (2013) found that seventh-
grade students were more likely to behavior-
ally and emotionally engage in school if they
had positive perceptions of relatedness (i.e.,
support from teachers and peers). Similar to
the findings of the Sakiz et al. study, this
effect was mediated through motivation be-
liefs of academic self-concept and task values.
In short, on the basis of the empirical literature
and the theoretical importance of self-efficacy
perceptions in a social-cognitive framework,
we positioned self-efficacy as a central medi-
ator in our structural model. By doing so, we
were able to examine whether efficacy medi-
ated the effects of background variables, broad
motivation perceptions (school connected-
ness), and contextualized motivation beliefs
(math interest) on students’ SRL and mathe-
matics achievement.
It is important to note, however, that
task interest beliefs have also been shown to
be an important predictor of academic behav-
iors and outcomes even after controlling for
the effects of self-efficacy. Wolters and Pin-
trich (1998) examined the relations between
91
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1
seventh- and eighth-grade students’ motiva-
tion beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy, task values)
and SRL strategy use across different subject
areas (i.e., mathematics, social studies, and
English). They reported that across all three
subject areas, the task value measure (which
reflected both interest and perceived impor-
tance) exhibited medium to large correlations
with self-efficacy and two measures of strat-
egy use (i.e., cognitive and regulatory strate-
gies) in their study. Subsequent regression
analyses showed that both task value and self-
efficacy measures accounted for unique vari-
ance in the strategy measures after controlling
for gender and test anxiety. Thus, although
self-efficacy was the primary motivation me-
diator in our model, we conceptualized task
interest as having unique effects on students’
strategy use and performance in mathematics
class.
Self-Regulated Learning
Self-regulated learners typically possess
a strong repertoire of cognitive and regulatory
strategies, including help seeking, elaboration,
environmental structuring, and planning. Be-
cause of adaptive self-beliefs, such as high
levels of self-efficacy and task interest, as well
as favorable perceptions of one’s connection
to the learning environment (school connect-
edness), self-regulated learners often feel em-
powered to employ and flexibly adapt their use
of strategies to achieve their goals.
Much research has linked SRL strate-
gies and achievement (Graham & Harris,
2009; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011), but some
SRL researchers have begun to question the
appropriateness of relying on self-report ques-
tionnaires as the primary approach for assess-
ing SRL-related behaviors and strategy use
(Winne & Jamieson-Noel, 2002). Because of
potential problems with response biases and
inaccuracies, researchers have begun to con-
sider alternative SRL assessment tools includ-
ing direct observations or traces, think-aloud
protocols, and teacher rating scales (Cleary &
Callan, 2014; Winne & Perry, 2000). Teacher
ratings can be particularly valuable because
teachers have repeated opportunities to ob-
92
serve students in school across tasks and time
and thus will often develop a strong under-
standing of students’ regulatory strengths and
weaknesses. In addition to the studies support-
ing the concurrent validity of teacher ratings
of student SRL, research has shown these
measures to relate to motivation beliefs and to
reliably predict achievement (Cleary & Cal-
lan, 2014; DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013).
For these reasons, we used teacher ratings as
the source of student SRL behaviors in math-
ematics class.
The importance of regulatory behaviors
as a mediator has also been demonstrated
across academic contexts (Fantuzzo et al.,
2012; Matthews et al., 2010; Shumow, Van-
dell, & Posner, 1999). Fantuzzo et al. (2012)
showed that student engagement, which in-
cluded SRL indicators such as effort, positive
self-beliefs, and independent work habits, me-
diated the relation between risk factors (e.g.,
maternal education, poverty) and achievement
in both mathematics and reading. In the area
of literacy, Matthews et al. (2010) found that
SRL-related skills, such as organization, flex-
ibility, and persistence, accounted for signifi-
cant variance in students’ literacy skills after
controlling for several background variables.
We extend this line of research by focusing on
mathematics contexts. Furthermore, on the ba-
sis of these findings and the broader SRL
literature, we positioned SRL behaviors as an-
other central mediator in our model. We hy-
pothesized that SRL would exert a direct ef-
fect on student mathematics achievement and,
along with student perceptions of efficacy,
would serve as a robust mediator in our model.
PURPOSES
The broad objective of the current re-
search project was to examine the relations
among background variables, motivational be-
liefs, SRL behaviors, and mathematics course
performance (see Figure 1). This study is im-
portant because of our purposeful attempt to
include both motivation beliefs (i.e., self-effi-
cacy) and regulatory behaviors (i.e., SRL
strategy use in mathematics) as central medi-
ators in the model. To date, very few studies in

Figure 1. Hypothetical Model
SES
SE
SC
TI
PRACH
Note. MGRADE ⫽ final mathematics grade; PRACH ⫽ prior achievement; SC ⫽ school connectedness; SE ⫽
self-efficacy; SES ⫽ socioeconomic status; SRL ⫽ self-regulated learning; TI ⫽ task interest.
the SRL literature have included both motiva-
tion beliefs and regulatory behaviors as medi-
ators in the same model. This component of
our model allowed us to investigate whether
cognition (i.e., beliefs), regulatory behaviors,
or both accounted for unique variance in
achievement.
Furthermore, because most path analy-
ses and SEMs have relied primarily on stu-
dents as the data source for their motivation
beliefs and regulatory behaviors (Sakiz et al.,
2012; Wang & Eccles, 2013), our measure-
ment model was unique because of its multi-
source assessment focus. That is, we gathered
data about student motivation directly from
the students but used teacher ratings to obtain
information about student SRL behaviors. Us-
ing external sources to report on student be-
havior is an important feature of the study
given that self-reported behavior often does
not correspond with what students actually do
(Winne & Jamieson-Noel, 2002). Further-
more, this multisource approach reduces the
likelihood that an observed relation was sim-
ply a function of method-specific variance.
This study is also important from a the-
oretical perspective. In developing our struc-
tural model through a social-cognitive lens,
we were primarily interested in examining
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
MGRADE
SRL
motivation beliefs as predictors of SRL behav-
iors. That is, social-cognitive theories tend to
place much emphasis on the causal role of
human cognition on student behavior. How-
ever, on the basis of Bandura’s (1997) notion
of reciprocal determinism, we also wanted to
test a model that reversed the sequence of the
cognition– behavior link. By testing this alter-
native model, we would be able to determine
whether the cognition-to-behavior sequence or
behavior-to-cognition sequence was the more
viable one. Furthermore, our inclusion of a
measure of school connectedness was impor-
tant from a theoretical perspective. In addition
to school connectedness being relevant to dif-
ferent theoretical paradigms, this construct fo-
cused on the overall school context rather than
the mathematics classroom context, as was the
case with most other variables. This method-
ological feature enabled us to examine the
nature of the relations between a global moti-
vation belief (connectedness) and other con-
tent area–specific motivation beliefs (i.e.,
self-efficacy, task interest) along with the col-
lective influence of these different levels of
motivation on student SRL and mathematics
achievement.
Ultimately, we were interested in exam-
ining both direct and indirect effects in this
93
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1
model. The primary hypotheses for the direct
effects were guided by prior research and were
as follows: (a) School connectedness would
relate in a positive direction to task interest,
self-efficacy, and SRL behaviors; (b) task in-
terest would be associated positively with
self-efficacy, student SRL, and mathematics per-
formance; (c) self-efficacy would relate posi-
tively to student SRL and mathematics perfor-
mance; and (d) student SRL would predict
mathematics performance.
Relative to the indirect effects, we were
primarily interested in illustrating that stu-
dents’ self-efficacy and their classroom-re-
lated SRL behaviors served as important me-
diators in the model. We hypothesized that (a)
SES would relate to mathematics performance
through student SRL, (b) school connected-
ness would be positively related to self-effi-
cacy through task interest and positively re-
lated to student SRL through self-efficacy, (c)
task interest would be positively related to
student SRL through self-efficacy and posi-
tively related to mathematics performance
through self-efficacy, and (d) self-efficacy
would be predictive of mathematics perfor-
mance through its relations with student SRL.
METHOD
Participants
Three hundred sixty-three students from
one middle school in a northeastern city par-
ticipated in the study (response rate of 48.9%).
Of the 363 who completed the surveys, 32
were removed from the final sample as a result
of missing data for SES or entire scales from
their records. The final student sample in the
study consisted of 331 sixth-grade students (n ⫽
213, 64.4%) or seventh-grade students (n ⫽
118, 35.6%). Approximately 59% of the sample
was female, and 24.9% of students were eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch. The participating
sample was diverse and fairly representative of
state demographics: White, n ⫽ 142 (42.9%);
Hispanic, n ⫽ 76 (23.0%); Asian, n ⫽ 70
(21.1%); Black, n ⫽ 17 (5.1%); and other,
n ⫽ 26 (7.9%).
Eleven mathematics teachers from the
same middle school also participated. Teach-
94
ers were primarily female (90%) and White
(100%). It is of importance to note that the
target middle school was selected for this proj-
ect, in part, because of the interest expressed
by school administrators in further under-
standing how motivation and SRL processes
relate to mathematics performance. We also
selected this school because of its sociocul-
tural diversity and because we were interested
in specifically targeting a middle school pop-
ulation. The target middle school’s perfor-
mance on standardized mathematics and read-
ing examinations was comparable to state
averages.
Motivation Measures
We used three measures of motivation:
self-efficacy, task interest, and school connect-
edness. All measures were pre-existing scales
established in prior research.
Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning
Scale
The Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated
Learning Scale is a seven-item measure that
assesses student perceptions of efficacy to reg-
ulate their behaviors during mathematics ac-
tivities conducted at home and school (Pajares
& Graham, 1999; Usher & Pajares, 2008). All
items begin with the phrase “How well can
you . . .” and address various types of regula-
tory actions, such as structuring an effective
home study environment, self-motivating,
managing time, and directing attention. For
the purposes of this study, all items were cus-
tomized to mathematics contexts, such as “fin-
ish your math homework on time” and “par-
ticipate in math classroom discussions.” Stu-
dents rated their efficacy using a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (not well at all) to 5 (very
well). In addition to adhering to guidelines for
constructing self-efficacy measures and hav-
ing strong content validity (Bandura, 2006),
this measure has been shown to exhibit large
positive relations with other motivation beliefs
(i.e., mathematics self-efficacy, task values,
self-concept) and engagement in mathematics,
as well as large negative relations with anxiety
(Pajares & Graham, 1999). There is also evi-
dence for the unidimensional nature of the

measure and evidence that this structure is in-
variant across gender and grade level (elemen-
tary school, middle school, and high school;
Usher & Pajares, 2008). The ␣ coefficient for
this scale in the current study is .78, which is
comparable to estimates reported from prior re-
search (␣ ⫽ .81; Pajares & Graham, 1999).
Task Interest Inventory
The Task Interest Inventory is a six-item
self-report measure designed to examine stu-
dents’ interest and enjoyment in specific con-
tent areas, such as science (Cleary, 2006) and
mathematics (Cleary & Callan, 2014; Cleary
& Chen, 2009). The mathematics version was
used in this study. Students used a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree) to convey their
perceptions. Example items include “I like
learning about math even when it is difficult”
and “I think math is boring.” This measure has
been shown to exhibit adequate internal con-
sistency (␣ ⫽ .87; Cleary & Chen, 2009).
Consistent with the theoretical premise and
prior research that task interest measures
should correlate with measures of SRL and
performance, research has shown that this
measure is a significant predictor of adaptive
and maladaptive student SRL behaviors after
controlling for gender and other motivation
beliefs (Cleary & Chen, 2009), and it reliably
differentiates high- and low-achieving stu-
dents in middle school and high school con-
texts (Cleary, 2006; Cleary & Callan, 2014;
Cleary & Chen, 2009). The current ␣ for this
measure is .89.
School Connectedness Scale
The School Connectedness Scale is a
five-item measure designed to assess the ex-
tent to which students feel connected, sup-
ported, and safe in their schools (Resnick
et al., 1997). A 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) was used. Example items include “I
feel close to people at this school” and “I feel
like I am part of this school.” This measure
has been shown to have adequate internal con-
sistency (␣ ⫽ .82; Loukas, Suzuki, & Horton,
2006). There is also some empirical evidence
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
for the validity of inferences based on scores
from this measure, specifically regarding its
role as a mediator among contextual, motiva-
tion, and well-being measures. That is, consis-
tent with theoretical predictions, the School
Connectedness Scale has been shown to serve
as a mediator between school context vari-
ables and behavioral problems (Loukas et al.,
2006), as well as between hope and feelings of
life satisfaction (You et al., 2008). The current
estimate of internal consistency is ␣ ⫽ .76.
SRL Measure: Self-Regulation Strategy
Inventory–Teacher Rating Scale
The Self-Regulation Strategy Invento-
ry–Teacher Rating Scale (SRSI-TRS) is a 13-
item teacher rating scale designed to examine
the frequency with which students exhibit mo-
tivation and regulatory behaviors in classroom
contexts (Cleary & Callan, 2014), such as
help-seeking behaviors, self-monitoring, and
self-motivation tactics. In this study, however,
we elected to use seven items that were con-
ceptually linked to specific types of SRL be-
haviors, such as looking for important infor-
mation to optimize learning and seeking out
help during mathematics activities when con-
fused. Example items include “The student
asks questions in class when he or she does not
understand something” and “The student asks
about the format of upcoming tests.” The
SRSI-TRS uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always).
Prior research has shown the SRSI-TRS to
have high internal consistency (Cleary & Cal-
lan, 2014; ␣ ⫽ .97). In terms of validity evi-
dence, the SRSI-TRS has been shown to con-
verge in expected directions with other regu-
latory measures and motivation beliefs and has
been shown to reliably predict student perfor-
mance on mathematics course examinations
(Cleary & Callan, 2014). Given that we used a
variation of the original SRSI-TRS, we con-
ducted confirmatory factor analysis to demon-
strate that this measure was represented by a
single factor (see Results). In the current
study, the internal consistency coefficient is
considered high (␣ ⫽ .90).
95
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1
Mathematics Classroom Performance:
Mathematics Course Grade
Students’ numerical grades in their
mathematics class were used as an indicator of
mathematics success. Although students could
technically earn grades from 0 to 100 on their
report card, the actual range observed in this
sample was from 56 to 100. We calculated an
overall numerical grade representing the aver-
age of the students’ quarterly report card
grades from the third and fourth semesters
given that the primary measures were admin-
istered in the third quarter of the school year.
We elected to use mathematics course grade
rather than a standardized measure of mathe-
matics achievement for a couple of reasons.
First, given that most of our motivation and
SRL measures targeted students’ motivation
and regulatory beliefs and behaviors relative
to their specific mathematics classes, we
wanted to use an outcome measure that re-
flected performance in that context. Further-
more, because motivation and SRL variables
are likely to influence other variables that are
factored into student course grades (home-
work, participation, effort), we felt that course
grades were appropriate (Bembenutty, 2013;
Kitsantas, Cheema, & Ware, 2011; Sakiz
et al., 2012). The course grades were provided
to the authors by the participating school dis-
trict at the end of the school year.
Background Variables
Two background variables were in-
cluded in the structural model: mathematics
prior achievement and socioeconomic status.
Both variables were provided to the authors by
the participating school district.
Mathematics Prior Achievement
Prior mathematics skills were assessed
using STAR Math Enterprise, a computer
adaptive test in mathematics (Renaissance
Learning, 2014). This measure was developed
for students in Grades 1 to 12 and targets five
key domains: numbers and operations, alge-
bra, geometry and measurement, data analysis,
and statistics. This measure was given to all
participants as part of district-wide assessment
96
practices and was provided to the primary
author by school administrators. Percentile
scores were used to ensure comparability of
performance across grades.
Socioeconomic Status
SES was assessed using a dichotomous
variable, free or reduced-price lunch and no
free or reduced-price lunch (Fantuzzo et al.,
2012), and students’ scores were provided to
the primary author by the school district.
Procedures
Students completed all instruments dur-
ing a single 20- to 25-minute testing session in
their social studies classrooms over a 3-week
period during the third quarter of the school
year. Students were surveyed in their social
studies classrooms rather than their mathemat-
ics classrooms in order to reduce potential
contextual effects or biases. Trained graduate
research assistants administered the surveys in
each classroom. They read instructions aloud
and answered questions as needed. Teachers
completed the SRSI-TRS within 2 weeks of
students being surveyed.
RESULTS
Multilevel structural equation modeling
(MSEM) was used in the present research
study to account for students nested within
classes and measurement error (Preacher, Zy-
phur, & Zhang, 2010). A two-phase procedure
was used: (a) A confirmatory factor analysis
was used to verify the measurement model and
to test whether items of a construct were con-
sistent with the theoretical approach; and (b)
MSEM was conducted to examine the fit of
the complex structural model to the data using
Mplus software, version 6.12 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998 –2015). Several indexes were
used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the
model to the data, including the ␹2 test, which
can examine the difference in fit between an
overidentified model and an identified model
by taking the degrees of freedom into consid-
eration (Kline, 2011). Comparative fix index
(CFI) values of 0.95 are deemed good,
whereas values between 0.90 and 0.95 are
considered acceptable. Finally, the root mean
 Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Among

All Measures

Measures M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. SES 0.25 0.43 —

2. PRACH 78.0 25.0 .30** —
3. SC 4.07 0.74 .06 .08 —
4. SE 4.01 0.67 .12* .23** .43** —
5. SRL 3.23 0.96 .20** .31** .10 .28** —
6. TI 3.76 0.96 .01 .06 .43** .61** .14** —
7. MGRADE 87.47 7.19 .35** .55** .20** .41** .45** .27** —

Note. MGRADE ⫽ final mathematics grade; PRACH ⫽ prior achievement; SC ⫽ school connectedness; SE ⫽
self-efficacy; SES ⫽ socioeconomic status; SRL ⫽ self-regulated learning; TI ⫽ task interest.
*p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.

square error of approximation (RMSEA), yielded an acceptable fit, ␹2(269) ⫽ 709.2,

which is the average of the residuals between
the observed covariance or correlation from
the sample and the expected model estimated
from the population (Kline, 2011), provides
valuable information about the fit of a model.
According to Kline (2011), an RMSEA value
lower than 0.05 indicates an excellent fit while
a value between 0.05 and 0.08 shows an ac-
ceptable error of approximation.
Preliminary analyses showed that de-
spite the data being multilevel (i.e., teacher
and school), all variables were normally dis-
tributed in terms of skewness and kurtosis
(please see Table 1 for a summary of descrip-
tive statistics for all measures). Multivariate
normality was also achieved as Mardia’s co-
efficient indicated nonsignificant kurtosis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the
Measurement Model
Before testing the structural model, we
used confirmatory factor analysis to examine
the validity of the latent constructs (i.e., self-
efficacy, school connectedness, task interest,
and SRL). All variables exhibited low to mod-
erate correlations, which eliminated any mul-
ticollinearity concerns. Furthermore, in our
model all factors were allowed to intercorre-
late simultaneously. The measurement model
with all the key latent constructs (self-efficacy,
school connectedness, task interest, and SRL)
p ⫽ .001, CFI ⫽ .90, Tucker–Lewis index
(TLI) ⫽ .90, RMSEA ⫽ .07. However, on the
basis of information provided from modifica-
tion indexes, we dropped two items from the
SRL subscale and one item from the self-
efficacy scale. The new model yielded an im-
proved fit, ␹2(203) ⫽ 413.7, p ⫽ .001, CFI ⫽
.94, TLI ⫽ .94, RMSEA ⫽ .05. The hypoth-
esized constructs were verified as single and
discrete latent variables. The standardized
loadings ranged from .47 to .92, and they were
all statistically significant at p ⬍ .01.
Testing the Hypothetical Structural
Model
Our proposed structural model demon-
strated an acceptable fit to the data, ␹2(203) ⫽
445.3, p ⫽ .001, CFI ⫽ .93, TLI ⫽ .93,
RMSEA ⫽ .05, with the 90% confidence in-
terval (CI) lower bound of .05 and upper
bound of .06. Four of the paths were nonsig-
nificant in this model. The paths between
school connectedness and SRL behaviors
(␤ ⫽ .07, p ⫽ .35) and between prior achieve-
ment and task interest (␤ ⫽ .05, p ⫽ .41) were
not statistically significant. Furthermore, the
hypothesized paths between task interest and
both mathematics performance (␤ ⫽ .01, p ⫽
.95) and SRL behaviors (␤ ⫽ .09, p ⫽ .35)
were not statistically significant. The final
model accounted for a total of 51% of the
97
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

variance in mathematics performance, with Table 2. Unstandardized Estimates

four variables contributing unique variance. and Direct Effect Pathways
The R2 values for each of the latent con-
structs were as follows: self-efficacy, R2 ⫽ Standard
.43; SRL behaviors, R2 ⫽ .11; and task inter- Pathway B Error ␤
est, R2 ⫽ .26.
SC 3 TI 0.20 0.03 0.50***
Because the motivation and SRL mea-
SC 3 SE 0.16 0.04 0.22***
sures were administered at a single time TI 3 SE 1.05 0.14 0.60***
point, it is possible that the flow of causality PRACH 3 SE 0.01 0.001 0.25***
between these constructs is bidirectional. PRACH 3 SRL — — 0.13**
Within the context of the larger model, we SES 3 SRL 0.15 0.004 0.13**
were specifically interested in examining SE 3 SRL 0.01 0.003 0.22***
whether SRL behavior (behavioral dimen- SES 3 MGRADE 2.30 0.67 0.14***
sion) can be a cause and an outcome of PRACH 3
MGRADE 0.11 0.003 0.45***
motivation beliefs (personal dimension). To
SE 3 MGRADE 2.24 0.48 0.26**
test this model, we reversed the positioning SRL 3 MGRADE 68.10 1.61 0.25***
of SRL and the two motivational beliefs
(i.e., self-efficacy and task interest) relative Note. MGRADE ⫽ final mathematics grade; PRACH ⫽
to the original model so that SRL behavior prior achievement; SC ⫽ school connectedness; SE ⫽
self-efficacy; SES ⫽ socioeconomic status; SRL ⫽ self-
was hypothesized to impact the motivation regulated learning; TI ⫽ task interest.
beliefs. We found that most of the path **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.
coefficients in the alternative model were
substantially lower than the original path
coefficients and that the new alternative
model did not adequately fit the data, Indirect Effects of Self-Efficacy and Self-
Regulatory Behaviors
␹2(203) ⫽ 465.5, p ⫽ .001, CFI ⫽ .89,
TLI ⫽ .88, RMSEA ⫽ .07, thereby provid- Of particular importance to our objec-
ing further support for our original hypo- tives, however, was the role of self-efficacy
thetical model. and self-regulatory behaviors as mediators.
Table 3 lists all indirect total effects, which
Direct Effects on Student Mathematics indicate that mediation was likely between
Performance these variables of interest. First, in terms of
self-efficacy, the indirect effect analyses
We present the standardized path coef- showed that self-efficacy was a significant me-
ficients in Table 2. In terms of mathematics diator between prior achievement and student
performance, four variables emerged as SRL behaviors (95% CI [.027, .093]), as well
unique predictors: SES (␤ ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001); as between task interest and SRL behaviors
prior academic achievement (␤ ⫽ .45, p ⬍ (95% CI [.11, .169]). The important mediation
.001); self-efficacy beliefs (␤ ⫽ .26, p ⬍ role of SRL behaviors was also confirmed.
.001); and SRL behaviors (␤ ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .001). That is, SRL behaviors mediated the relation
That is, background variables (i.e., SES, prior between self-efficacy and mathematics perfor-
achievement), personal factors (i.e., efficacy mance (95% CI [.021, .119]), as well as be-
beliefs), and behaviors (i.e., SRL) all exerted a tween SES and mathematics performance
direct effect on mathematics performance (see (95% CI [.006, .075]). Also consistent with
Figure 2). However, on the basis of the size of expectations was that task interest mediated
the standardized regression coefficients, the the relation between school connectedness and
prior achievement variable contributed most self-efficacy (95% CI [.206, .394]).
strongly to the prediction of mathematics The importance of self-efficacy and
course grades. SRL as mediators was further illustrated when
98
 Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning

Figure 2. SEM Results

SES

.13 .14
SE
2
R = .43

.22 .22 .26

.60
.03
SRL MGRADE
2 2
R =.11 R = .51
.50 .25
.30 SC
TI .09
2
R = .26
.01
.03
.25
.13 .45

PRACH

Note. Multilevel structural equation model (SEM) results are shown for prior achievement, socioeconomic status (SES),
motivational variables, self-regulated learning (SRL), and student achievement. MGRADE ⫽ final mathematics grade;
PRACH ⫽ prior achievement; SC ⫽ school connectedness; SE ⫽ self-efficacy; TI ⫽ task interest.

we examined paths including both factors as DISCUSSION

mediators. For example, in regard to the rela-
tion between prior achievement and mathe-
matics performance, the total indirect effect
(.12) showed that student performance in
mathematics was simultaneously affected by
the two mediators (self-efficacy and SRL be-
haviors); however, the stronger mediator was
student self-efficacy beliefs, with a specific
indirect effect of .06. Furthermore, two spe-
cific indirect paths emerged between task in-
terest and mathematics performance, with a
total indirect effect of .19. The first path ex-
tended from task interest to mathematics per-
formance through both self-efficacy and SRL
behaviors, a finding that further illustrates
the importance of both self-efficacy and
SRL behaviors. The second path indicated
that self-efficacy alone also served as a me-
diator between task interest and mathemat-
ics performance.
The core objective of this study was to
examine the role of student self-efficacy and
SRL behaviors as mediators within a complex
model of background variables, motivation be-
liefs, and mathematics achievement. We also
focused on the relations among the three moti-
vation variables (i.e., self-efficacy, task interest,
and school connectedness) and considered how
these measures collectively and separately pre-
dicted students’ SRL behaviors and achieve-
ment. The overall fit of our proposed model to
the sample data was acceptable, and the majority
of our hypotheses were confirmed. The overall
structural model explained a robust amount of
the variance in mathematics performance (51%);
prior achievement appeared to contribute most to
course grades, with self-efficacy and SRL be-
haviors contributing a lesser but comparable
amount. Of particular theoretical relevance from
99
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

Table 3. Analysis of Magnitude and Statistical Significance of Indirect

Effects

95% CI for
Indirect Effects
Total Indirect
Paths for Total and Specific Indirect Effects Effects LB UB

1. SES 3 MGRADE .04* 0.006 0.075

● SES 3 SRL 3 MGRADE
2. PRACH 3 SRL .06** 0.027 0.093
● PRACH 3 SE 3 SRL
3. SC 3 SE .30** 0.206 0.394
● SC 3 TI 3 SE
4. TI 3 SRL .14** 0.11 0.169
● TI 3 SE 3 SRL
5. SE 3 MGRADE .07** 0.021 0.119
● SE 3 SRL 3 MGRADE
6. TI 3 MGRADE .19** 0.112 0.268
● TI 3 SE 3 SRL 3 MGRADE (.04)
● TI 3 SE 3 MGRADE (.15)
7. SC 3 SRL .12** 0.069 0.171
● SC 3 SE 3 SRL (.05)
● SC 3 TI 3 SE 3 SRL (.07)
8. PRACH 3 MGRADE .12** 0.083 0.157
● PRACH 3 SE 3 SRL 3 MGRADE (.02)
● PRACH 3 SE 3 MGRADE (.06)
● PRACH 3 SRL 3 MGRADE (.04)
9. SC 3 MGRADE .16** 0.074 0.246
● SC 3 TI 3 SE 3 SRL 3 MGRADE (.02)
● SC 3 SE 3 SRL 3 MGRADE (.02)
● SC 3 SE 3 MGRADE (.05)
● SC 3 TI 3 SE 3 MGRADE (.07)

Note. Discrepancies in number calculations are due to rounding errors. CI ⫽ confidence interval; LB ⫽ lower bound;
MGRADE ⫽ final mathematics grade; PRACH ⫽ prior achievement; SC ⫽ school connectedness; SE ⫽ self-efficacy;
SES ⫽ socioeconomic status; SRL ⫽ self-regulated learning; TI ⫽ task interest; UB ⫽ upper bound.
*p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.

a social-cognitive perspective was that at least
one variable from distinct domains of function-
ing (i.e., personal, environment [SES], and
behavior) exhibited a direct influence on perfor-
mance even after controlling for prior mathemat-
ics skills. When also considering the unique and
combined mediation roles exhibited by self-effi-
cacy and SRL strategies in the model, our find-
ings underscore the importance of simultane-
ously considering the influence of both cognitive
and behavioral influences on achievement. Fi-
nally, because much of the SRL literature has
100
focused on college and high school students and
because the transition to middle school repre-
sents a tremendous challenge for many students
(Grolnick & Raftery-Helmer, 2015), our results
are timely and of particular value to middle
school personnel.
The Proposed Model
A primary finding of this study was that
self-efficacy beliefs and SRL behaviors were
fairly robust mediators in the structural model.

Self-efficacy beliefs mediated (i.e., alone or in
conjunction with SRL behaviors) the relations
between two other motivation beliefs (task
interest, school connectedness) with both stu-
dent SRL behaviors and final mathematics
grades. In fact, self-efficacy fully mediated the
effects of task interest on SRL behaviors and
the effects of task interest on final mathemat-
ics grades. The fact that self-efficacy, but not
task interest, accounted for unique variation in
SRL and mathematics grades supports the so-
cial-cognitive viewpoint that self-efficacy acts
as a critical factor in understanding academic
outcomes (Bandura, 1997; Pajares & Kranzler,
1995; Usher & Pajares, 2008).
However, a couple of qualifying points
about this finding should be emphasized. First,
just because self-efficacy beliefs played a key
role in the model does not suggest that the
other motivation beliefs, such as task interest
and school connectedness, were irrelevant or
less important. In fact, both of these motiva-
tion beliefs were strong predictors of students’
efficacy beliefs to regulate their behaviors.
Furthermore, task interest was observed to
work with self-efficacy beliefs in mediating
the relations between school connectedness
and both SRL behaviors and mathematics
grades. That is, one of the mediation pathways
from connectedness to SRL and achievement
involved both self-efficacy and task interest
(see Table 3). Thus, in our study we showed
that the effects of a broad motivation variable
(i.e., student connection focused on the school
level) on students’ SRL behaviors in mathe-
matics contexts were mediated by self-efficacy
and interest motivation beliefs linked to a
mathematics context.
A second qualifying point about the cen-
tral role of self-efficacy is that although it
emerged as a significant predictor of mathe-
matics performance (.26), the size of this path
coefficient was lower than what is typically
reported in the self-efficacy literature. For ex-
ample, Pajares and Kranzler (1995) and Pa-
jares and Miller (1994) reported path coeffi-
cients ranging from about .35 to .55 between
self-efficacy and mathematics performance af-
ter controlling for the effects of both general
cognitive ability and prior achievement, while
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
Kitsantas et al. (2011) used regression analysis
to reveal a standardized ␤ weight of .46 for
self-efficacy after controlling for ethnicity,
gender, and homework quality. A potential
reason for these discrepant findings is that four
variables in our model explained a total of
51% of the variance in mathematics perfor-
mance. Because we included multiple predic-
tors of mathematics performance that cut
across different dimensions of functioning, it
is possible that variance typically accounted
for by self-efficacy was lost to other predic-
tors. Another possible explanation pertains to
the nature of the self-efficacy measure. A large
proportion of self-efficacy studies employing
mediation analyses have used measures that
assess perceptions of competence to attain par-
ticular outcomes, such as receiving an A in
class, or to perform particular academic skills,
such as solving specific types of mathematics
problems. In our study, the self-efficacy mea-
sure targeted students’ perceptions of capabil-
ity to regulate their learning behaviors in re-
lation to mathematics activities. We purpose-
fully used this measure because of our interest
in examining the link between students’ com-
petency perceptions of regulation and their
actual regulatory behaviors reported by teach-
ers. In short, it is possible that self-efficacy
measures of performance or outcomes are
more robust predictors than self-efficacy mea-
sures of regulation because the former are
more closely intertwined with performance
outcomes. A few prior studies have supported
this claim (Pajares & Graham, 1999; Zimmer-
man, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992).
In addition to examining the role of self-
efficacy, we were interested in determining
whether SRL behaviors in mathematics served
as a reliable predictor and mediator of math-
ematics class performance. We found that the
influence of regulatory behaviors on mathe-
matics course grades was comparable to that
of the self-efficacy latent factor; a finding that
parallels SRL research across intervention
studies (Butler, 1998; Graham & Harris,
2009), path or structural equation models
(Fantuzzo et al., 2012; Matthews et al., 2010),
and ex post facto designs (Cleary, 2006;
Cleary & Chen, 2009). As a mediator, SRL
101
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1
behaviors mediated the relations between two
variables (i.e., self-efficacy and SES) on final
mathematics grades (Fantuzzo et al., 2012;
Matthews et al., 2010) and, together with self-
efficacy, mediated the effects of task interest
on final grades. In short, the strategic quality
of students’ regulatory behaviors exhibited
during classroom activities, such as seeking
out help from others when confused, not only
served as a direct predictor of their mathemat-
ics outcomes but also mediated the effects of
how students think and feel about themselves
as learners and the contexts in which they
learn.
A few additional points should be made
regarding the observed relations within the
model. One critical issue pertains to the em-
pirical link between a cognitive dimension of
SRL (self-efficacy for SRL), a behavioral di-
mension (classroom SRL behaviors), and
achievement. We demonstrated that students’
perceptions of efficacy to regulate and their
actual regulatory behaviors (as reported by
teachers) in the classroom exerted unique ef-
fects on their achievement. Thus, beliefs and
actions were both found to be important for
understanding their achievement. Further-
more, our test of an alternative structural
model enabled us to determine whether the
sequential link between motivation beliefs and
regulatory behaviors was best represented as a
cognition-to-behavior pathway or vice versa.
Our analyses revealed that the cognition-to-
behavior causal sequence was more credible;
it resulted in stronger observed relations and
an overall better model fit. Although this find-
ing is theoretically important in that it supports
the social-cognitive perspective that cognition
has a key deterministic influence on behavior,
the finding also has important implications for
educators (see Implications for Educators and
School Psychologists subsection).
Another important point involved the
link between school connectedness, self-effi-
cacy and interest, and student behaviors. Re-
cent research has shown that a sense of con-
nectedness to a specific classroom context is
an important predictor of other motivational
processes and effort within that context (Sakiz
et al., 2012). We complemented this study in a
102
couple of ways. Unlike Sakiz et al. (2012), we
included a measure of connectedness that op-
erated at the school level. This enabled us to
examine whether a more global type of moti-
vation belief (school connectedness) impacted
content-specific motivation beliefs (efficacy,
interest) and subsequent regulatory behaviors.
Given our results that school connectedness
exerted a direct effect on specific, contextual-
ized motivation beliefs and an indirect effect
on SRL behaviors, it appears that feelings of
connectedness, regardless of whether they are
directed at the school level or at a specific
classroom level, are very important when at-
tempting to understand student motivation and
behaviors within that classroom context. Fur-
thermore, the fact that we gathered data about
student SRL behaviors from an external
source rather than from student self-reports
provides confirming evidence that how stu-
dents think about learning and themselves is a
strong predictor of the things they do in
school.
Limitations and Areas of Future
Research
Although the findings of this study are
important, there are a few limitations. First,
we administered several measures at a single
point in time and we did not manipulate any
variables. Thus, we were not able to make
causal claims regarding the relations among
the three dimensions of personal, behavior,
and environment. Given that the transition
to middle school is often problematic for
many students from a motivational and regu-
latory perspective (Grolnick & Raftery-Hel-
mer, 2015), it is critical that future research
longitudinally investigates how motivation be-
liefs and SRL behaviors vary over time and
across situations and contexts. These types of
longitudinal analyses may prove useful in
more directly assessing the causal links among
different types of motivation processes, regu-
latory behaviors, and achievement.
Second, although the observed fit in-
dexes for our proposed model were adequate
and stronger than an alternative model, we
make no claims that our model is the best

possible one or that it includes all potential
variables relevant to understanding mathemat-
ics performance. Clearly, a variety of cogni-
tive abilities, such as working memory, pro-
cessing speed, and visual–spatial skills, have
been linked to different types of mathematics
outcomes (Mather & Wendling, 2005). We
also did not include many of the motivation
processes emphasized across different theo-
retical paradigms, such as autonomy, growth
mindset, perceived instrumentality, or goal
orientation, and did not delve into issues
such as task or content area difficulty (Sc-
hunk & Zimmerman, 2008). Future research
should consider including such processes to
further enhance our understanding of how
different motivation processes and contex-
tual factors intersect to promote adaptive
student behavior.
Although we intentionally used teacher
ratings of student SRL behaviors to avoid
overreliance on student reports, it is possible
that the teacher ratings were biased because of
their prior knowledge about student skill or
performance. That is, some teachers may have
simply provided higher ratings for more capa-
ble or skilled students and lower ratings for
less skilled students. From our perspective, it
is important for researchers to continue to use
different types of measures to assess student
behavior and SRL so that we can enhance the
validity of inferences that are made regarding
observed results or findings from a particular
study.
The use of students’ report card grades
as an indicator of mathematics performance
can also be viewed as a limitation. Although
we were specifically interested in students’
performance in mathematics classes rather
than a broad measure of mathematics skill, the
use of a report card grade is fairly broad and
may be influenced by variables other than
mathematics skills (e.g., class participation,
homework completion). Thus, course grades
may not be representative of students’ actual
mathematics skills. Researchers who are spe-
cifically interested in examining mathematics
skill rather than classroom performance
should use standardized measures of mathe-
matics as their primary academic outcome.
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
Implications for Educators and School
Psychologists
Even though our research design did not
enable us to draw causal inferences regarding
the link among context, motivation, regula-
tion, and performance, the observed findings
are relevant to school-based personnel and
practices. First, it is important for school per-
sonnel in middle school contexts to recognize
that academic performance is directly influ-
enced by many different variables, such as
students’ background and prior knowledge,
the quality of their perceptions of classroom
contexts and their own skills and capabilities,
and the quality of their engagement and regu-
latory behaviors.
Although most school personnel recog-
nize the importance of using behavioral prin-
ciples and techniques, such as antecedent con-
trol, reinforcement, and functional behavior
assessments, to optimize student behavior and
achievement (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett, &
Little, 2004; Kruger et al., 2016), our findings
suggest that it is also relevant to directly assess
and target students’ self-perceptions and be-
liefs. However, because various self-percep-
tions and beliefs are often intertwined and
connected, educators who are interested in
empowering youth should not simply target
one type of belief or self-perception; they
need to concurrently examine multiple be-
liefs such as how confident students feel
about performing a specific task, their inter-
est in that activity, and their perceptions of
value or importance of that activity, as well
as their perceptions about the level of sup-
ports, encouragement, and connection they
experience in school. These recommenda-
tions are particularly relevant to middle
school contexts because of the enhanced rigor
and demands that middle school students ex-
perience and their corresponding vulnerability
to frustration, poor motivation, and ultimately,
low levels of achievement (Byrnes & Miller,
2006; Cleary & Chen, 2009; Grolnick & Raf-
tery-Helmer, 2015; Urdan & Midgley, 2003).
Furthermore, because the key variables
in our study (connectedness, self-efficacy, task
interest, and SRL behaviors) have been shown
103
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1
to be malleable in nature (i.e., they can be
modified and changed over time), our results
have implications for both assessment and in-
tervention planning and development. In the
SRL literature, researchers have increasingly
emphasized the use of dynamic, contextual-
ized forms of assessment to track student be-
liefs and self-perceptions as they engage in
particular learning activities and to use that
information to inform intervention planning
(Cleary & Platten, 2013; Winne & Perry,
2000). For example, Cleary & Platten (2013)
used structured interviews to assess academi-
cally at-risk high school students’ perceptions
about the causes of their academic struggles
(i.e., attributions) and used that information as
part of an intervention to help students adapt
and improve their strategic behaviors. Further-
more, as part of the Self-Regulated Strategy
Development intervention program for im-
proving written expression skills, Graham and
Harris (2009) have repeatedly demonstrated
that instruction that seeks to simultaneously
enhance students’ motivation beliefs and stra-
tegic behaviors within the context of writing
will lead to substantial improvements in per-
formance. In short, directly assessing how stu-
dents think and reflect on their learning is a
core element of many SRL intervention pro-
grams designed to empower students to take
greater control over their success in school
(Butler, 1998; Cleary & Platten, 2013; Gra-
ham & Harris, 2009).
Finally, our findings are also in line with
recent survey research illustrating a gap in
practice regarding the frequency with which
teachers and school psychologists incorpo-
rate SRL and motivation principles into their
professional activities. For example, Cleary
(2009) and Cleary, Gubi, and Prescott
(2010) showed that school psychologists do
not routinely evaluate SRL processes nor do
they systematically implement motivation
and SRL interventions for youth with aca-
demic or learning problems. Similar surveys
with teachers have revealed comparable find-
ings; teachers often do not routinely incorpo-
rate SRL-related principles into their instruc-
tion and curriculum (Grigal, Neubart, Moon,
& Graham, 2003; Wehmeyer, Agran, &
104
Hughes, 2000). Not surprisingly, in both lines
of research, the participants reported that pro-
fessional development training in SRL-related
processes was a top priority and was of critical
value for helping them to refine and develop
their teaching and professional competencies
(Cleary et al., 2010; Coalition for Psychology
in Schools and Education, 2006; Wehmeyer
et al., 2000). From our perspective, profes-
sional development training and workshops
are needed to help educators and school psy-
chologists become more proficient in under-
standing the interplay among student beliefs,
regulatory behaviors, and learning contexts, as
well as how this interplay can be addressed via
academic interventions within problem-solv-
ing frameworks.
REFERENCES
Akin-Little, K. A., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., & Little,
S. G. (2004). Extrinsic reinforcement in the classroom:
Bribery or best practice. School Psychology Review,
33(3), 344 –362.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for creating self-efficacy
scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy
beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–338). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive functions: What they are,
how they work, and why they evolved. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Bembenutty, H. (2013). The triumph of homework com-
pletion through a learning academy of self-regulation.
In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.),
Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse
disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp.
153–196). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated
learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and
ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
417– 450). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.).
(2000). Handbook of self-regulation. Cambridge, MA:
Academic Press.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and
environmental influences on human psychological dif-
ferences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54(1), 4 – 45. doi:
10.1002/neu.10160
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991).
Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and perfor-
mance among junior and senior high-school age students.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14(2),
153–164. doi:10.1177/016502549101400203
Briesch, A. M., & Briesch, J. M. (2015). Self-management
interventions to reduce disruptive classroom behavior.
In T. J. Cleary (Ed.), Self-regulated learning interven-
tions with at-risk youth: Enhancing adaptability, per-

formance, and well-being (pp. 45– 65). Washington,
DC: APA Publication Press.
Butler, D. (1998). The strategic content learning approach
to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three
studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4),
682– 697. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.682
Byrnes, J. P., & Miller, D. C. (2006). The relative
importance of predictors of math and science
achievement: An opportunity-propensity analysis.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(4), 599 –
629. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.09.002
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming,
C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of
bonding to school for health development: Findings
from the social development research group. Journal
of School Health, 74(7), 252–261. doi:10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2004.tb08281.x
Cleary, T. J. (2006). The development and validation of
the self-regulation strategy inventory—Self-report.
Journal of School Psychology, 44(4), 307–322. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.002
Cleary, T. J. (2009). School-based motivation and self-
regulation assessments: An examination of school
psychologist beliefs and practices. Journal of Ap-
plied School Psychology, 25(1), 71–94. doi:10.1080/
15377900802484190
Cleary, T. J., & Callan, G. L. (2014). Student self-regu-
lated learning in an urban high school: Predictive va-
lidity and relations between teacher ratings and student
self-reports. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
32(4), 295–305. doi:10.1177/0734282913507653
Cleary, T. J., & Chen, P. (2009). Self-regulation, motiva-
tion, and math achievement in middle school: Varia-
tions across grade level and math context. Journal
of School Psychology, 47(5), 291–314. doi:10.1016/
j.jsp.2009.04.002
Cleary, T. J., Gubi, A., & Prescott, M. V. (2010). Moti-
vation and self-regulation assessments in urban and
suburban schools: Professional practices and needs of
school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools,
47(10), 985–1002. doi:10.1002/pits.20519
Cleary, T. J., & Platten, P. (2013). Examining the corre-
spondence between self-regulated learning and aca-
demic achievement: A case study analysis. Education
Research International. 2013, 1–18. doi:10.1155/2013/
272560
Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2006, August). Report on the teacher needs survey.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education.
DiBenedetto, M. K., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). Con-
struct and predictive validity of microanalytic mea-
sures of students’ self-regulation of science learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 30 – 41. doi:
10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.004
Eccles, J. S., Wong, C. A., & Peck, S. C. (2006). Ethnicity
as a social context for the development of African-
American adolescents. Journal of School Psychology,
44(5), 407– 426. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.001
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with
motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The
MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1),
6 –25. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538645
Fantuzzo, J., LeBoeuf, W., Rouse, H., & Chen, C. (2012).
Academic achievement of African American boys: A
city-wide, community-based investigation of risk and
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 559 –
579. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.004
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive moni-
toring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34(10), 906 –911. doi:10.1037/
0003-066x.34.10.906
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of
school belonging and friends’ values to academic mo-
tivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal
of Experimental Education, 62(1), 60 –71. doi:10.1080/
00220973.1993.9943831
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009). Almost 30 years of
writing research: Making sense of it all with the Wrath
of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
24(2), 58 – 68. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.01277.x
Grigal, M., Neubart, D. A., Moon, S. M., & Graham, S.
(2003). Self-determination for students with disabili-
ties: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 70(1), 97–112.
Grolnick, W. S., & Raftery-Helmer, J. N. (2015). Contexts
supporting self-regulated learning at school transitions.
In T. J. Cleary (Ed.), Self-regulated learning interven-
tions with at-risk youth: Enhancing adaptability, per-
formance, and well-being (pp. 251–276). Washington,
DC: APA Publication Press.
Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit,
J. C., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates
students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(3), 477– 487. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.93.3.477
Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J., & Ware, H. W. (2011). Math-
ematics achievement: The role of homework and self-
efficacy beliefs. Journal of Advanced Academics,
22(2), 310 –339. doi:10.1177/1932202x1102200206
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Kruger, A. M., Strong, W., Daly, E. J., O’Connor, M.,
Sommerhalder, M. S., Holtz, J., . . . Heifner, A. (2016).
Setting the stage for academic success through ante-
cedent intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 53(1),
24 –38. doi:10.1002/pits.21886
Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K. D. (2006). Examining
school connectedness as a mediator of school climate
effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 491–
502. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00504.x
Mather, N., & Wendling, B. J. (2005). Linking cognitive
assessment results to academic interventions for stu-
dents with learning disabilities. In D. P. Flanagan &
P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual as-
sessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 269 –294).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Matthews, J. S., Kizzie, K. T., Rowley, S. J., & Cortina,
K. (2010). African Americans and boys: Under-
standing the literacy gap, tracing academic trajecto-
ries, and evaluating the role of learning-related
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3),
757–771. doi:10.1037/a0019616
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2015). Mplus
user’s guide (7th ed.) Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Niehaus, K., Rudasill, K. M., & Rakes, C. R. (2012). A
longitudinal study of school connectedness and academic
outcomes across sixth grade. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 50(4), 443– 460. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.03.002
Pagani, L., Boulerice, B., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E.
(1999). Effects of poverty on academic failure and
105
School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1
delinquency in boys: A change and process model
approach. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
40(8), 1209 –1219. doi:10.1017/s0021963099004783
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motiva-
tion constructs, and mathematics performance of en-
tering middle school students. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 24(2), 124 –139. doi:10.1006/ceps.
1998.0991
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and
general mental ability in mathematical problem-solv-
ing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4),
426 – 443. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1029
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy
and self-concept beliefs in mathematics problem-solv-
ing: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 86(2), 193–203. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Self-efficacy be-
liefs of adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early
adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social envi-
ronment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83–98. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A
general multilevel SEM framework for assessing mul-
tilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209 –
233. doi:10.1037/a0020141
Reddy, L. A., Newman, E., & Verdesco, A. (2015). Use of
self-regulated learning for children with ADHD: Re-
search and practice opportunities. In T. J. Cleary (Ed.),
Self-regulated learning interventions with at-risk
youth: Enhancing adaptability, performance, and well-
being (pp. 15– 43). Washington, DC: APA Publication
Press.
Renaissance Learning. (2014). The research foundation
for STAR assessment. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman,
K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., . . . Udry, J. R. (1997).
Protecting adolescents from harm. Findings from the
national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Jour-
nal of the American Medical Association, 278(10),
823– 832. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550100049038
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of
self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical
perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Hand-
book of self-determination research (pp. 3–36). Roch-
ester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Sakiz, G., Pape, S. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2012).
Does perceived teacher affective supports matter for
middle school students in mathematics classrooms?
Journal of School Psychology, 50(2), 235–255. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.005
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2008). Mo-
tivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research,
and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989).
Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in
reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81(1), 91–100. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.81.1.91
Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. (1999). Risk
and resilience in the urban neighborhood: Predictors
of academic performance among low-income ele-
106
mentary school children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
45, 309 –331.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the per-
ceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adap-
tive learning during early adolescence. Contempo-
rary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 524 –551. doi:
10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00060-7
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning: A validation study. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443– 463. doi:
10.1177/0013164407308475
Wang, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context,
achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A
longitudinal study of school engagement using a mul-
tidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction,
28, 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. A. (2000).
National survey of teachers’ promotion of self-de-
termination and student-directed learning. The Jour-
nal of Special Education, 34(2), 58 – 68. doi:
10.1177/002246690003400201
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from
models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman
& D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd
ed., pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2002). Explor-
ing students’ calibration of self-reports about study
tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 27(4), 259 –276. doi:10.1016/s0361-
476x(02)00006-1
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-
regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–
566). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual
differences in student motivation and self-regulated
learning in mathematics, English, and social studies
classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27– 47.
You, S., Furlong, M. J., Felix, E., Sharkey, J. D., Tani-
gawa, D., & Green, J. G. (2008). Relations among
school connectedness, life satisfaction, and bully vic-
timization. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 446 – 460.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook
of self-regulation of learning and performance. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A
social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pin-
trich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regula-
tion (pp. 13–39). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M.
(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment.
American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–
676. doi:10.3102/00028312029003663
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework
practices and academic achievement: The mediating
role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility be-
liefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(4),
397– 417. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003
Date Received: April 14, 2016
Date Accepted: August 3, 2016
Associate Editor: Erin Dowdy 䡲
 Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning

Timothy J. Cleary is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Psychology in

the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey. His primary research interests include the development and
application of self-regulated learning (SRL) and motivation assessment and intervention
practices across academic, athletic, and clinical contexts. Dr. Cleary also provides
coaching and professional development training to school districts regarding best prac-
tices in motivation and SRL.

Anastasia Kitsantas is professor of educational psychology in the College of Education

and Human Development at George Mason University. Her research focuses on the role
of self-regulation on learning and performance across diverse areas of functioning,
including academics, athletics, and health. She is particularly interested in the develop-
ment of student SRL and motivation.

107