Search

This article describes the control-value theory of achievement emotions and its implications for educational research and practice. The theory provides an integrative framework for analyzing the antecedents and effects of emotions experienced in achievement and academic settings. It is based on the premise that appraisals of control and values are central to the arousal of achievement emotions, including activity-related emotions such as enjoyment, frustration, and boredom experienced at learning, as well as outcome emotions such as joy, hope, pride, anxiety, hopelessness, shame, and anger relating to success or failure. Corollaries of the theory pertain to the multiplicity and domain specificity of achievement emotions; to their more distal individual and social antecedents, their effects on engagement and achievement, and the reciprocal linkages between emotions, antecedents and effects; to the regulation and development of these emotions; and to their relative universality across genders and cultures. Implications addressed concern the conceptual integration of emotion, motivation, and cognition, and the need to advance mixed-method paradigms. In closing, implications for educational practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study which was part of the DISUM-project, 224 ninth graders from 14 German classes from middle track schools (Realschule) were asked about their enjoyment, interest, value and self-efficacy expectations concerning three types of mathematical problems: intra-mathematical problems, word problems and modelling problems. Enjoyment, interest, value and self-efficacy were assessed before and after a ten-lesson teaching unit promoting modelling competency related to the topics 'Pythagoras' theorem' and 'linear functions'. The study aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) Do students' enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations differ depending on the type of task? (2) Does the treatment of modelling problems in classroom instruction influence these variables? (3) Are there any differential effects for different ways of teaching modelling problems, including a 'directive', teacher-centred instruction and an 'operative-strategic', more student-centred instruction emphasising group work and strategic scaffolding by the teacher? The findings show that there were no differences in students' enjoyment, interest, value and self-efficacy between the three types of tasks. However, teaching oriented towards modelling problems had positive effects on some of the student variables, with the student-centred teaching method producing the most beneficial effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although self-initiative is recognized as instrumental to success in college, some students do not take responsibility for their academic development and fail to make the transition from high school to college. This problem is exacerbated when bright, highly skilled students drop courses or quit college entirely. Research into this paradox of failure reveals that, although high academic control benefits learning-related emotions, cognitions, motivation, and performance, it is not sufficient to ensure optimal success. Along with academic control other factors are implicated in the paradox. In this 3-year longitudinal study, four groups of students who differed in academic control (low, high) and failure preoccupation (low, high) were tracked using broad indices of scholastic development. Overall, students higher in academic control obtained better 3-year GPAs and withdrew from fewer courses. More notable, however, high-academic-control students who were concerned about failure had better 3-year GPAs and also were less likely to withdraw from courses or quit university than the other three groups. Paradoxically, high-academic-control students who were less concerned about failure did poorly. In qualifying the assumption that more perceived control is always better, these results are interpreted following social cognition theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]