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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 MANCOVA showed a significant multivariate effect of cluster membership on self-efficacy and academic self-concept (η²p = .082) and on engagement and learning variables (η²p = .076); the clusters were naturally occurring, so these are adjusted group differences, not evidence that profile membership causes the outcomes. → Ana Rothes 2017 q2 i2 The good-quality group scored significantly higher than the poor-quality and low-quantity groups in self-efficacy, learning strategies, and behavioral engagement; the high-quantity group did so only for learning strategies and behavioral engagement, not self-efficacy. → Ana Rothes 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Ana Rothes 2017¶

Ana Rothes, Marina S. Lemos, and Teresa Gonçalves. (2017). Motivational Profiles of Adult Learners. Adult Education Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713616669588

q2 · i2 · associational · r2

MANCOVA with cluster membership as independent variable, self-efficacy and academic self-concept as dependent variables, and gender, course type, and qualification level as covariates. The multivariate effect of cluster membership was significant, η²p = .082, as printed. The design is nonexperimental (two data collections with a time lag); the authors say longitudinal research "will also be needed, in the future, in order to have a more robust basis to infer causal" relationships.

"Wilks's lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect of cluster membership—F(6, 358) = 5.305, p < .001, η2p = .082—and in addition, a multivariate effect was found of educational level—F (2, 179) = 5.568, p < .01, η2p = .059."

Ana Rothes 2017 (2)¶

Ana Rothes, Marina S. Lemos, and Teresa Gonçalves. (2017). Motivational Profiles of Adult Learners. Adult Education Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713616669588

q2 · i2 · associational · r2

Follow-up univariate tests and Tukey HSD comparisons (Table 3): self-efficacy F = 8.834, η² = .12; learning strategies F = 11.709, η² = .17; behavioral engagement F = 6.764, η² = .11. The high-quantity group also beat the low-autonomous groups in learning strategies and behavioral engagement but not self-efficacy, so only the good-quality group was higher on all three. These are group differences among naturally occurring profiles and cannot show cause.

"The good-quality motivation group scored significantly higher than the poor-quality motivation group and the low-quantity motivation group in three dependent variables—self-efficacy, learning strategies, and self-reported behavioral engagement"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Controlled motivation showed no negative effects on the desirable outcomes measured, and no profile differences emerged in academic self-concept or teacher-reported engagement — reports the opposite
• Adult learners' motivation clusters into four profiles combining autonomous and controlled regulation, replicating the structure expected from SDT research with younger students — related
• Autonomous regulation correlates positively with self-efficacy, learning strategies, and behavioral engagement, while controlled regulation shows no significant linear relations with these outcomes — related
• Learners' task-specific self-efficacy beliefs predict whether they initiate, persist through, and recover from difficulty on academic tasks. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Self-efficacy predicts cluster membership, with the article concluding self-efficacy may play a foundational role in the cluster difference — related
• The four profiles differ in academic self-efficacy, time/study management, and effort regulation, with HL highest, but not in help seeking — related
• Motivational profiles were associated with mental effort while studying the video modeling examples, but not with posttest mental effort — related
• Students with good-quality or moderately positive profiles self-assessed more accurately after studying video modeling examples than students with poor-quality or moderately negative profiles — related
• The four achievement goal profiles differ significantly in use of motivation regulation strategies (interest enhancement, motivational self-talk, emotional control) — related
• The predictive effects of writing self-efficacy and motivation regulation strategies on writing achievement vary across achievement goal profiles and writing genre — related
• Autonomous motivation types positively relate to school achievement while controlled types show weak negative or null relations — related
• Multivariate analysis confirmed a significant overall group effect, and all outcome variables correlated positively in both groups — related
• At Time 3, profile membership was significantly associated with Japanese learning self-efficacy and learning burnout, with all three profiles differing pairwise — related
• Adult learners below secondary education show higher controlled regulation and lower academic self-concept and learning strategies than those above it — related
• Receiver characteristics such as academic self-concept, self-efficacy, and achievement are proposed to moderate learners' engagement with feedback, but the achievement relation is conflicting — related
• Engagement profiles predict who benefits most from accuracy-based adaptive support — related
• Lower academic self-efficacy is associated with membership of three less engaged momentary-engagement profiles and lower peer support with two, while educational goals and family support do not differ across the four profiles tested — related