Introduction. Achievement emotions have recently roused particular interest within educational psychology for both their theoretical and applied relevance (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Pekrun, 2011). According to the control-value theory, they could be conceptualized as those emotions related to achievement activities or outcomes and could be described in terms of both antecedents and outcomes (Pekrun, 2006). In light of pervasiveness of emotions in learning contexts, the issue of their evaluation is assuming a critical role too. Considering the control-value theory as framework, this study is focused on the psychometric properties of an instrument assessing achievement emotions in the Italian context, and it explores the specificity of these emotions in terms of evaluative versus non-evaluative settings. Method. The participants were 417 students (mean age = 21.1 years, 93.4% female) attending the Faculty of Education at the University of Verona, Italy. They completed a 60-item questionnaire measuring achievement emotions, referred to two settings (university exams, learning exam-relevant material). For each setting, 30 items had to be evaluated, related to 10 achievement emotions, including three positive-activating (enjoyment, pride, hope), two positive-deactivating (relief, relaxation), three negative-activating (anxiety, anger, guilt), and two negative-deactivating (boredom, hopelessness) emotions. Seven-point-Likert-type scales were used. Results and discussion. The experimental design was correlational. Items were grouped on the basis of the four types of emotions (positive-activating, positive-deactivating, negative-activating, and negative-deactivating emotions). Then, a multitrait-multimethod confirmative factor analysis testing five alternative models was carried out (Marsh, 1989). The best model was the fourth, in which the two types of settings (evaluative, non-evaluative) represent the latent variables, and the same type of emotions in the two settings were linked (Comparative Fit Index = .97; Tucker Lewis Index = .90; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = .06). On the whole, these findings enable to underline how achievement emotions characterize different settings, suggesting the specificity of this contextual dimension and extending previous literature.
The role of setting for university students’ achievement emotions
PASINI, Margherita;BRONDINO, MARGHERITA;RACCANELLO, Daniela
2014-01-01
Abstract
Introduction. Achievement emotions have recently roused particular interest within educational psychology for both their theoretical and applied relevance (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Pekrun, 2011). According to the control-value theory, they could be conceptualized as those emotions related to achievement activities or outcomes and could be described in terms of both antecedents and outcomes (Pekrun, 2006). In light of pervasiveness of emotions in learning contexts, the issue of their evaluation is assuming a critical role too. Considering the control-value theory as framework, this study is focused on the psychometric properties of an instrument assessing achievement emotions in the Italian context, and it explores the specificity of these emotions in terms of evaluative versus non-evaluative settings. Method. The participants were 417 students (mean age = 21.1 years, 93.4% female) attending the Faculty of Education at the University of Verona, Italy. They completed a 60-item questionnaire measuring achievement emotions, referred to two settings (university exams, learning exam-relevant material). For each setting, 30 items had to be evaluated, related to 10 achievement emotions, including three positive-activating (enjoyment, pride, hope), two positive-deactivating (relief, relaxation), three negative-activating (anxiety, anger, guilt), and two negative-deactivating (boredom, hopelessness) emotions. Seven-point-Likert-type scales were used. Results and discussion. The experimental design was correlational. Items were grouped on the basis of the four types of emotions (positive-activating, positive-deactivating, negative-activating, and negative-deactivating emotions). Then, a multitrait-multimethod confirmative factor analysis testing five alternative models was carried out (Marsh, 1989). The best model was the fourth, in which the two types of settings (evaluative, non-evaluative) represent the latent variables, and the same type of emotions in the two settings were linked (Comparative Fit Index = .97; Tucker Lewis Index = .90; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = .06). On the whole, these findings enable to underline how achievement emotions characterize different settings, suggesting the specificity of this contextual dimension and extending previous literature.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
