The four achievement goal profiles differ significantly in use of motivation regulation strategies (interest enhancement, motivational self-talk, emotional control)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 The four profiles differed significantly in all three motivation regulation strategies, with η² of 0.196 (interest enhancement), 0.294 (motivational self-talk), and 0.225 (emotional control). → Jianhua Zhang 2025

Evidence¶

Jianhua Zhang 2025¶

Jianhua Zhang, Lawrence Jun Zhang. (2025). Unraveling the nexus among achievement goals, self-efficacy, and motivation regulation and their joint effects on L2 student writers' writing achievement: a person-based approach. Metacognition and Learning (2025) 20:29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09434-0

q2 · i3 · associational · r2

ANOVA/Welch's tests across the four latent profiles of 416 L2 student writers. The article reports "η2 = 0.294" for motivational self-talk as the largest profile difference; Scheffe tests showed the MH vs HAGs pair did not differ on any strategy (e.g., emotional control p = .999).

"The statistically significant differences across four profiles were also found in L2 student writers' use of motivation regulation strategies: interest enhancement ( F = 33.566, p <.001, η2 = 0.196), motivational self-talks ( F = 64.313, p <.001, η2 = 0.294), and emotional control (F = 39.968, p <.001, η2 = 0.225)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Achievement Goal Orientation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Motivation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• L2 student writers' writing achievement goals form four latent profiles: Low All Goals, Mastery High, Average All Goals, and High All Goals — related
• Students use strategies to regulate their own motivation and affect — a broader claim this one bears on
• Adult learners' motivational profiles differ significantly in self-efficacy, learning strategies and behavioral engagement: the good-quality motivation group scores higher on all three, the high-quantity group on strategies and engagement only — related
• The predictive effects of writing self-efficacy and motivation regulation strategies on writing achievement vary across achievement goal profiles and writing genre — related
• The four achievement goal profiles differ significantly in all four dimensions of writing self-efficacy — related
• Self-efficacy profiles differ in AI use for informational support (η² = .28) and emotional support (η² = .18) — related