European Journal of Psychology of Education (2020) 35:205–223

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00421-z

Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior

in self-directed vs. teacher-directed learning

Sabine Schweder 1
Received: 22 August 2018 / Accepted: 1 May 2019 /
Published online: 22 May 2019
# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa and Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
It is generally accepted and well documented that mastery goal orientation positively affects
students’ learning behavior. However, less is known about this association in self-directed learning
during adolescence, which additionally promotes student’s positive emotions. This study tested
whether positive emotions mediate the association between mastery goal orientation and effort
investment, absorption, elaboration, and self-control in self-directed vs. teacher-directed learning in a
sample of 824 (Mage = 13.36; SD = .79) 7th and 8th grade students in Germany. Multigroup
structural equation modeling and latent mean comparison were used to assess potential group
differences. Positive emotions mediate all relationships between mastery goal orientation and
learning behavior in students from self-directed learning, whereas positive emotions only mediate
the relations between mastery goal orientation and absorption in students from teacher-directed
learning.

Keywords Self-directed learning . Teacher-directed learning . Positive emotions . Mastery goal

orientation . Learning behavior

Introduction

The rapid loss of motivation for school at the start of early adolescence that is often linked to
weaker learning behavior can be explained not only by the youths’ physical and mental
changes but also by the dominance of teacher-directed learning settings in German schools,
where the students’ need for self-determination is largely disregarded (Gottfried et al. 2001;
Harackiewicz and Knogler 2017; Kaplan and Patrick 2016; Klemm and Zorn 2016; OECD
2017; Vock and Gronostaj 2017; Wigfield and Wagner 2017; Yeager et al. 2017). Emotions
also play a key role, as they influence learning through cognitive resources, learning strategies,

* Sabine Schweder
sabine.schweder@uni-greifswald.de

1
Institute of Educational Science, School Pedagogy, University Greifswald, Ernst-Lohmeyer-Platz 3,
17487 Greifswald, Germany
206 S. Schweder

and motivation (Boekaerts and Pekrun 2016; Frenzel et al. 2014; Hascher and Hagenauer
2018; Linnenbrink-Garcia and Barger 2014; Pekrun 2000, 2018; Pekrun et al. 2002).
As a supplement for teacher-directed learning settings, many schools are now trying out self-
directed learning, although the effects of this form of learning in a school context have not yet
been sufficiently investigated (Harackiewicz et al. 2016; Harackiewicz et al. 2014; Hascher and
Hagenauer 2018). To close this gap, this study was conceptualized to get more in-depth
information about motivation, emotions, and learning behavior in self-directed vs. teacher-
directed learning settings.

Self-directed vs. teacher-directed learning: the role of positive emotions

The most citied definition of self-directed learning (SDL) is from Knowles (1975). He claims
SDL as Ba process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in
diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material
resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and eval-
uating learning outcomes^ (p. 18).
SDL corresponds directly with central features of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman and
Lebeau 2000). Loyens et al. (2008) point to an important difference between SDL and self-
regulated learning: B… the learning task is always defined by the learner^ (p. 418). Learning
objectives, learning activities, and learning conditions are generally not determined by the
teacher (Brockett and Hiemstra 1991; Guglielmino et al. 2004; Loyens et al. 2008; Saks and
Leijen 2014; Schmidt 2000). The defining characteristic of teacher-directed learning settings
(TDL) is the central position of the teacher and learning actions led by the teacher at relatively
the same pace for all students. It is the teacher’s task to systematically lead learning processes.
Differences between SDL and TDL arise from the fact that the responsibility for learning
alternates between the instructor and learners (Gibbons 2002; Saks and Leijen 2014). This
changes how the affective, motivational, meta-cognitive, and cognitive components that are
context-sensitive and conditional for learning interact with each other (Ames and Archer 1988;
Bardach et al. 2018; Lüftenegger et al. 2016; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990), whereby
emotions play an important role. Emotions have a strongly judgmental character and therefore
give signals for how current learning and performance situations are experienced (Pekrun
2018; Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2014). Until now, however, research has focused
primarily on dealing with negative emotions (Frenzel et al. 2014). The objective of this study
was therefore to investigate which role positive emotions play in conjunction with motivation
(mastery goal orientation) and learning behavior in SDL vs. TDL settings.

Mastery goal orientation and learning behavior

People who are oriented on mastery goals aim to develop their competence and view mistakes
and corrective feedback as impetuses for their learning development. People with this orien-
tation pursue especially an individual reference standard and describe learning progress based
on their previous performance (Ames 1992; Dweck 1986; Elliot and Hulleman 2017; Nicholls
1984; Senko 2016). The concept of mastery goals has since been dichotomized, including
approach and avoidance components (Elliot 1999; Elliot and Hulleman 2017). According to
Senko and Freund (2015), BMastery-approach goals emphasize learning or improving,
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 207

whereas mastery-avoidance goals emphasize avoiding a failure to learn or deterioration in

skill^ (p. 477). In the present study, the construct of mastery goals is not further differentiated
because several studies showed that the differentiation between the two approaches makes
sense above all in older adults (Elliot and McGregor 2001; Pekrun et al. 2009; Senko and
Freund 2015). Thus, the present research is concentrated on mastery-approach goals.
In their Bachievement goal analysis of classroom climate,^ Ames and Archer (1988) assume
that mastery goal orientation can be influenced by context conditions. Characteristics of SDL such
as transferring responsibility for learning objectives, planning, actions, and reflection to the learner
(Brockett and Hiemstra 1991; Candy 1991; Garrett 2008) overlap with the conditions that
promote mastery goal orientation (Ames 1992; Elliot and Hulleman 2017; Lüftenegger et al.
2016; Lüftenegger et al. 2017; Skaalvik et al. 2017). Characteristics of TDL such as the teacher’s
responsibility for setting learning objectives and methods or measuring individual students’
learning progress using normative standards (Bost and Riccomini 2006; Brophy 2006) inhibit
mastery goal orientation (Ames 1992; Elliot and Hulleman 2017).

Mastery goal orientation and absorption It has been shown that people with mastery goal
orientation report more frequent flow experiences (Stavrou et al. 2015; van de Pol and
Kavussanu 2011). In essence, this state means the person is completely absorbed in the task.
Additional aspects include self-forgetting, melding action and consciousness, and a deeper
experience of control. The subjective fit of abilities and the requirements for action is the most
important condition for flow and is experienced by the people acting especially when they feel
neither underwhelmed nor overwhelmed (Csikszentmihalyi 1990; Csikszentmihalyi et al.
2005; Csikszentmihalyi and Schiefele 1993; Csikszentmijalyi 1985). In TDL, learners have
fewer possibilities to match their previous knowledge and skills with the requirements (Englert
et al. 1992). In many cases, a lack of participation in setting learning objectives and actions
leads to the student being either underwhelmed or overwhelmed, and they therefore do not
have flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi 2013; Deci and Ryan 1991).

Mastery goal orientation and elaboration People with mastery goal orientation use learning
strategies that process on a deeper level (elaboration) (Elliot and Hulleman 2017). In their working
memory, processes are thereby triggered in which the knowledge that is to be gained is linked with
already existing knowledge. The previous knowledge used here enables the student to develop
analogies and illustrative examples, and discover links to previous experiences, and makes it easier
for them to understand and integrate new information. In this process, previous knowledge is
actively networked with the new knowledge. Analogies and links are sought (Endres et al. 2017;
Hulleman et al. 2010; Mandl and Friedrich 2006; Senko 2016; Weinstein and Mayer 1986).
Reference to previous knowledge is a key characteristic of SDL and is realized during the
development of objectives and strategies by the learner in the planning phase (Author 2018;
Candy 1991). This fulfills the basic requirement for elaborative learning strategies (Endres et al.
2017). In contrast, TDL is usually based on standardized learning actions that have insufficient
possibilities for referring to individuals’ previous knowledge (Fisher et al. 2015; Rebbin 2015).

Mastery goal orientation and self-control In addition, students with mastery goal orientation
report a greater willingness to apply self-control strategies, thereby adjusting their learning by
consciously observing, comparing the current status of learning with set objectives, or
updating learning conditions (Elliot and Hulleman 2017; Hulleman and Barron 2016;
Hulleman et al. 2010; Meece et al. 2006; Murayama et al. 2012). In contrast to TDL, SDL
208 S. Schweder

refers to students’ willingness to independently plan and exercise self-control (Author 2018;
Garrett 2008; Knowles 1975; Saks and Leijen 2014).

Mastery goal orientation and effort investment Learners with mastery goal orientation
report a greater effort investment, thereby demonstrating more engagement in implementing
goals (Hulleman and Barron 2016; Senko 2016). Effort investment is a measure of the
willingness to achieve goals and overcome difficulties that arise. This test of willpower is
called volition and is a collective term for processes that promote the implementation of an
existing goal intention. SDL is based on sufficient strength of volition because the responsi-
bility for learning processes lies exclusively with the students. Currently, however, there are no
specific research findings on this in a school setting. For TDL, decreasing effort investment has
been shown (Lazarides and Raufelder 2017; Wigfield and Wagner 2017).

Positive emotions as a potential mediator in the association

between mastery goal orientation and learning behavior

Emotions are mental processes that are directed inward, arise in ongoing situations along the
dimensions valence and control experiences, and have a strongly judgmental character (Frenzel
et al. 2014; Pekrun 2016). In his control-value theory of achievement emotions, Pekrun (2006)
postulates that subjective control and value convictions trigger positive or negative emotions in
learning and performance contexts. The more control experiences and value convictions, the more
positive are the emotions that arise and vice-versa (Pekrun 2006, 2018). It has also been shown that
in learning and performance situations with individual reference standards (and thus mastery goal
orientation), in particular positive emotions are sparked (Huang 2011; Linnenbrink-Garcia and
Barger 2014; Linnenbrink-Garcia and Pintrich 2002; Ranelluci et al. 2015). Pekrun (2000, 2006)
differentiates between positive activating emotions (enjoyment) and positive deactivating emotions
(relaxation). The present research is focused on positive activating emotions, which increase
concentration and forgetting time (Götz 2004) and thus also flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi
2013) and promote the use of elaboration strategies (Fiedler and Beier 2014; Frenzel et al. 2014;
Pekrun 2011; Pekrun et al. 2002), the willingness to exercise self-control and self-regulation (Clore
and Huntsinger 2009; Fredrickson 2001; Linnenbrink-Garcia 2007; Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia
2014) and effort investment (Fiedler 2001; Fiedler and Beier 2014; Pekrun et al. 2002).
According to Pekrun (2000, 2006), some characteristics in learning and performance
contexts trigger control experiences and value convictions and the associated emotions. For
example, the quality of instruction, extent of value induction, the type of expectations and goal
structures, and the quality of performance feedback determine the quality and extent of
emotions (Frenzel et al. 2014). With these characteristics, SDL and TDL can be differentiated
according to the emotional result. However, there are almost no comparative studies on the
emotional results of SDL and TDL (Frenzel et al. 2014; Hascher and Hagenauer 2018).

Present study: research design and aims

The SDL used in this study—and compared to TDL—is based on the action model for self-
regulated learning by Zimmerman et al. (2017), which uses three phases (forethought,
performance, reflection). It foresees students being guided by the teacher through a series of
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 209

steps during the first phase of the overall concept when developing goals and planning strategy
so that (1) individual interests are taken into consideration and (2) self-set goal ideas are
formulated as Blearning questions.^ These learning questions are then used as a starting point
for developing the related hypotheses, ideas for actions and procedures, expected results,
materials, sources, and timelines. In the second phase (performance), experiences and results
are continually compared with the goals and strategy planning created in the first phase in
order to adapt subsequent learning actions accordingly (Author 2015). This SDL concept
includes around 40 hours and can also be used as a complement to other learning concepts.
An initial aim of this study, based on the differences between SDL and TDL for mastery
goal orientation described above (positive emotions, absorption, self-control, elaboration, and
effort investment), is to examine potential contextual differences by using a latent mean
comparison. Furthermore, this study aims to examine whether the interplay of mastery goal
orientation and learning behavior (absorption, self-control, elaboration, and effort investment)
is mediated by positive emotions dependent on the context (SDL vs. TDL). Differentiating
between SDL and TDL in this study follows the assumption that a variation in the character-
istics of the learning setting will also change the relationship among the variables (Ames 1992;
Ames and Archer 1988; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990).
Using the modus operandi proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), all preconditions for a
mediation analysis are fulfilled. Significant effects could be found between all variables, both
for the independent (mastery goal orientation) and the dependent (absorption, self-control,
elaboration, and effort investment) variables. For the mediating variable (positive emotions),
significant effects can also be shown for the output variable and the target variables.

Hypotheses

The research presented above leads to the assumption that (H1) the mean values of students in
SDL settings are higher than those of students in TDL settings for all variables included
(mastery goal orientation, positive emotions, absorption, self-control, elaboration, and effort
investment). In addition, it is assumed that (H2) positive emotions mediate the relationships
between mastery goal orientation and the target variables (absorption, self-control, elaboration,
and effort investment) in SDL as well as TDL settings.

Methods

Participants

The data analyzed in this study was collected using quantitative questionnaires from a total of 14
schools in the federal states of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.
The 824 students were distributed as follows in the two groups (SDL and TDL): subsample SDL
with 374 students in 7th and 8th grade (Mage = 13.36; SD = .79; 53.1% girls) from six schools (at
time of the data collection SDL had been established for several months) and subsample TDL with
450 students in 7th and 8th grade (Mage = 13.31; SD = .84; 56.7% girls) from eight schools. The SDL
concept investigated in this study was implemented according to the identical approach at the six
schools in the study (see Fig. 1). For the subsample TDL, classes were randomly chosen from eight
schools in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.
210 S. Schweder

Procedure

The collection of data for this study was done based on the agreement of the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture of the federal states of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and
the Ministry of Education and Science of Schleswig-Holstein. When collecting data, both the
parents and students were aware that participation was voluntary and the data would be treated
confidentially. The data was collected by one of two test coordinators. Confusion or questions
about the indicators were answered by the test coordinators and assistance was offered.

Measures

SDL allows students to develop self-set learning objectives from all subject matters. For this
reason, each item is formulated with SDL. Interestingly, most of the students chose history-
related and social science-related learning questions (78.6%). For these reasons, the items for
students in the control group were based on subject BHistory^ and BSocial science^ (e.g., BIn
my subjects history and social science …^) (in the following section subsumed under TDL).
Mastery goal orientation (total sample: α = .82; SDL: α = .74; TDL: α = .84) (e.g., BIn SDL/
TDL, it is important for me to learn as much as possible.^) was collected using validated BSkalen zur
Erfassung der Lern- und Leistungsmotivation^ [BScales to assess learning and achievement
motivation^] for German students by Spinath et al. (2012) based on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
Bis not true at all^ to 5 = Bis completely true^). In this study, seven of eight items were used.
Positive emotions (total sample: α = .80; SDL: α = .79; TDL: α = .82) (e.g., BIt is
fascinating,^ BIt is enjoyable,^ BIt is exciting,^ BIt is interesting^) were measured by using
scale BPositive, wichtige und negative Empfindungen^ [Positive, important and negative
emotions], validated for German students and developed by Prenzel et al. (1996). The subscale
of positive emotions used in this study includes indicators that represented only positive
activating emotions such as enjoyment, interest, and enthusiasm. Four of six items were used.
Elaboration (total sample: α = .70; SDL: α = .66; TDL: α = .72) is part of the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) questionnaire (Artelt et al. 2004) (e.g., BWhen I study,
I figure out how material fits in with what I have learned^). Three of four items were used.
Effort investment (total sample: α = .80; SDL: α = .76; TDL: α = .81) (e.g., BWhen study-
ing, I put forth my best effort.^) is also part of the PISA questionnaire (Artelt et al. 2004).
Three of four items were used.
Self-control (total sample: α = .70; SDL: α = .72; TDL: α = .71) (e.g., BWhen I study I force
myself to check if I remember what I have learned.^) is also part of the PISA questionnaire
(Artelt et al. 2004). Three of five items were used.

Forethought phase Performance phase Reflecon phase

6 hours (1 schoolday) 18 hours (3 schooldays) 6 hours (1 schoolday)

Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3

Goal seng Goal implementaon Overall reflecon

Strategy planning * Daily schedule
* Implementaon
* Reflecon

Fig. 1 Classroom management for SDL, derived from the model developed by Zimmerman et al. (2017)
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 211

Absorption (total sample: α = .71; SDL: α = .73; TDL: α = .68) (e.g., BWhile learning I did
not notice how time passed.^) was investigated with items on the Flow-Kurzskala [flow short
scale] by Rheinberg et al. (2003). Three of four items were used.
Positive emotions, elaboration, effort investment, self-control, and absorption were mea-
sured by a four-point Likert scale (1 = Bstrongly disagree^, 4 = Bstrongly agree^).

Statistical analysis

To evaluate the data, Mplus 8.1 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998) with the MLR estimator
was used. With Btype is complex^ programming according to Asparouhov (2005), the
standard error bias due to nested data structure (824 students in 43 classes) was
considered.

Latent mean comparison

Measurement invariance was shown according to Brown (2015) using confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) with various restrictions. For this, nested models (form
invariance, metric invariance, strong invariance) were compared using the Bχ 2-
difference test^ (Yuan and Bentler 2004). The objective of the procedure was to
show strong measurement invariance in order to compare the mean values of the
variables between SDL and TDL and also to compare relationships among the
variables in these groups.

Multigroup structural equation modeling: mediation analysis

Based on the direct correlations between the predictor variable (mastery goal orienta-
tion), mediating variable (positive emotions), and target variables (elaboration, effort
investment, self-control and absorption), two multigroup structural equation modelings
(MGSEMs) with different restrictions were run. Using estimated confidence intervals,
the indirect paths between mastery goal orientation and learning behavior were
additionally specified via the mediating variable (positive emotions) (Preacher and
Hayes 2008). This reduced biases that could have been due to a non-normally
distributed sample. In addition, the direct paths between the mediating variable and
the dependent variables were analyzed. To determine the models’ validity, the funda-
mental indices were estimated for each (Hu and Bentler 1999): CFI = Comparative Fit
Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approxi-
mation, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

Before the model programming, the normal distribution was calculated using descriptive
statistics. According to West et al. (1995), skewness values should be below 2 and kurtosis
below 8 (Table 1). Table 1 also presents the correlations, mean values, standard deviations, and
ranges for the variables of the different groups (SDL and TDL).
212 S. Schweder

Latent mean comparison

Following a stepwise approach (Brown 2015) to ensure measurement invariance

between the two groups, CFAs with increased restrictions were modeled. In a first
step, a CFA in which formal invariance was assumed was compared with a model
with equal factor loadings (metric invariance). The Bχ2-difference test^ (Yuan and
Bentler 2004) did not reach significance (χ2(16) = 13.51, p = .64). Thereafter, the CFA
assuming metric invariance was compared to a model assuming equal factor inter-
cepts, thus verifying scalar invariance. This test did not reached significance either
(χ2(9) = 16.62, p = .06). According to Brown (2015), comparing averages requires that
the factor intercepts do not differ significantly between groups. In this way, strong
invariance was detected. All the results are listed in Table 2.
With students in TDL settings as the reference group, latent mean comparison
showed that students in SDL settings reported significantly more mastery goal orien-
tation (β = 2.43, p < .001), positive emotions (β = .46, p < .001), elaboration (β = 1.05,
p < .001), and absorption (β = 1.22, p < .001). However, students did not diverge
concerning their perception of self-control (β = − .23, p = .19) and effort investment
(β = − .08, p = .61).

Multigroup structural equation modeling: mediation analysis

The first MGSEM model (less restricted) (χ2 (459) = 683.755, p < .001, CFI = .95,
TLI = .94, RMSEA = .04 (.03–.04), SRMR = .05) had free intercepts, residual vari-
ances, and regression coefficients. The second MGSEM model (more restricted) (χ2
(476) = 739.304, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .04 (.03–.04), SRMR = .06)
was based on equivalent covariances and regression coefficients. Both models were

Table 1 Bivariate correlations, means, range, standard deviations, skewness (SE), and kurtosis (SE)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Means Range SD Skewness Kurtosis

(SE) (SE)

Self-directed learning
1. Mastery goals 3.78 1–5 .49 − .22 (.13) − .07 (.25)
2. Positive .36** 2.56 1–4 .68 − .04 (.13) − .45 (.25)
emotion
3. Elaboration .37** .33** 2.75 1–4 .55 − .15 (.13) − .31 (.25)
4. Effort .47** .48** .48** 2.90 1–4 .65 − .19 (.13) − .43 (.25)
investment
5. Self-control .22** .33** .28** .42** 2.85 1–4 .60 − .26 (.13) − .46 (.25)
6. Absorption .31** .58** .31** .41** .26** 2.58 1–4 .66 .08 (.13) − .16 (.25)
Teacher-directed learning
1. Mastery goals 2.84 1–5 .55 − .55 (.12) .47 (.23)
2. Positive .48** 2.25 1–4 .68 .09 (.12) − .23 (.23)
emotion
3. Elaboration .46** .25** 2.52 1–4 .64 − .07 (.12) − .31 (.23)
4. Effort .52** .40** .34** 2.95 1–4 .68 − .44 (.12) − .21 (.23)
investment
5. Self-control .42** .27** .37** .56** 2.95 1–4 .67 − .49 (.12) − .22 (.23)
6. Absorption .40** .56** .10* .23** .16** 1.96 1–4 .66 .42 (.12) − .03 (.23)

*p < .05; **p < .001

Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 213

Table 2 Model fit indices (CFA)

Model df χ2 p value CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI SRMR Δχ2 Δdf p value

Model 1 430 634.233 < .001 .95 .94 .03 .03–.04 .04
Model 2 446 645.849 < .001 .95 .95 .03 .03–.04 .05 13.51 16 = .64
Model 3 455 663.589 < .001 .95 .95 .03 .03–.04 .05 16.62 9 = .06

Model 1 = Bform invariance,^ Model 2 = Bmetric invariance,^ Model 3 = Bstrong invariance^

compared using the Bχ2-difference test^. The significant result (χ2 (17) = 55.39,
p < .001) shows that the less restricted model represents the data better, meaning that
differences exist in the relationships between the variables in the two groups analyzed
(Yuan and Bentler 2004).

Pattern for SDL settings

Direct effects

As depicted in Fig. 2, for students in SDL settings, seven of nine direct effects were
significant. Mastery goal orientation is positively related with positive emotions
(B = .57, β = .48, SE = .09, p < .001), effort investment (B = .57, β = .48, SE = .09,
p < .001), and elaboration (B = .51, β = .55, SE = .11, p < .001). Positive emotions were
significantly linked to absorption (B = .64, β = .77, SE = .07, p < .001), self-control
(B = .32, β = .40, SE = .06, p < .001), elaboration (B = .23, β = .30, SE = .08, p < .01),
and effort investment (B = .38, β = .38, SE = .08, p < .001). The direct relations be-
tween mastery goal orientation and self-control and absorption were not significant
due to a full mediation by positive emotions, which is described in more detail below.

posive self-control
emoons

.06/.32**
.11/.66**

elaboraon

mastery goal
.04/.20*
orientaon

effort
investment

absorpon

Fig. 2 MGSEM for SDL group. Unstandardized coefficients (B); standardized coefficients (β); bold pathways
are significant *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; factor loadings are standardized
214 S. Schweder

Indirect effects

All indirect effects were found to be significant: Positive emotions were found to partially
mediate the relationship between mastery goal orientation and effort investment (B = .21,
β = .18, SE = .05; 95% CIs [.10, .33]) and the relation between mastery goal orientation and
elaboration (B = .13, β = .14, SE = .05; 90% CIs [.03, .27]). Positive emotions fully mediated
the association between mastery goal orientation and absorption (B = .36, β = .36, SE = .06;
95% CIs [.20, .53]) and also between mastery goal orientation and self-control (B = .18,
β = .19, SE = .04; 95% CIs [.08, .29]).

Covariances

The MGSEM included covariances between self-control, absorption, elaboration, and effort
investment. The covariances between self-control and effort investment (r = .42, p < .001) and
between elaboration and effort investment (r = .32, p < .05) were found to be significant.
The identified final mediation model explained 22.6% of the variance of positive emotions
(R2 = 0.226), 25.1% of the variance of self-control (R2 = 0.251), 69.8% of the variance of
absorption (R2 = 0.698), 55.2% of the variance of elaboration (R2 = 0.552), and 54.5% of the
variance of effort investment (R2 = 0.545).

Pattern for TDL settings

Direct effects

As depicted in Fig. 3, for students in TDL settings, five of nine direct effects were significant.
Mastery goal orientation was positively related to positive emotions (B = .62, β = .60, SE = .07,
p < .001), effort investment (B = .57, β = .57, SE = .08, p < .001), elaboration (B = .67, β = .65,

posive .32/.40***
self-control
emoons
.05/.42**

elaboraon

mastery goal
.03/.32*
orientaon

effort
investment

absorpon

Fig. 3 MGSEM for TDL group. Unstandardized coefficients (B); standardized coefficients (β); bold pathways
are significant *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; factor loadings are standardized
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 215

SE = .09, p < .001), and self-control (B = .46, β = .54, SE = .10, p < .001). Positive emotions
were significantly linked to absorption (B = .56, β = .64, SE = .07, p < .001). The direct
relations between mastery goal orientation and absorption were not significant due to a full
mediation through positive emotions, which is described in more detail below.

Indirect effects

Positive emotions were found to fully mediate the relation between mastery goal orientation and
absorption (B = .35, β = .39, SE = .05; 95% CIs [.24, .49]). All other indirect effects were not
significant.

Covariances

The MGSEM involved covariances between self-control, absorption, elaboration, and effort
investment. The covariances between self-control and elaboration (r = .32, p < .01), self-
control and effort investment (r = .66, p < .001), and effort investment and elaboration
(r = .20, p < .01) were significant.
The identified final mediation model explained 35.7% of the variance of positive emotions
(R2 = 0.357), 32.8% of the variance of self-control (R2 = 0.328), 53.3% of the variance of
absorption (R2 = 0.533), 42.0% of the variance of elaboration (R2 = 0.42), and 42.0% of the
variance of effort investment (R2 = 0.42).

Discussion

Indeed, not much is known about the extent to which positive emotions mediate the interplay
between mastery goal orientation and learning behavior of adolescent students in SDL vs. TDL
settings. For this reason, this study investigates whether positive emotions mediate the relationship
between mastery goal orientation and elaboration, self-control, effort investment, and absorption
considering potential learning setting differences in 7th and 8th grades students in Germany.
Hypothesis 1 was partially confirmed. The results of the latent mean comparison show
strong differences related to the learning setting in students’ mastery goal orientation, such as
students in SDL settings report higher mastery goal orientation. This finding supports Ames and
Archer (1988) assumption that mastery goal orientation is influenced by learning settings.
Future longitudinal analyses are necessary to test potential causal relationships between specific
learning settings and mastery goal orientation. In addition, the results suggest that students in
SDL can completely refer to their individual starting position by developing their own learning
questions, thereby facilitating their mastery goal orientation. Individuals’ previous knowledge
and skill perceptions become the basis for the learning objectives developed by the students
themselves and the related learning actions. Other longitudinal studies have already shown that
mastery goal orientation increases when taking previous knowledge into consideration
(Vansteenkiste et al. 2006; Vansteenkiste et al. 2012; Vansteenkiste et al. 2004). Besides this,
students in SDL settings can structure their learning conditions independently. Working with
materials, aids, structures, cooperation with others, and time management can all be oriented on
their own needs or re-structured if they choose. Empirical research shows that flexible learning
conditions increase mastery goal orientation (Ames 1992; Benita et al. 2014; Elliot and
Hulleman 2017; Michou et al. 2014; Urdan and Midgley 2003; Van Yerpen et al. 2015).
216 S. Schweder

In line with hypothesis 1, students in SDL settings report higher mean values when it comes
to experiencing positive emotions. The significantly higher mean values allow for various
assumptions. First, students in SDL classes have a chance to plan their ideas about how they
want to reach the learning objectives such that they can use the skills and knowledge they
already have. This results in learning plans for the individual students that link to their already
existing abilities. The control experience that arises from this process leads to positive
emotions (Boekaerts 2007; Frenzel et al. 2014; Pekrun 2006). Second, the SDL investigated
in this study assumes that students take their interests into consideration when formulating
goals. This increased importance of learning objectives promotes positive emotions according
to Pekrun (2006). Orienting learning objectives on interests strengthens positive emotions
(Harackiewicz and Knogler 2017; Krapp 2005). Third, students are guided by the teacher
when developing their individual goals and plans. Learning questions, hypotheses, learning
activities, presentations of results, and framing conditions are put together in a series of steps
so that they build on one another. The goal structures designed in this way for the individual
students correspond to their interests and skill perceptions, thereby facilitating positive emo-
tions (Frenzel et al. 2014; Pekrun 2000, 2006). Fourth, in SDL, feedback processes from the
teacher are related only to individual learning objectives and plans, which means students
experience positive emotions through the individualized references made in these processes
(Pekrun 2016; Pekrun et al. 2007). In contrast, TDL is meant to teach a majority of students the
underlying performance standards of the lesson with systematic instruction. The students’
subjective competence beliefs and interests cannot be picked up by all students. This means
that a part of the students lack learning actions tailored to specific previous knowledge and
interests, meaning that fewer positive emotions are activated (Harackiewicz et al. 2016;
Hascher and Hagenauer 2018; Pekrun 2018).
In line with hypothesis 1, students in SDL settings report more elaboration than students in TDL
settings. The basic precondition for elaboration is activated previous knowledge (Artelt 2006;
Endres et al. 2017; Renkl 2015; Weinstein and Mayer 1986), which is encouraged for SDL students
through the development of individual learning questions and learning objectives. In addition, SDL
students orient their learning actions on their skills and interests. With this opportunity to control
their learning environment, in contrast to TDL, previous knowledge can be mobilized for upcoming
learning actions and considered when developing learning plans. Learning conditions of this variety
are a basic requirement for elaboration (Artelt et al. 2003; Baumert 1993; Renkl 2015; Weinstein
et al. 2000). This is not the case with TDL: In TDL settings, for many different reasons it will not be
possible for all students to access the necessary previous knowledge required for the learning actions
planned by the teacher and oriented on standards. This means that many students will have difficulty
applying or will not be able to apply elaboration strategies (Baumert 1993).
In line with hypothesis 1, SDL students report to perceive higher absorption. As a key
component of the flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi 1990; Csikszentmihalyi et al. 2005;
Csikszentmihalyi and Schiefele 1993; Csikszentmijalyi 1985), absorption calls for skills and
requirements to fit together optimally. This is particularly successful when learners participate
in developing learning objectives (Csikszentmihalyi 2013; Deci and Ryan 1991), as is part of
the program in SDL settings. TDL is always focused on achieving standards—to the detriment
of an optimal fit of skills and requirements (Fullagar and Fave 2017; Mesurado et al. 2016;
Rheinberg 2006; Vock and Gronostaj 2017).
In contrast to hypothesis 1, it is interesting that no significant difference could be found
between the SDL and TDL students’ self-control. In contrast to TDL, SDL is based on self-
control strategies that compare the current learning status with set goals, update conditions that
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 217

promote goal achievement, and recognize and compensate for knowledge and skill deficits.
This study refers only to data that was collected when an SDL setting was carried out for the
first time. Because of this, it can be assumed that the skills necessary for self-control in SDL
are first developed or expanded and then start to increase in subsequent SDL settings.
However, this needs to be investigated in future longitudinal studies.
What is also unexpected is that the mean values for effort investment were not significantly
different in the two settings. This could be interpreted in various ways. First, students can
pursue their personal goals and standards in SDL, uniting these with their skills through the
possibility for self-guidance. The lack of being overwhelmed then keeps effort at a Bnormal^
level (Zimmerman and Cleary 2006). Second, SDL can tempt students to set lower goals to
consciously avoid effort. The motivational deficit for formal learning requirements that arises
at this age is not completely mitigated by SDL. In TDL, normative performance goals
sometimes lead students into areas of action for which they do not yet have the full extent
of necessary skills available. Deficits are compensated with increased effort (Baumert 1993).
In contrast to hypothesis 2, it could not be confirmed in the sense that there are no
differences in the interplay of mastery goals, positive emotions, and learning behavior in
students in SDL and TDL settings because the model with group differences better replicates
the data than a model without group differences. In light of the mediation analysis, however,
positive emotions act as a mediator in the relation between mastery goal orientation and
learning behavior (absorption, self-control, elaboration, and effort investment) for students in
SDL settings. The links between mastery goals and self-control and absorption are thereby
completely mediated while those between mastery goals and elaboration and effort investment
are partly mediated. In contrast, for students in TDL settings, only the link between mastery
goal orientation and absorption is fully mediated by positive emotions. All other indirect
effects are not significant. This suggests that especially students in SDL settings can be
supported independent of their mastery goal orientation. In other words, both students with
high and low mastery goal orientation benefit from SDL settings and lead them to tend to use
strategies for self-control, apply elaboration, invest more effort, and be in an optimal functional
condition. In other words, positive emotions weaken the relationship between mastery goal
orientation and learning behavior, meaning that regardless of the degree of mastery goal
orientation, students in SDL can be supported in their learning behavior by experiencing
positive emotions. In contrast, for students in TDL settings, only the link between mastery goal
orientation and absorption is fully mediated by positive emotions. In TDL, positive emotions
do not necessarily mean that students occupy themselves in a more in-depth way with
contents, monitor their learning behavior themselves, or invest more effort in completing the
learning tasks well. The reasons for this are that learning directed by the teachers does not give
students with positive emotions opportunities for (1) working more in-depth on learning tasks
or (2) applying strategies for self-monitoring. Despite positive emotions, in TDL the effort
investment necessary for elaboration and self-control is apparently futile. Baumert (1993)
reached similar conclusions. Learning that is paced the same for all students and is based on
receptive learning does not leave room in the lessons for the effects of positive emotions.

Summary and practical implications

A key finding of the study is that students in SDL settings perceive more positive emotions
compared to students in TDL settings. That might be related to specific setting characteristics
(assistance in structured use of previous knowledge and interests for the purpose of finding
218 S. Schweder

individual learning objectives, fitting individual skills to learning objectives, learning objec-
tives oriented on previous knowledge and interests, assistance with step-by-step planning of a
goal strategy for individual learning, and feedback processes oriented on individual reference
points), which should be reviewed empirically in future longitudinal studies.
Beyond this, the study showed that the links between mastery goal orientation and learning
behavior is weakened or even completely mediated by experiencing positive emotions in SDL
settings. This means that the positive emotions that go along with SDL support especially
those students who have lower mastery goal orientation, but the learning behavior of students
with higher mastery goal orientation is also supported. When transferred to school practice,
this indicates that in SDL settings, experiencing positive emotions (1) supports the learning
behavior of students with lower mastery goal orientation, (2) but that even students with higher
mastery goal orientation do not experience any disadvantages for their learning behavior. This
means that SDL (3) is especially relevant for heterogeneous learning groups so that students’
learning is promoted regardless of their level of mastery goal orientation.

Strengths, limitations, and future research

As is the case with all empirical studies, this investigation also has limitations that must be kept in
mind when interpreting the findings. First, due to the cross-sectional study, no trends, develop-
ments, or causal relationships in the course of the time and school could be measured among the
variables. Future longitudinal studies are necessary to detect potential causal ordering of the
variables. Second, the study is based on self-reports, because individuals’ perceptions of mastery
goal orientation, positive emotions, and learning behavior were the focus, self-reporting instru-
ments were used. The problems related to this are described in detail by Chan (2009) and Spector
(2006). Third, although the teachers in TDL settings were asked in advance whether in the
classroom the selection of the learning objectives, related information, and the selection of
learning tasks lies exclusively in the hands of the teacher, it were not controlled if teachers in
TDL not even also creates opportunities in lessons for students to feel autonomous and competent
or supports self-regulated learning for their students too. Also, it was not controlled if teachers in
SDL really used the SDL teaching procedure (see Fig. 1). Forth, this study is based on German
students. Future studies with students from different countries and differences in their learning
settings in school might differ in their perception of mastery goal orientation, positive emotions,
and learning behavior due to specific cultural aspects.
As one of the rare studies that examine students in SDL settings, this study gives first
insights into essential differences of students in SDL vs. TDL settings, particularly in their
perception of mastery goal orientation, positive emotions, and different aspects of learning
behavior. The findings also suggest a key role of positive emotions in SDL settings that could
benefit especially adolescents with lower mastery goal orientation because the positive
emotions can mitigate the relationship between mastery goal orientation and learning behavior.
This study therefore makes an important contribution to the empirical basic research into SDL
settings that might be beneficial for practical SDL approaches in schools.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(3), 261–271.
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 219

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation
processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
Artelt, C. (2006). Lernstrategien Learning strategies. In H. Mandl & F. H. Friedrich (Eds.), Handbuch
Lernstrategien (pp. 337–351). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life: student approaches to
learning. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2004). Das Lernen lernen: Voraussetzung für
lebensbegleitendes Lernen. Ergebnisse von PISA 2000 [Learners for life: Student aproaches to learning.
Results from PISA 2000]. Paris: OECD.
Asparouhov, T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_4.
Bardach, L., Yanagida, T., Schober, B., & Lüftenegger, M. (2018). Within-class consensus on classroom goal
structures—relations to achievement and achievement goals in mathematics and language classes. Learning
and Individual Differences, 67, 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.07.002.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Baumert, J. (1993). Lernstrategien, motivationale Orientierung und Selbstwirksamkeitsüberzeugungen im
Kontext schulischen Lernens [Learning in school: The role of study strategies, motivational orientation,
and control beliefs]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 21(4), 327–354.
Benita, M., Roth, G., & Deci, R. (2014). When are mastery goals more adaptive? It depends on experiences of
autonomy support and autonomy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 258–267. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0034007.
Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students’ affective processes in the classroom. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun
(Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 37–56). San Diego: Elsevier.
Boekaerts, M., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic settings. In L. Corno & E. M.
Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 76–91). New York: Routlegde.
Bost, L. W., & Riccomini, P. J. (2006). Effective instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), 301–311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050501.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: perspectives on theory, research, and
practice. New York: Routledge.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.),
Handbook of classroom management research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 17–43). Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: a comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.),
Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: doctrine, verity and fable in organizational and
social sciences (pp. 309–336). New York: Routledge.
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2009). How the object of affect guides its impact. Emotion Review, 1(1), 39–54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097185.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Flow: The psychology of happiness. New York: Random House.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schiefele, U. (1993). Die Qualität des Erlebens und der Prozeß des Lernens. Zeitschrift
für Pädagogik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 39, 207–221.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–609). New York: Guilford Press.
Csikszentmijalyi, M. (1985). Das Flow-Erlebnis [The flow-experience]. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier
(Ed.), Current theory and research in motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.41.10.1040.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,
34(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3.
Elliot, A. J., & Hulleman, C. S. (2017). Achievment goals. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation: theory and application (pp. 43–60). New York: Guilford.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501.
220 S. Schweder

Endres, T., Carpenter, S., Martin, A. J., & Renkl, A. (2017). Enhancing learning by retrieval: enriching free recall
with elaborative prompting. Learning and Instruction, 49(6), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2016.11.010.
Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., & Mariage, T. V. (1992). Defining and redefining instructional practice in special
education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 62–86. https://doi.org/10.1177
/088840649201500203.
Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective states trigger processes of assimilation and accommodation. In L. L. Martin & G. L.
Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: a user’s guidebook (pp. 85–98). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Fiedler, K., & Beier, S. (2014). Affect and cognitive processes in educational contexts. In R. Pekrun & L.
Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handboook of emotion in education (pp. 36–55). New York:
Routledge.
Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (2015). Teaching behaviors, academic
learning time, and student achievement: an overview. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 50(1), 6–24.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.
n75.
Frenzel, A. C., Götz, T., & Pekrun, R. (2014). Emotionen [Emotions]. In E. Wild & J. Möller (Eds.),
Pädagogische psychologie [Educational psychology] (pp. 202–223). Heidelberg: Springer.
Fullagar, C., & Fave, A. D. (2017). Flow at work. London, UK: Routledge.
Garrett, T. (2008). Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management: a case study of three elemen-
tary teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(1), 34–47.
Gibbons, M. (2002). The self-directed learning handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gottfried, A. E., Flemming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from
childhood through late adolescence: a longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.3.
Götz, T. (2004). Emotionales Erleben und selbstreguliertes Lernen bei Schülern im Fach Mathematik [Emotional
experience and self-regulated learning among students in mathematics]. München: Utz.
Guglielmino, L. M., Long, H. B., & Hiemstra, R. (2004). Historical perspectives eries: self-direction in learning
in the United States. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 1(1), 1–18.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Knogler, M. (2017). Interest. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation: theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 334–352). New York:
Guilford.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Tibbetts, Y., Canning, E. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Harnessing values to promote motivation
in education. In S. A. Karabenick & T. Urdan (Eds.), Motivational interventions (Vol. 18, pp. 71–105).
Howard House: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. M., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters. Policy Insights From the Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542.
Hascher, T., & Hagenauer, G. (2018). Die Bedeutung von Qualitätsfaktoren des Unterrichts und Lernemotionen
für das Wohlbefinden in der Schule [The importance of quality factors of teaching and learning emotions for
well-being at school]. In G. Hagenauer & T. Hascher (Eds.), Emotionen und Emotionsregulation in Schule
und Hochschule [Emotions and emotion regulation in school and college] (pp. 103–121). Münster:
Waxmann.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huang, C. (2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 23(3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9155-x.
Hulleman, C. S., & Barron, K. E. (2016). Motivation interventions in education. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 160–171). New York: Routledge.
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, M. S., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of
achievement goal measures: different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar
labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018947.
Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2016). Learning environments and motivation. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 251–275). New York: Routledge.
Klemm, K., & Zorn, D. (2016). Die landesseitige Ausstattung gebundener Ganztagsschulen mit personellen
Ressourcen. Ein Bundesländervergleich [The state-owned equipment of bound all-day schools with human
resources. A federal state comparison.]. Retrieved from Gütersloh, Germany: https://www.bertelsmann-
stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/IB_Studie_Die_landesseitige_
Ausstattung_gebundener_Ganztagsschulen_mit_personellen_Ressourcen.pdf
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press.
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 221

Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning
and Instruction, 15(5), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.007.
Lazarides, R., & Raufelder, D. (2017). Longitudinal effects of student-perceived classroom support on motiva-
tion: a latent change model. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(417). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00417.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2007). The role of affect in student learning: a multi-dimensional approach to consid-
ering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement. In P. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in
education (pp. 107–124). Oxford: Elsevier.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Barger, M. M. (2014). Achievement goals and emotions. In L. Linnenbrink-Garcia &
R. Pekrun (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 142–162). New York: Routledge.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: an asymmetrical
bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3702_2.
Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. J. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its
relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7.
Lüftenegger, M., Klug, J., Harrer, K., Langer, M., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2016). Students’ achievement goals,
learning-related emotions and academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389
/fpsyg.2016.00603.
Lüftenegger, M., Tran, U. S., Bardach, L., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2017). Measuring a classroom mastery goal
structure using the TARGET dimensions: development and validation of a classroom goal structure scale.
Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000277.
Mandl, H., & Friedrich, F. H. (2006). Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook learning strategies]. München:
Hogrefe.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and
academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.56.091103.070258.
Mesurado, B., Richaud, M. C., & Mateo, N. J. (2016). Engagement, flow, self-efficacy, and eustress of university
students: a cross-national comparison between the Philippines and Argentina. The Journal of Psychology,
150(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1024595.
Michou, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (2014). Enriching the hierarchical model of
achievement motivation: autonomous and controlling reasons underlying achievement goals. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12055.
Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Friedman, R. (2012). Achievment goals. In A. M. Ryan (Ed.), The oxford
handbook of human motivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and
performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.91.3.328.
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (volume III): Students’ well-being (Vol. 3). Paris: OECD.
Pekrun, R. (2000). A social-cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In H. Heckhausen (Ed.),
Motivational psychology of human development (pp. 143–163). Oxford: Elsevier.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications
for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotion, motivation, selbstregulation: gemeinsame prinzipien und offene fragen [emotion,
motivation, self-regulation: common principles and open questions]. In T. Goetz (Ed.), Emotion, motivation
und selbstreguliertes Lernen [Emotion, motivation and self-regulated learning] (pp. 186–205). Stuttgart:
UTB.
Pekrun, R. (2016). Academic emotions. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in
school (2nd (pp. 120–145). New York: Routlegde.
Pekrun, R. (2018). Emotion, lernen, leistung Emotion, learning, performance. In M. Huber & S. Krause (Eds.),
Bildung und emotion Education and emotion (pp. 215–233). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). Introduction to emotions in education. In R. Pekrun & L.
Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 1–11). New York:
Routledge.
Pekrun, R., Götz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and
achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3702_4.
Pekrun, R., vom Hofe, R., Blum, W., Frenzel, A. C., Götz, T., & Wartha, S. (2007). Development of
mathematical competencies in adolescence: the PALMA longitudinal study. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies
on the educational quality of schools. The nal report on the DFG Priority Programme (pp. 17–37). Münster:
Waxmann.
222 S. Schweder

Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: testing a model
of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013383.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.
org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Prenzel, M., Kristen, A., Dengler, P., Ettle, R., & Beer, T. (1996). Selbstbestimmt motiviertes und interessiertes
Lernen in der kaufmännischen Erstausbildung [Self-determined motivated and interested learning in the
commercial training course]. In K. Beck & H. Heid (Eds.), Lehr-Lern-Prozesse in der kaufmännischen
Erstausbildung. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Schweder, S. (2015). Selbständiges Lernen als schulisches Prinzip: Erfahrungen von Lehrern und Schülern mit
Forschendem Lernen [Self-directed learning as an academic principle: Experiences of teachers and students
with discovery learning]. Pädagogik, 28, 26-31.
Schweder, S. (2018). The role of control strategies, self-efficacy, and learning behavior in self-directed learning.
International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080
/21683603.2018.1459991
Ranelluci, J., Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (2015). Achievement goals, emotions, learning, and performance: a process
model. Motivation Science, 1(2), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000014.
Rebbin, C. (2015). Lernen, wie es mir gefällt. Forschendes Lernen mit Medien in der bernsteinSchule Ribnitz-
Dammgarten [Learning how I like it. Research-based learning with technology at the bernsteinSchule
Ribnitz-Dammgarten]. Computer + Unterricht, 99, 17–19.
Renkl, A. (2015). Wissenserwerb [Knowledge acquisition]. In E. Wild & J. Möller (Eds.), Pädagogische
Psychologie (pp. 3–24). Berlin: Springer.
Rheinberg, F. (2006). Intrinsische Motivation und Flow-Erleben. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.),
Motivation und Handeln (3rd ed., pp. 365–388). Berlin: Springer.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens [The measurement of the
flow-experience]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und
Selbstkonzept (Vol. 2, pp. 261–279). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Saks, K., & Leijen, Ä. (2014). Distinguishing self-directed and self-regulated learning and measuring them in the
e-learning context. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.01.1155.
Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Assumptions underlying self-directed learning may be false. Medical Education, 34(4),
243–245. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.0656a.x.
Senko, C. (2016). Achievement goal theory. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook at motivation at
school. New York: Routledge.
Senko, C., & Freund, A. M. (2015). Are mastery-avoidance achievement goals always detrimental? An adult
development perspective. Motivation and Emotion, 39(4), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-
9474-1.
Skaalvik, E. M., Frederici, R. A., Wigfield, A., & Tangen, T. N. (2017). Students’ perceptions of mathematics
classroom goal structures: implications for perceived task values and study behavior., 20(3), 543–563.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9382-1.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend? Organizational
Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955.
Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., & Dickhäuser, O. (2012). Skalen zur Erfassung der Lern- und
Leistungsmotivation [Scales to assess learning and achievement motivation]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Stavrou, N. A. M., Psychountaki, M., Georgiadis, E., Karteroliotis, K., & Zervas, Y. (2015). Flow theory—goal
orientation theory: positive experience is related to athlete’s goal orientation. Frontiers in Psychology,
6(1499). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01499.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive
learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 524–551. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00060-7.
van de Pol, P. K. C., & Kavussanu, M. (2011). Achievement goals and motivational responses in tennis: does the
context matter? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(2), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2010.09.005.
Van Yerpen, N. W., Blaga, M., & Postmes, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of the impact of situationally induced
achievement goals on task performance. Human Performance, 28(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080
/08959285.2015.1006772.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, perfor-
mance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.
Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed... 223

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination
theory: another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., & Beyers, W. (2012).
Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: associations with self-
regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 431–439. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002.
Vock, M., & Gronostaj, A. (2017). Umgang mit Hereogenität in der Schule und Unterricht [Dealing with genius
at school and teaching]. Retrieved from Berlin, Germany: http://library.fes.de/pdf-
files/studienfoerderung/13277.pdf
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning
strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727–747).
San Diego: Academic Press.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems
and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications (pp.
56–75). Newbury Park: Sage.
Wigfield, A., & Wagner, A. L. (2017). Competence, motivation, and identity development during adolescence. In
A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd ed., pp. 222–240). New
York: Guilford Press.
Yeager, D. S., Lee, H. Y., & Dahl, R. E. (2017). Competence and motivation during adolescence. In A. J. Elliot,
C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: theory and application (2nd
ed., pp. 431–449). New York: Guilford.
Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). On chi-square difference and z tests in mean and covariance structure
analysis when the base model is misspecified. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 737–
757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404264853.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education (pp. 45–69). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Lebeau, R. B. (2000). A commentary on self-directed learning. In D. Evensen & C. E.
Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: a research perspective on learning interactions (pp. NJ299–NJ313).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade,
sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.51.
Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & Boucher, K. L. (2017). The role of self-efficacy and related beliefs in self-
regulation of learning and performance. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation: theory and application (pp. 313–334). New York: Guilford.

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

Sabine Schweder. Institute of Educational Science, School Pedagogy, University Greifswald, Ernst-Lohmeyer-
Platz 3 17487 Greifswald, Germany. E-mail: sabine.schweder@uni-greifswald.de

Current Themes of Research:

Academic learning, with a special emphasis on self-directed learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

This publication is actually more relevant: Schweder, S., & Raufelder, D. (2019). Positive emotions, learning
behavior and teacher support in self-directed learning during adolescence: Do age and gender matter?
Journal of Adolescence, 73, 73-84. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.04.004