European Journal of Psychology of Education (2022) 37:1217–1236

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00583-9

Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,

and cognitive learning strategies of university students: does
academic self‑concept play an interactive role?

Annette Lohbeck1 · Barbara Moschner2

Received: 5 March 2021 / Revised: 26 August 2021 / Accepted: 3 October 2021 /

Published online: 16 November 2021
© The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2022

Abstract
The present study aimed to examine the specific relations between five motivational regula-
tion strategies (i.e., interest enhancement, environmental control, self-consequating, per-
formance self-talk, mastery self-talk), academic self-concept, and three cognitive learning
strategies (i.e., organization, elaboration, rehearsal) of 415 university students. A total of
n = 238 students were in the first year of their university program, while n = 178 students
were in the mid-term of their university program. Results of correlation analysis revealed
that all five motivational regulation strategies were positively related to the three cogni-
tive learning strategies. In contrast, regression analysis showed that organization was only
significantly linked to interest enhancement, self-consequating, and performance self-talk,
while elaboration was only significantly linked to self-consequating, and rehearsal was
only significantly linked to interest enhancement and performance self-talk. Academic self-
concept proved to interact with interest enhancement in predicting elaboration. Further-
more, the measurement separability of the three constructs (i.e., motivational regulation
strategies, academic self-concept, cognitive learning strategies) and measurement invari-
ance across sample for the five motivational regulation strategies were also supported.

Keywords Motivational regulation strategies · Cognitive learning strategies · Academic

self-concept · University students

University students’ motivation increasingly declines during their university program

(Corker et al., 2013; Henning & Shulruf, 2011). A central question is therefore: How can
university students regulate their motivation effectively to maintain or increase it? An

* Annette Lohbeck
annette.lohbeck@uni-paderborn.de
Barbara Moschner
barbara.moschner@uni-oldenburg.de
1
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Paderborn, Warburger Str. 100, 33098 Paderborn,
Germany
2
School of Educational and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Carl Von Ossietzky
University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114‑118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1218 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

accumulating number of studies have highlighted the great significance of university stu-
dents’ motivational regulation strategies for many educational outcomes (e.g., Grunschel
et al., 2016; Kryshko et al., 2020; Park & Yun, 2017, 2018; Schwinger & Otterpohl, 2017;
Yun & Park, 2020). For instance, motivational regulation strategies have been found to be
closely related to better engagement (Smit et al., 2017; Yun & Park, 2020), more effort
(Schwinger & Otterpohl, 2017; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2012; Wolters, 1999),
less procrastination (Grunschel et al., 2016; Ljubin-Golub et al., 2019; Wolters & Benzon,
2013), and better academic achievement (Kryshko et al., 2020; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-
Pelster, 2012; Schwinger et al., 2009). In contrast, little is still known about the relations
of university students’ specific motivational regulation strategies with their academic self-
concept, defined as self-perception of academic abilities (Brunner et al., 2010), and cogni-
tive learning strategies that help students save the information in their long-term memory
(Weinstein & Meyer, 1991). For this reason, the present study aimed to examine the spe-
cific relations of university students’ motivational regulation strategies to their academic
self-concept, and cognitive learning strategies. The focus of this study was, in particular,
on the investigation of the possible interaction of academic self-concept with specific moti-
vational regulation strategies in predicting cognitive learning strategies. We believe that
this research is essential because academic self-concept has been found to interact with
numerous individual characteristics (Guo et al., 2015; Marsh et al., 2016). Figure 1 depicts
the theoretical model under investigation. By disentangling the relations between univer-
sity students’ specific motivational regulation strategies, academic self-concept, and cogni-
tive learning strategies, this study advances understanding of the underlying motivational
processes of university students’ learning and provides practical conclusions on how to
promote university students’ motivational regulation strategies that are necessary to main-
tain or increase their motivation during their university program.

Fig. 1  Theoretical model under investigation. Notes. ASC, academic self-concept; MST, mastery self-talk;
PST, performance self-talk; SC, self-consequating; EC, environmental control; IE, interest enhancement;
REH, rehearsal; ELA, elaboration; ORG, organization

13
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,… 1219

Conceptual framework

In the present study, we selected the following five motivational learning strategies based
on their salience in the literature (Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2012; Schwinger
et al., 2007, 2009; Steuer et al., 2019; Teng & Zhang, 2018; Wolters, 1999): (1) Interest
enhancement is a strategy used to maintain or increase one’s own interest in the tasks, by,
for instance, attaching more value on the tasks (Wolters, 1999). (2) Environmental control
refers to students’ control for their learning surrounding; that is, for instance, working in
a quiet or tidy place (Wolters, 1999). (3) Self-consequating relates to the consequences of
a behavior, such as rewards or punishments (Zimmerman & Pons, 1986), and (4) perfor-
mance self-talk as well as (5) mastery self-talk encompass all goal-oriented self-verbaliza-
tions pertaining to the intention to enlarge one’s own performance and master challenging
tasks (Schwinger et al., 2007). Furthermore, we focused on the following three cognitive
learning strategies as outcomes of those five motivational regulation strategies (Marton &
Säljö, 1984; Valentín et al., 2013; Weinstein et al., 2011): (1) Organization refers to all
strategies that help structuring the learning material, by, for instance, creating mind maps
and diagrams, or highlighting specific passages within the text. (2) Elaboration involves
all strategies that make information more retrievable with the help of prior knowledge
and mnemonic techniques, such as creating analogies or writing summaries. Finally, (3)
rehearsal relates to all strategies used to gain or increase knowledge by simply repeating
information. While organization and elaboration are considered as deep-level strategies,
rehearsal is also seen as a more superficial learning strategy (VanderStoep & Pintrich,
2008).
To disentangle the relations of those five motivational regulation strategies with aca-
demic self-concept and the three cognitive learning strategies, we relied on the motiva-
tional regulation model proposed by Schwinger and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2012). This model
describes three phases of the motivational regulation process that maintain or increase stu-
dents’ motivation: In the first phase, students need to recognize their motivational deficit
and to increase their motivation. In the second phase, when students decided to increase
their motivation, they need to identify the reasons for their motivational deficit, and in
the third phase, they need to select and use the adequate motivational regulation strategy
(Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2012). Because students need to reflect on their compe-
tencies in all three phases of this motivational regulation process, it is reasonable that stu-
dents who feel competent in their tasks (i.e., have a high academic self-concept) and more
confident in selecting and using motivational regulation strategies report a more frequent
use of cognitive learning strategies. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies so
far have yet investigated the interplay of students’ specific motivational regulation strate-
gies, academic self-concept, and cognitive learning strategies simultaneously.

Relations between motivational regulation strategies, academic

self‑concept, and cognitive learning strategies

Some studies have shown that motivational regulation strategies are positively related to
students’ self-reported use of cognitive learning strategies (e.g., Anais et al., 2012; Park &
Yun, 2017; Schwinger et al., 2007; Teng & Zhang, 2018; Wolters, 1999; Wolters & Ben-
zon, 2013). However, very rarely has it yet been explored whether specific motivational

13
1220 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

regulation strategies are also related to specific cognitive learning strategies. For instance,
Wolters and Benzon (2013) measured six motivational regulation strategies (i.e., regulation
of value, regulation of performance goals, self-consequating, environmental structuring,
regulation of situational interest, regulation of mastery goals) and three cognitive learning
strategies (i.e., organization, elaboration, rehearsal), but considered only a global factor of
the three cognitive learning strategies. Results showed consistently positive relations of all
six motivational regulation strategies to this global factor of cognitive learning strategies.
In contrast, Schwinger et al. (2007) considered all five motivational regulation strategies
(i.e., interest enhancement, environment control, self-consequating, performance self-talk,
mastery self-talk) and three cognitive learning strategies (i.e., organization, elaboration,
rehearsal) specifically, which were also selected for the present study. However, results
yielded only some significantly positive relations between the five motivational regula-
tion strategies and three cognitive learning strategies: Interest enhancement was positively
related to organization and elaboration but not to rehearsal, while performance self-talk
and self-consequating were positively related to organization as well as rehearsal, and mas-
tery self-talk as well as environmental control were unrelated to all three cognitive learning
strategies. Furthermore, there is also evidence (e.g., Park & Yun, 2017; Teng & Zhang,
2018; Wolters, 1999) that some specific motivational regulation strategies significantly
influence cognitive learning strategies. For instance, Park and Yun (2017) found that sur-
face level strategy (i.e., rehearsal) was positively predicted by enhancement of situational
interest, mastery self-talk, and performance avoidance self-talk, while deep processing
strategy (i.e., elaboration) was positively predicted by enhancement of situational interest,
enhancement of personal significance, and mastery self-talk. In contrast, Wolters (1999)
reported that only performance self-talk and self-consequating had a positive impact on
rehearsal, while the other three motivational regulation strategies (i.e., interest enhance-
ment, environmental control, mastery self-talk) did not affect cognitive learning strategies.
These findings propose very differential links of the five motivational regulation strategies
to the three cognitive learning strategies.
Another potential precursor of students’ self-reported cognitive learning strategies is
academic self-concept. Several studies have shown that academic self-concept influenced
cognitive learning strategies (e.g., Chen et al., 2015; Du, 2012; Karlen, 2016; McInerney
et al., 2012; Ning & Downing, 2015; Ommundsen et al., 2005; Rodriguez, 2009). For
instance, McInerney et al. (2012) found that students’ self-concept in English positively
predicted their self-reported deep-level strategies (i.e., elaboration, organization) and sur-
face learning strategies (i.e., rehearsal). Similarly, Chen et al. (2015) reported that students’
academic self-concept positively affected their deep, surface, and strategic approaches.
Following up on this research, we sought to explore the possible impact of students’ spe-
cific motivational regulation strategies and academic self-concept on their self-reported use
of cognitive learning strategies.

Interaction of academic self‑concept and motivational regulation

strategies

Until now, there is still no evidence for a possible interaction of academic self-concept
with specific motivational regulation strategies in predicting cognitive learning strate-
gies. In contrast, numerous studies have provided support for a significant interaction of
academic self-concept with subjective task values in predicting educational outcomes

13
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,… 1221

(e.g., Guo et al., 2015; Marsh et al., 2016; Trautwein et al., 2012). A central theoretical
rationale for this interaction is, in particular, the well-established expectancy-value the-
ory (EVT; Eccles, 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). This theory posits that high expec-
tancies of success (i.e., academic self-concepts) are not sufficient to motivate a behavior
(cf. Guo et al., 2015). Rather, it is also necessary that students place high values on the
tasks; thus, only the combination of high expectancies of success and high task values
leads to more motivation. In line with this assumption, we had reasons to speculate that
students’ academic self-concept would also interact with their self-reported use of moti-
vational regulation strategies because selecting and using motivational regulation strate-
gies also implies the subjective valuing of tasks. For instance, students need to place
intrinsic value on the tasks, which is needed for interest enhancement, while they also
need to perceive the costs, such as effort, which is, for instance, required for controlling
for the learning environment. Another theoretical reasoning for this possible interac-
tion of academic self-concept with the five motivational regulation strategies is also the
motivational regulation model by Schwinger and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2012). On the one
hand, students need to reflect on their competencies in all three phases of the moti-
vational regulation process, and on the other hand, they also need to feel confident in
selecting and using motivational regulation strategies when aiming at improving their
learning behavior. For instance, students who perceive high competencies and feel com-
petent in enhancing their interest may be more motivated in structuring, elaborating,
and repeating the learning material. In contrast, the less competent students perceive
themselves to be and the less confident they feel in selecting adequate motivational
regulation strategies, the less motivated they may also be in regulating and improving
their learning process. Alternatively, it is also reasonable that students who feel very
competent in their tasks may also believe that it is not worth to motivate themselves
because they always perform well. As a consequence, these students would probably
make less effort to structure, elaborate, or repeat the learning material. By implication,
the combination of a more positive academic self-concept and a more frequent use of
motivational regulation strategies may be needed for the selection and adequate use of
cognitive learning strategies.
In sum, there are several plausible theoretical reasons to assume that students’ aca-
demic self-concept also interacts with their motivational regulation strategies, even
though there is still no evidence for this possible interaction in the literature. For this
reason, we strived to go beyond previous literature by exploring the possible interaction
of academic self-concept with the five motivational regulation strategies in predicting
the three cognitive learning strategies selected for this study.

The present study

Based on the motivational regulation model by Schwinger and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2012)

and EVT (Eccles, 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), the central objective of the present
study was to explore the specific relations between five motivational regulation strategies
(i.e., interest enhancement, environment control, self-consequating, performance self-talk,
mastery self-talk), academic self-concept, and three cognitive learning strategies (i.e.,
organization, elaboration, rehearsal) of university students. In this respect, we aimed to test
the following three hypotheses based on the theoretical and empirical framework reviewed:

13
1222 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

Hypothesis 1 (relations of motivational regulation strategies): We assumed that all five

motivational regulation strategies would be positively related to the three cognitive
learning strategies (Anais et al., 2012; Park & Yun, 2017; Schwinger et al., 2007; Teng
& Zhang, 2018; Wolters, 1999; Wolters & Benzon, 2013).
Hypothesis 2 (relations of academic self-concept): We hypothesized that academic
self-concept would positively relate to the three cognitive learning strategies (Chen
et al., 2015; Du, 2012; Karlen, 2016; McInerney et al., 2012; Ning & Downing, 2015;
Ommundsen et al., 2005; Rodriguez, 2009).
Hypothesis 3 (interactions): In line with the motivational regulation model (Schwinger
& Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2012) and EVT framework (Eccles, 2009; Guo et al., 2015;
Marsh et al., 2016; Trautwein et al., 2012), we expected that academic self-concept
would also interact with the five motivational regulation strategies in predicting the
three cognitive learning strategies; that is: students high in academic self-concept and
high in the five motivational regulation strategies were assumed to report a more fre-
quent use of the three cognitive learning strategies than students low in academic self-
concept and low in the five motivational regulation strategies.

When testing these three hypotheses, we additionally controlled for university students’
sex, age, and number of semesters because the use of motivational regulation strategies
may also vary by several situational and personal factors (Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pel-
ster, 2012).

Method

Sample and procedure

The sample of this study consisted of 415 university students (females: n = 327) from two
universities in Germany. Of these, n = 238 students were in the first year of their university
program, while n = 178 students were in the mid-term of their university program. Stu-
dents’ mean age was 22.38 (SD = 2.48). All participants filled out the questionnaires volun-
tarily during their courses at university and were informed that their data would be treated
anonymously. Data collection took place during October 2015 and December 2015.

Measures

Motivational regulation strategies

The five specific motivational regulation strategies were measured with a questionnaire
developed by Schwinger et al. (2007). This questionnaire consists of 25 items and five
scales: (1) interest enhancement (IE, 4 items, e.g., “I make learning more pleasant for me
by trying to arrange it playfully,” α = 0.81), (2) environment control (EC, 3 items, e.g., “I
make sure that distractions occur as seldom as possible,” α = 0.73), (3) self-consequating
(SC; 8 items, e.g., “I tell myself that after work I can do something nice, if I first keep on
learning now,” α = 0.82), (4) performance self-talk (PST, 5 items, e.g., “I remind myself
about how important it is to get good grades,” α = 0.84), and (5) mastery self-talk (MST,
4 items, e.g., “I persuade myself to work intensely for the sake of learning,” α = 0.73). All
items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (very often).

13
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,… 1223

Cognitive learning strategies

To measure the three cognitive learning strategies, three scales from the Learning Strat-
egies in Studies questionnaire developed by Wild and Schiefele (1994) were used: (1)
rehearsal (6 items; e.g., “I memorize rules, technical terms, or formulas,” α = 0.81),
(2) elaboration (8 items; e.g., “I wonder if the material is important for my daily life,”
α = 0.84), and (3) organization (8 items; e.g., “I make tables, diagrams, or graphs to have
the material better structured,” α = 0.79). All responses to the items were made on a 6-point
scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree).

Academic self‑concept

Students’ academic self-concept was assessed with a scale developed for the PALEA study
(Kauper et al., 2012). This scale comprises four positively worded items (e.g., “I am good
at my subjects,” α = 0.77). In the introduction of this scale, it was emphasized that all items
should be referred to the university program to avoid confounding with students’ general
abilities in their private life. All items were evaluated on a 4-point response scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Data analysis

First, as a prerequisite for all analyses, the measurement separability of all three constructs
(i.e., motivational regulation strategies, academic self-concept, cognitive learning strate-
gies) was tested. For this purpose, the following four factor models were estimated using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): (1) a 1-factor CFA model vs. (2) a 5-factor CFA model
for the five motivational regulation strategies, (3) a 1-factor CFA model for academic self-
concept, and (4) a 3-factor CFA model for the three cognitive learning strategies.
Second, to reveal whether the measurement of the five motivational regulation strate-
gies is theoretically possible in an identical manner across the two samples (i.e., first-year
students vs. students in the mid-term of their university program), the measurement invari-
ance across sample for the five motivational regulation strategies was tested. In this respect,
the following four invariance models were contrasted to each other: (a) configural (i.e.,
same factor structure), (b) metric (i.e., same factor loadings), (c) scalar (i.e., same item
intercepts), and (d) strict (i.e., same measurement errors). To evaluate the fit of the mod-
els, the chi-square statistic with its degrees of freedom, the comparative fit index (CFI),
the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
with its confidence interval were analyzed. An adequate model fit was assumed with CFI
and TLI values > 0.90 and RMSEA values > 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Furthermore, to
test for significant changes of model fit, the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference
test and the criteria proposed by Cheung and Rensvold (2002) were used, that is: the CFI
and TLI values should not decrease by more than 0.01 and the RMSEA values should not
increase by more than 0.015.
Third, to find answers to the specific relations between the five motivational regula-
tion strategies, academic self-concept, and three cognitive learning strategies, both cor-
relation and regression analyses were performed. In the regression analysis, two models
were tested in which the five motivational regulation strategies and academic self-con-
cept were considered as independent variables of the three cognitive learning strategies,

13
1224 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

with sex, age, and the sample as control variables. In the first model (Model 9), all three
cognitive learning strategies were regressed on all five motivational regulation strate-
gies, academic self-concept, and the control variables (sex, age, sample). Finally, in the
second model (Model 10) exploring the possible interaction of academic self-concept
with the five motivational regulation strategies, all product terms of academic self-con-
cept with each of the five motivational regulation strategies were added to the model
simultaneously. All regression models were estimated with manifest variables in Mplus
8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2021) using the robust maximum likelihood estimator
(MLR) and the full information maximum likelihood approach (FIML). The amount of
missing data ranged from 0 to 1.2% on the item level.

Results

Measurement separability and invariance testing

Table 1 presents the results of CFA and measurement invariance testing across the two
samples of university students (i.e., first-year students vs. students in the mid-term of
their university program).
Results of CFA provided strong support for the 5-factor CFA model of the five moti-
vational regulation strategies (see M2 in Table 1). The 5-factor CFA model showed a
significantly better fit to the data than the 1-factor CFA model (Δχ2 = 1131.162, Δdf = 10,
p < 0.001). All five factors of the 5-factor CFA model were well defined by adequate
factor loadings (> 0.30; λ = 0.383 − 0.859). For this reason, the 5-factor CFA model was
selected for further analysis. Similarly, the 1-factor structure of academic self-concept
was also adequately reproduced by a 1-factor CFA model (see M3 in Table 1) and all
three cognitive learning strategies were clearly empirically separable from each other
(see M4 in Table 1). Furthermore, all invariance models for the five motivational regu-
lation strategies exhibited a good fit to the data. No invariance testing fell outside the
range of variation permissible for the assumption of multi-group invariance.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) and correlations of

all variables selected for this study.
All motivational regulation strategies were significantly positively related to each
other. Only self-consequating and performance self-talk were not significantly interre-
lated. As expected in Hypotheses 1 and 2, the five motivational regulation strategies
and academic self-concept showed positive correlations with the three cognitive learn-
ing strategies. However, not all correlations were substantial; namely: the correlations
of elaboration with interest enhancement and performance self-talk as well as between
rehearsal and self-consequating. Furthermore, academic self-concept was significantly
positively related to organization and elaboration. The correlations of self-consequat-
ing and mastery self-talk with academic self-concept were also substantial, while the
other three motivational regulation strategies were not substantially related to academic
self-concept.

13
 Table 1  Results of CFA and measurement invariance testing
CFA models (M) χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) ΔCFI ΔTLI ΔRMSEA

M1: 1-factor model of motivational regulation strategies (MRS) 1560.052 250 .545 .498 .112 (.107–.118)
M2: 5-factor model of motivational regulation strategies 428.890 240 .934 .924 .044 (.037–.050) + .389 + .426 − .068
M3: 1-factor model of academic self-concept (ASC) 7.845 2 .977 .930 .084 (.028–.149)
M4: 3-factor model of cognitive learning strategies 333.486 173 .932 .917 .048 (.040–.055)
Measurement invariance for the 5-factor CFA model of motivational regulation strategies
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,…

M5: Configural invariance (i.e., same factor structure) 700.455 480 .927 .916 .047 (.039–.054)
M6: Metric invariance (i.e., same factor loadings) 726.595 504 .926 .919 .046 (.038–.053) − .001 + .003 − .001
M7: Strong invariance (i.e., same item intercepts) 766.948 523 .919 .914 .047 (.040–.054) − .007 − .005 + .001
M8: Strict invariance (i.e., same measurement errors) 797.965 538 .913 .911 .048 (.041–.055) − .006 − .003 + .001
M9: Regression model 0.000 0 1.00 1.00 .000 (.000–.000)
M10: Interactive model (ASC × MRS) 32.866 30 .996 .986 .015 (.000–.041)

Note. CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CI confidence interval

13
1225
1226 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

Table 2  Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) and correlations

M (SD) EC SC PST MST ORG ELA REH ACS

Interest enhancement (IE) 3.64 (0.91) .23** .26*** .49*** .46*** .36*** .09 .34*** .11
Environment control (EC) 3.06 (0.96) − .19** .37*** .45*** .19** .18** .20** .04
Self-consequating (SC) 2.56 (0.71) − .05 .51*** .30*** .69*** .03 .26***
Performance self-talk (PST) 3.53 (0.82) − .61*** .38*** .07 .45*** .08
Mastery self-talk (MST) 2.86 (0.79) − .33*** .27*** .31*** .18*
Organization (ORG) 3.99 (0.96) − .44*** .71*** .18*
Elaboration (ELA) 3.59 (0.95) − .03 .19**
Rehearsal (REH) 4.45 (0.94) − .02
Academic self-concept (ACS) 2.69 (0.53) −

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

Regression analysis

Table 3 presents the results of the regression model (M9) testing the partial correlations
between the five motivational regulation strategies, academic self-concept, and three
cognitive learning strategies, with sex, age, and the sample as control variables.
While academic self-concept was non-significantly linked to the three cognitive learn-
ing strategies, there were significantly positive regression paths from (a) interest enhance-
ment to organization and rehearsal, (b) self-consequating to organization and elaboration,
and (c) performance self-talk to organization and rehearsal. In addition, female students
reported a significantly lower academic self-concept and significantly higher levels of
interest enhancement, performance self-talk, mastery self-talk, organization, and rehearsal
than male students. Younger students, in turn, stated a more frequent use of organiza-
tion and rehearsal strategies than older students. Finally, students in the mid-term of their
university program showed a more positive academic self-concept and reported a more
frequent use of organization but less frequent use of mastery self-talk than first-year stu-
dents. The amount of explained variance was 0.23 for organization, 0.36 for elaboration,
and 0.21 for rehearsal. Due to the manifest variables, the fit of this model was excellent
(χ2 = 0.000, df = 0, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000 [0.000 − 0.000], see M9 in
Table 1).
When adding the interaction terms of academic self-concept with each of the five moti-
vational regulation strategies to the model (M10) simultaneously, results revealed almost
the same significant predictor-outcome relations as in Model 9. Table 4 presents the results
of the interactive model under investigation (M10). In support of Hypothesis 3, academic
self-concept significantly interacted with interest enhancement in predicting elaboration,
indicating that students with a more positive academic self-concept and a high level of
interest enhancement reported a more frequent use of elaboration (β = 0.12, p < 0.05). In
contrast, the other interaction terms were not substantial. The explained variance in the
outcomes was almost equal to that of Model 9, that is: R2 = 0.23 for organization, R2 = 0.37
for elaboration, and R2 = 0.22 for rehearsal. The fit of this interactive model was very good
(χ2 = 32.866, df = 30, CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.015 [0.000 − 0.041], see M10
in Table 1).

13
 Table 3  Standardized parameter estimates of the regression model (M9) under investigation
ASC IE EC SC PST MST ORG EL REH

Sex − .11*(0.05) .12*(.05) .07 (0.05) − .02 (0.05) .24*** (0.05) .16*** (0.05) .19*** (0.05) .05 (0.04) .14** (0.05)
Age .10 (0.05) .01 (0.05) − .01 (0.06) .04 (0.06) .05 (0.05) .07 (0.06) − .12** (0.04) .04 (0.05) − .15** (0.05)
Sample .13* (0.05) .04 (0.05) .08 (0.05) − .04 (0.05) − .01 (0.05) − .12* (0.06) .10* (0.05) .06 (0.04) .05 (0.05)
ASC .09 (0.05) .02 (0.05) .02 (0.05)
IE .13** (0.05) − .07 (0.05) .14* (0.05)
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,…

EC .04 (0.05) .07 (0.05) .05 (0.05)

SC .21*** (0.06) .60*** (0.04) − .07 (0.06)
PST .20*** (0.05) .08 (0.05) .23*** (0.06)
MST − .02 (0.06) − .06 (0.06) .07 (0.06)
R2 .05 .02 .01 .00 .06 .03 .23 .36 .21

Note. ASC academic self-concept, IE interest enhancement, EC environmental control, SC self-consequating, PST performance self-talk, MST mastery self-talk, ORG organi-
zation, EL elaboration, REH rehearsal. Standard errors are displayed in brackets. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001, R2 explained variance

13
1227
 1228

13
Table 4  Standardized parameter estimates of the interactive model (M10) under investigation
ASC IE EC SC PST MST ORG EL REH

Sex − .11*(0.05) .12*(.05) .07 (0.05) − .02 (0.05) .24*** (0.05) .16** (0.05) .19*** (0.05) .04 (0.05) .14** (0.05)
Age .10 (0.05) .01 (0.05) − .01 (0.06) .04 (0.06) .05 (0.05) .07 (0.06) − .12* (0.04) .03 (0.05) − .15** (0.05)
Sample .13* (0.05) .04 (0.05) .08 (0.05) − .04 (0.05) − .01 (0.05) − .12* (0.06) .10* (0.05) .06 (0.04) .04 (0.05)
ASC .10* (0.05) .02 (0.05) .05 (0.05)
IE .13** (0.05) − .07 (0.05) .14** (0.05)
EC .04 (0.05) .07 (0.05) .06 (0.05)
SC .21*** (0.06) .61*** (0.04) − .09 (0.06)
PST .19** (0.06) .09 (0.05) .22*** (0.06)
MST − .03 (0.06) − .06 (0.06) .06 (0.06)
ASC × IE .02 (0.05) .12* (0.06) − .05 (0.06)
ASC × EC − .01 (0.05) .00 (0.05) .03 (0.05)
ASC × SC − .02 (0.05) − .00 (0.04) .03 (0.06)
ASC × PST .03 (0.06) − .03 (0.06) .08 (0.06)
ASC × MST .04 (0.07) − .05 (0.07) .07 (0.07)
R2 .05 .02 .01 .00 .06 .03 .23 .37 .22

Note. ASC academic self-concept, IE interest enhancement, EC environmental control, SC self-consequating, PST performance self-talk, MST mastery self-talk, ORG organi-
zation, EL elaboration, REH rehearsal. Standard errors are displayed in brackets. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001, R2 explained variance
A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,… 1229

Discussion

The present study is unique in examining the specific relations between five motivational
regulation strategies (i.e., interest enhancement, environment control, self-consequating,
performance self-talk, mastery self-talk), academic self-concept, and three cognitive learn-
ing strategies (i.e., organization, elaboration, rehearsal) of university students. Further-
more, beyond this central objective, the measurement separability of all three constructs
and the measurement invariance across sample (i.e., first-year students vs. students in the
mid-term of their university program) for the five motivational regulation strategies were
also tested.
In support of previous research (e.g., Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2012; Schwinger
et al., 2007, 2009; Wolters, 1999), results of CFA provided strong support for a clear sepa-
ration of the three constructs selected for this study and for full measurement invariance for
the five motivational regulation strategies. Latent mean-levels comparisons and manifest
mean-levels based on summed/averaged scores of the five motivational regulation strate-
gies are thus valid across first-year students and students in the mid-term of their university
program.
As suggested in Hypothesis 1 and earlier shown in some studies (e.g., Pintrich & Gar-
cia, 2012; Teng & Zhang, 2018; Wolters, 1999), all five motivational regulation strategies
were positively related to the three cognitive learning strategies. However, not fully consist-
ent with Hypothesis 2, academic self-concept was only significantly positively related to
organization and elaboration but not to rehearsal. A possible reason for this result may be
that rehearsal only targets at simply repeating information and may thus be less connected
with students’ real competencies. Furthermore, there were no significant correlations of
rehearsal with self-consequating as well as of elaboration with interest enhancement and
performance self-talk. The non-significant correlation of rehearsal with self-consequating
may be due to the fact that rehearsal is more strongly related to acquiring basic knowl-
edge, while self-consequating is more strongly linked to the consequences of learning.
In contrast, the non-significant correlation of elaboration with performance self-talk may
be explained by the item contents because the items for performance self-talk are directly
referred to students’ academic performance, while the items for elaboration are not explic-
itly referred to students’ academic performance. Moreover, the non-significant correla-
tion of elaboration with interest enhancement may result from the fact that elaboration is
a deep-level strategy that requires prior knowledge, while interest enhancement is a more
superficial strategy that may be more closely linked to the learning material rather than to
the learning process (Marton & Säljö, 1984; Valentín et al., 2013; Weinstein et al., 2011).
These findings indicate that the five motivational regulation strategies are very differen-
tially related to the three cognitive learning strategies.
Finally, results of regression analysis revealed significantly positive regression paths
from (a) organization to interest enhancement, self-consequating, and performance self-
talk, (b) elaboration to self-consequating, and (c) rehearsal to interest enhancement and
performance self-talk. These results suggest that it is especially self-consequating that
plays a crucial role for university students’ self-reported use of organization and elabora-
tion. This is a novel finding which is not consistent with that reported by Wolters (1999)
who found only a significantly positive effect of self-consequating on rehearsal. A possible
reason for these contradictory findings may be the different data set because Wolters (1999)
used data of school students from grades 9 to 10. By implication, it seems that university
students use different motivational regulation strategies than school students.

13
1230 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

When exploring the possible interaction of academic self-concept with the five
motivational regulation strategies, there was only a single interaction of academic
self-concept with interest enhancement in predicting elaboration strategies, indicat-
ing that students with a higher academic self-concept and a higher perceived interest
enhancement reported a more frequent use of elaboration. This result is also in line
with Hypothesis 3 and some earlier studies in the EVT framework (e.g., Guo et al.,
2015; Marsh et al., 2016; Trautwein et al., 2012) stating that academic self-concept
as an indicator of expectancy of success interacts with intrinsic values. In contrast,
there were no significant interactions between academic self-concept and the other four
motivational regulation strategies in this investigation. These results propose that only
interest enhancement involves a high subjective valuing of tasks but not the other four
motivational regulation strategies.

Limitations

Some limitations must be mentioned: A first limitation concerns the sample of this study
because most of the students were female students. Further research must therefore use
more heterogenous samples to increase the generalizability of the reported findings. Of
great concern is also the cross-sectional design, which does not permit any causal infer-
ences and calls for the need of longitudinal studies. Furthermore, the number of predictor
variables was relatively small, leading to only a small amount of explained variance in the
regression. Future studies should consider more possible predictor variables of students’
motivational regulation strategies and cognitive learning strategies. Of great interest is par-
ticularly the domain-specificity of motivational regulation strategies and cognitive learning
strategies because the use of motivational regulation strategies and cognitive learning strat-
egies may probably also differ across university students’ subjects. Beyond the measure-
ment of the constructs selected for this study, further studies should especially also meas-
ure students’ real performance in their subjects over several periods of time or over the
course of a year.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations mentioned, the present study showed the following three central
findings: The five specific motivational regulation strategies are (1) empirically separable
from each other, (2) invariant across sample, and (3) differentially related to the three
cognitive learning strategies. Specifically, our results suggest that it is primarily interest
enhancement, self-consequating, and performance self-talk that play a significant role in
predicting university students’ self-reported use of cognitive learning strategies. While
interest enhancement, self-consequating, and performance self-talk play an important
role for university students’ self-reported use of organization, only self-consequating
seems to be of significance for their self-reported use of elaboration strategies, and only
interest enhancement and self-consequating seem to be relevant for their self-reported use
of rehearsal strategies. These three motivational regulation strategies may thus be most
beneficial for university students’ use of cognitive learning strategies and should be promoted

13
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,… 1231

in the university program. A promising approach for promoting motivational regulation

strategies is, in particular, virtual avatar-provided scaffolding in which virtual avatars (i.e.,
pedagogical agents) encourage online students to initiate their motivational needs and to use
specific motivational regulation strategies. Several studies have already provided support
for the great effectiveness of those virtual avatar trainings (e.g., Park, 2015; Park & Lim,
2020). In addition, the most striking result of this research was the interaction of academic
self-concept with interest enhancement in predicting university students’ self-reported use
of elaboration indicating that a more positive academic self-concept and a higher perceived
interest enhancement determine university students’ use of elaboration strategies. Finally,
an important implication of this result is that supporting university students’ academic self-
concept and interest enhancement may increase their use of elaboration strategies, which
have been found as most influencing for many academic outcomes (Valentín et al., 2013;
Weinstein et al., 2011). Some effective strategies for supporting university students’ academic
self-concept are, for instance, setting achievable and challenging goals, emphasizing the
value and utility of the tasks, providing solution-based and internally focused feedback, and
evaluating their performance directly, objectively, and transparently (Blegur et al., 2018;
Craven et al., 1991).

Author contribution All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Conceptualization:
Annette Lohbeck and Barbara Moschner; methodology: Annette Lohbeck; formal analysis and investigation:
Annette Lohbeck; writing–original draft preparation: Annette Lohbeck; writing–review and editing: Barbara
Moschner.

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Availability of data and material Upon request, the authors can send relevant documentation of the data and
material.

Code availability The authors make sure that all data and materials as well as software application or cus-
tom code support their published claims and comply with field standards.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate The authors certify that all procedures performed in this study
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with
the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent
was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Consent for publication The authors affirm that all participants were informed about the purpose of this study
and provided informed consent for publication the results of this study.

Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

13
1232 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

References
Anais, M., Hojas, A., Bustos, A., Letelier, C., Zuzulich, M., Cabieses, B., & Zubiaguirre, M. (2012). Moti-
vational and cognitive learning strategies used by first-year engineering undergraduate students at Uni-
versidad Católica in Chile. Creative Education, 3, 811–817. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4236/​ce.​2012.​326121.
Blegur, J., Wasak, M. R. P., & Pabala, P. (2018). Students’ academic self-concept: A founding strategy in
learning process. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 6, 45–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​25215/​
0604.​046.
Brunner, M., Keller, U., Dierendonck, C., Reichert, M., Ugen, S., Fischbach, A., & Martin, R. (2010). The
structure of academic self-concepts revisited: The nested Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 102, 964–981. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0019​644.
Chen, B. H., Chiu, W. C., & Wang, C. C. (2015). The relationship among academic self-concept, learn-
ing strategies, and academic achievement: A case study of national vocational college students in
Taiwan via SEM. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 419–431. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40299-​014-​0194-1.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invar-
iance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​S1532​8007S​EM0902_5.
Corker, K. S., Donnellan, M. B., & Bowles, R. P. (2013). The development of achievement goals throughout
college: Modeling stability and change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1404–1417.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01461​67213​494243.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional
feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17–27.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​0663.​83.1.​17.
Du, M. (2012). A study of the relationship between English self-concept and language learning strategies.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 508–517. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4304/​jltr.3.​3.​508-​51.
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities
as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00461​52090​
28323​68.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A
developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 61, 101859. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cedps​ych.​2020.​101859.
Grunschel, C., Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Fries, S. (2016). Effects of using motivational regulation
strategies on students’ academic procrastination, academic performance, and well-being. Learning and
Individual Differences, 49, 162–170. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​lindif.​2016.​06.​008.
Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational
choices: A longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 51(8), 1163–1176. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0039​440.
Henning, M. A., & Shulruf, B. (2011). Academic achievement: Changes in motivational beliefs and self-
regulated learning strategies over time. Psychologia, 54, 135–144. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2117/​psysoc.​
2011.​135.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10705​51990​95401​18.
Karlen, Y. (2016). Differences in students’ metacognitive strategy knowledge, motivation, and strategy use:
A typology of self-regulated learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(3), 253–265. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00220​671.​2014.​942895.
Kauper, T., Retelsdorf, J., Bauer, J., Rösler, L., Möller, J., Prenzel, M. & Drechsel, B. (2012). PaLea – Panel
zum Lehramtsstudium. Skalendokumentation und Häufigkeitsauszählungen des BMBF-Projektes (2.
Welle) [PaLea - Panel on teacher training. Scale documentation and frequency analysis of the BMBF
project (2nd wave)]. Ipn.
Kryshko, O., Fleischer, J., Waldeyer, J., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2020). Do motivational regulation strat-
egies contribute to university students’ academic success? Learning and Individual Differences, 82,
101912. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​lindif.​2020.​101912.
Ljubin-Golub, T., Petričević, E., & Rovan, D. (2019). The role of personality in motivational regulation and
academic procrastination. Educational Psychology, 39, 550–568. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01443​410.​
2018.​15374​79.
Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Guo, J., Arens, A. K., & Murayama, K. (2016). Breaking the dou-
ble-edged sword of effort/trying hard: Developmental equilibrium and longitudinal relations among
effort, achievement, and academic self-concept. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1273–1290. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1037/​dev00​00146.

13
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,… 1233

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle
(Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Scottish Academic Press.
McInerney, D. M., Cheng, R.W.-Y., Mok, M. M. C., & Lam, A. K. H. (2012). Academic self-concept and
learning strategies: Direction of effect on student academic achievement. Journal of Advanced Aca-
demics, 23, 249–269. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​19322​02x12​451020.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998–2021). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
Ning, H. K., & Downing, K. (2015). A latent profile analysis of university students’ self-regulated learning
strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1328–1346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03075​079.​2014.​
880832.
Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability, and
self-regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 461–474. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​00313​83050​02678​38.
Park, S. (2015). Virtual avatar as an emotional scaffolding strategy to promote interest in online learn-
ing environment. In S. Tettegah & M. Gartmeier (Eds.), Emotions, technology, design & learning.
Elsevier.
Park, S., & Yun, H. (2017). Relationships between motivational strategies and cognitive learning in dis-
tance education courses. Distance Education, 38, 302–320. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01587​919.​2017.​
13690​07.
Park, S., & Yun, H. (2018). The influence of motivational regulation strategies on online students’
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. American Journal of Distance Education, 32,
43–56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08923​647.​2018.​14127​38.
Park, S., & Lim, J. (2020). Training motivational regulation skills through virtual avatars in online
learning. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, A. A. Tawfik, A. Grincewicz, & M. Schmidt (Eds.), Educa-
tional technology beyond content: A new focus for learning (pp. 217–231). Springer International
Publishing.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (2012). Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies,
and motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cog-
nition, and learning (pp. 129–150). Routledge.
Rodriguez, C. M. (2009). The impact of academic self-concept, expectations, and the choice of learning
strategy on academic achievement: The case of business students. Higher Education Research &
Development, 28, 523–539. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07294​36090​31468​41.
Schwinger, M., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2012). Effects of motivational regulation on effort and achieve-
ment: A mediation model. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 35–47. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​ijer.​2012.​07.​005.
Schwinger, M., & Otterpohl, N. (2017). Which one works best? Considering the relative importance of
motivational regulation strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 122–132. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​lindif.​2016.​12.​003.
Schwinger, M., von der Laden, T., & Spinath, B. (2007). Strategien zur Motivationsregulation und ihre
Erfassung [Motivational regulation strategies and their measurement]. Zeitschrift Für Entwicklung-
spsychologie Und Pädagogische Psychologie, 39, 57–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1026/​0049-​8637.​39.2.​57.
Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). How do motivational regulation strategies affect
achievement: Mediated by effort management and moderated by intelligence. Learning and Indi-
vidual Differences, 19, 621–627. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​lindif.​2009.​08.​006.
Smit, K., de Brabander, C.-J., Boekaerts, M., & Martens, R. L. (2017). The self-regulation of motivation:
Motivational strategies as mediator between motivational beliefs and engagement for learning. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research, 82, 124–134. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijer.​2017.​01.​00.
Steuer, G., Engelschalk, T., Eckerlein, N., & Dresel, M. (2019). Assessment and relationships of con-
ditional motivational regulation strategy knowledge as an aspect of undergraduates’ self-regulated
learning competencies. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 33(2), 95–104. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1024/​1010-​0652/​a0002​37.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of motivational regulation strategies on writing performance:
A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing in English as a second/foreign language.
Metacognition and Learning, 13, 213–240. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11409-​017-​9171-4.
Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for
the multiplicative term in modern expectancy value theory: A latent interaction modeling study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 763–777. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0027​470.
Valentín, A., Mateos, P. M., González-Tablas, M. M., Pérez, L., López, E., & García, I. (2013). Motiva-
tion and learning strategies in the use of ICTs among university students. Computers & Education,
61, 52–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2012.​09.​008.

13
1234 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

VanderStoep, S. W., & Pintrich, P. R. (2008). Learning to learn: The skill and will of college success
(2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Weinstein, C. E., & Meyer, D. K. (1991). Cognitive learning strategies and college teaching. New Direc-
tions for Teaching and Learning, 45, 15–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tl.​37219​914505.
Weinstein, C. E., Acee, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tl.​443.
Wild, K.-P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium. Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und
Reliabilität eines neuen Fragebogens [Learning strategies of university students: Factor structure
and reliability of a new questionnaire]. Zeitschrift Für Differentielle Und Diagnostische Psycholo-
gie, 15, 185–200.
Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation and their use
of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11,
281–299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1041-​6080(99)​80004-1.
Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013). Assessing and predicting college students’ use of strategies for the
self-regulation of motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(2), 199–221. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​00220​973.​2012.​699901.
Yun, H., & Park, S. (2020). Building a structural model of motivational regulation and learning engage-
ment for undergraduate and graduate students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45,
271–285. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03075​079.​2018.​15109​10.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use
of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614–628. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3102/​00028​31202​30046​14.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Annette Lohbeck. Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Paderborn, Warburger Str. 100, 33098
Paderborn, Germany. Email: annette.lohbeck@uni-paderborn.de

Current themes of research of the authors:

Annette Lohbeck is interested in motivation, emotions, and self-concept of students and teachers. The key
focus of her research is on the determinants and outcomes of students’ and teachers’ motivation, emotions,
and self-concept.

The most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education of the authors of this article are
listed below:

Lohbeck, A. (2020). Prüfungsangstprofile von Schülerinnen und Schülern und deren Zusammenhänge
mit verschiedenen Schülermerkmalen [Test anxiety of students and its relations to various student
characteristics]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 0(0), 1−20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1024/​1010-​
0652/​a0002​89.
Lohbeck, A. (2020). Does integration play a role? Academic self-concepts, self-esteem, and self-perceptions
of social integration of elementary school children in inclusive and mainstream classes. Social
Psychology of Education, 23(5), 1367−1384. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11218-​020-​09586-8.
Lohbeck, A. (2019). Social and dimensional comparison effects on academic self-concepts and self-perceptions
of effort in elementary school children. Educational Psychology, 39, 133–150. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
01443​410.​2018.​15270​18.
Lohbeck, A. (2018). Freude am Sportunterricht − Welche Rolle spielen sportartspezifische Selbst¬konzepte
und die wahrgenommene Lehrerfürsorglichkeit von Schülerinnen und Schülern? [ Joy of physical
education − What role do sport-specific self-concepts and perceived teacher care of students play for
joy of physical education in students?] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 32, 117–132. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1024/​1010-​0652/​a0002​14.
Lohbeck, A., Engels, E. S. & Freund, P. A. (2018). Assessing students’ enjoyment in physical education:
Measurement invariance across school tracks and relationships with grades. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 0734282918804600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07342​82918​804600.
Lohbeck, A., Hagenauer, G. & Frenzel, A. C. (2018). Teachers’ self-concepts and emotions: Con¬cep¬tualization
and relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 111–120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tate.​2017.​11.​001.

13
Motivational regulation strategies, academic self‑concept,… 1235

Lohbeck, A. & Petermann, F. (2018). Factorial validity of the Anxiety Questionnaire for Students (AQS):
Bifactor modeling and measurement invariance. Journal of Psychoeduca¬tional Assessment. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07342​82918​794834.
Lohbeck, A. & Petermann, F. (2018). Cybervictimization, self-esteem, and social relationships among
German secondary school students. Journal of School Violence, 17, 472–486. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
15388​220.​2018.​14281​94.
Lohbeck, A. (2017). Die individuell präferierte Bezugsnormorientierung und das Selbstkonzept von
Grundschulkindern im Fach Mathematik. [Individually preferences for reference standard orientation
and self-concept of elementary school children in mathematics]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische
Psycholo¬gie, 31, 1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1024/​1010-​0652/​a0001​99.
Lohbeck, A., Grube, D. & Moschner, B. (2017). Academic self-concept and causal attributions for success
and failure amongst elementary school children. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25,
190–203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09669​760.​2017.​13018​06.
Lohbeck, A. & Möller, J. (2017). Social and dimensional comparison effects on math and reading self-
concepts of elementary school children. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 73–81. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​lindif.​2017.​01.​013.
Lohbeck, A. & Petermann, F. (2017). Peer victimization, self-concept, and grades: The medi-ating role of
self-concept. Deviant Behavior, 38, 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01639​625.​2016.​11976​54.
Lohbeck, A., Tietjens, M., & Bund, A. (2017). A short German Physical-Self-Concept Questionnaire for
elementary school children (PSCQ-C): Factorial validity and measurement invariance across gender.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 1691−1696. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02640​414.​2016.​12302​26.
Lohbeck, A. (2016). Self-concept and self-determination theory: math self-concept, motivation, and grades
in elementary school children. Early Child Development and Care, 188, 1031–1044. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​03004​430.​2016.​12417​78.
Lohbeck, A., Hagenauer, G. & Moschner, B. (2016). Zum Zusammenspiel zwischen schulischem
Selbstkonzept, Lernfreude, Konzentration und Schulleistungen im Grundschul¬al¬ter [On the interplay
of academic self-concept, learning enjoyment, concentration and academic achievement at elementary
school age]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 6, 53–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s35834-​016-​0147-2.
Lohbeck, A., Nitkowski, D. & Petermann, F. (2016). A control-value theory approach: Relationships between
academic self-concept, interest, and test anxiety in elementary school children. Child & Youth Care
Forum, 45, 1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10566-​016-​9362-1.
Lohbeck, A., Schultheiß, J., Petermann, U. & Petermann, F. (2016). Factor structure and measure¬ment
invariance of the Students’ Self-report Checklist of Social and Learning Behaviour (SSL). Learning and
Individual Differences, 51, 314–321. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​lindif.​2016.​08.​038.
Lohbeck, A., Tietjens, M. & Bund, A. (2016). Physical self-concept and physical activity enjoy¬ment in
elementary school children. Early Child Development and Care, 187, 1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
03004​430.​2015.​11327​08.
Lohbeck, A., Petermann, F. & Petermann, U. (2015). Selbsteinschätzungen zum Sozial- und Lern¬verhalten
von Grundschulkindern der vierten Jahrgangsstufe [Self-assessments for social and learning behavior
of fourth graders]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsy¬chologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 47, 1–13.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1026/​0049-​8637/​A0001​18.
Lohbeck, A., Nitkowski, D., Petermann, F. & Petermann, U. (2014). Erfassung von Schüler-
selbstein¬schätzungen zum schulbezogenen Sozial- und Lernverhalten: Validierung einer
Schülerein¬schätzliste für Sozial- und Lernverhalten (SSL) [Assessment of students’ self-concepts for
school-related social and learning behaviour: Validation of the Self-Report Checklist for Social and
Learning Behaviour (SSL)]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17, 701–722. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11618-​014-​0582-6.

Barbara Moschner. School of Educational and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Carl Von
Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany. Email:
barbara.moschner@uni-oldenburg.de

Current themes of research of the authors:

Barbara Moschner has also a keen interest in research on academic self-concept, motivation, and emotions,
but also on cognitive learning strategies of students, especially in the university context.

13
1236 A. Lohbeck, B. Moschner

The most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education of the authors of this article are
listed below:

Schlesier, J., Roden, I., & Moschner, B. (2019). Emotion regulation in primary school children: A systematic
review. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 239–257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​child​youth.​2019.​
02.​044.
Hagenauer, G., Gläser-Zikuda, M., & Moschner, B. (2018). University students’ emotions, life-satisfaction
and study commitment: a self-determination theoretical perspective. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 42(6), 808–826. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03098​77X.​2017.​13231​89.
Lohbeck, A., Hagenauer, G., Mühlig, A., Moschner, B. & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2016). Prokrastination bei
Studierenden des Lehramts und der Erziehungswissenschaften [Procrastination in university students
of teacher education and educational sciences]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20, 521–536.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-016-0718-y1–16.
Lohbeck, A., Grube, D. & Moschner, B. (2017). Academic self-concept and causal attributions for success
and failure amongst elementary school children. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25,
190–203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09669​760.​2017.​13018​06.
Lohbeck, A., Hagenauer, G. & Moschner, B. (2016). Zum Zusammenspiel zwischen schulischem
Selbstkonzept, Lernfreude, Konzentration und Schulleistungen im Grundschul¬al¬ter [On the interplay
of academic self-concept, learning enjoyment, concentration and academic achievement at elementary
school age]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 6, 53–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s35834-​016-​0147-2.

13