Individual and Typological Features of Relationship between Conscious Self-Regulation, Psychological Well-Being, and Academic Performance in Fifth-Grade Pupils

The problem of achieving academic success and psychological well-being is connected with the search for factors that ensure the coordinated achievement of this goal. The aim of the work was to identify typological groups of students who either successfully solve this problem or fail to do it, as well as to identify the factors that help or hinder its solution. Among the factors considered are: conscious self-regulation of achieving goals, attitude to studying, academic motivation, and students’ personal features. The study was carried out on a sample of fifth grade pupils (N=231, age М=11, SD=0,28). Methods: “Scale of adolescents psychological well-being manifestations”, “Style of learning activity self-regulating”, “Scales of students’ academic motivation”, “Attitude to Learning”, “Big Five Children Version, BFQ-C”. We identified four groups of students, most of whom (78%) successfully coped with the task of simultaneously maintaining high academic performance and psychological well-being. The factors that demonstrated a significant effect were: regulatory processes of results evaluation and programming of actions, cognitive motivation, and achievement motivation. The obstacles were: high anxiety, inability to plan one’s learning goals, low level of responsibility, regulatory reliability, and flexibility. 22% of fifth graders cannot simultaneously maintain high well-being and academic performance. They need teachers and psychologists to help them to develop conscious self-regulation.

Introduction

The work aims to reveal the personal, regulatory, and motivational resources of psychological well-being (PWB) and learning goals achievement by identifying successful students and students with difficulties in moving from primary to secondary school. Self-regulation (SR) [11], achievement motivation and attitude toward learning [6], engagement [[12; 15], openness and conscientiousness [8] are attributed to unconditional resources of academic performance and well-being. However, school practices and researches have shown that the above-mentioned phenomena complete their formation between the ages of 10 and 12. [5].

Academic performance and PWB. Students often have to maintain PWB and master educational materials simultaneously. In addition to obvious difficulties, the educational evaluation system itself can also reduce student’s PWB. [3]. Regulatory and motivational characteristics, which are supposed to guide and organize the students, are only starting to take shape at this point. It is considered that they are the main factors determining adolescents’ psychological well-being. It is likely that they are closely related to emotional reactions [13]. We assume that there is a common latent factor that determines the complex relationship between the academic performance and well-being of young people. The researchers suggest that anxiety should be considered as a factor in this. [1; 10]. O. Brekina’s survey of school anxiety among fifth-grade students showed that it was mainly related to the fear of not meeting other people’s expectations. She specified changes in anxiety. At the end of the fifth grade, moderate anxiety increased from 50% to 70% and extreme anxiety decreased from 23% to 10%. [2]. Experts describe this disorder as a chronic failure and a complete regression characterized by an increased level of anxiety. It leads to bad performance and disorganized actions. At the same time, it should be noted that the optimum level of anxiety contributes to academic performance [4].

This study is based on V.I. Morosanova’s differential approach. According to this approach, the study of the typical individual way to regulate the achievement of educational objectives and PWB requires analyzing the stylistic characteristics of adolescents’ SR. We determine SR as a system of regulatory processes and personal features that continues in various situations of life and activities that are used to achieve important goals [5]. When students consciously use self-regulation learning, it becomes a psychological resource. It helps them to overcome negative traits of personality and character that interfere with the achievement of their goals.

High motivation is a reliable predictor of academic performance [6], and PWB [14]. Age-related features of motivation should also be taken into account, as they show the imbalanced development at an early age. We emphasize that it is difficult to talk about the motivations for the maintenance of PWB, because this objective is largely unconscious. The aim of the work is to identify typological groups of students who successfully maintain academic performance and PWB at high levels and fail to cope with this task, as well as to identify factors that help or hinder the solution of this problem.

The following research questions are provided:

Can we identify groups of fifth-graders based on their PWB and academic performance?

Are the differences in academic performance and PWB in these groups caused by differences in conscious SR, academic motivation, and personality development?

What is the contribution of school anxiety to fifth-graders’ academic performance and PWB?

Characteristics of the Sample, Research Procedures and Applied Techniques

The sample included 234 secondary school students in Moscow and Kaluga:109 girls and 125 boys (53%). Respondents were between 10 and 12 years old (M=11 years old, SD=.28 years old). The study was conducted in groups at scheduled times.

Methods. 1 “The scale of adolescents’ PWB manifestations” (Masse, et al, 1998, adapted by Morosanova et al., 2018). The questionnaire consists of 25 points, which form six scales: Self-management and controlling events, Social ability, Happiness, Engagement in social interactions, Self-esteem and Mental balance. The Cronbach’s α for the Russian version in this study varies from 0.67 to 0.87. 2. “The style of learning activity self-regulation, SRLAQ-M” (Morosanova, Bondarenko, 2018). Cronbach’s α: 0.65—0.82. 3. “Scales of academic schoolchildren motivation” (Gordeeva, et al., 2017). Cronbach’s α: 0.55—0.84 4. “Attitude to school” (Andreeva, Prikhojan, 2006) in the modification of Morosanova et al., 2018). Cronbach’s α: 0.30—0.87. 5. “Big Five Questionnaire: children version” — “BFQ-C” for secondary school students (Malykh et al., 2015). Cronbach’s α: 0.86—0.91 6. Annual grades in Mathematics and Russian were taken as indicators of academic performance.

Research procedure. To test this hypothesis, cluster analysis was carried out using the k-means method. The research indicators were checked by correlation analysis (r Spearman) for collinearity. As a result, some correlative indicators of academic motivation were excluded from the analysis. According to L. Bergman and M. Wongby’s [9] personal-oriented approach, variance analyses were performed to identify: (1) variables that differentiate the obtained typological groups, (2) variables have contributed significantly to academic performance and PWB, and (3) variables making it difficult to achieve these objectives. We also defined the features of the manifestation of anxiety in this period and the specifics of its contribution to academic performance and PWB in groups. We used STATISTICA 12 for statistical data processing was performed.

Results

The k-means method was used to identify the typological groups of the fifth graders. We used 6 PWB subscales, total level of SR, and academic performance indicators in Mathematics and Russian. All variables have previously been standardized (z estimates). The group comparison (Kruskal—Wallis test) confirmed a significant difference between all analyzed indicators (p<0,000.

It was shown that the highest result was achieved on the Happiness scale regardless of the total level of PWB. Cluster 3 has the highest level of PWB and academic performance, as well as the largest number of students (73 (31%)). Cluster 1 students should be given special attention by teachers. The decreased level of PWB scales in this cluster is combined with the highest neuroticism and SR profile with the prevailing planning and evaluation process of results. Additionally, an increase in anxiety and anger is established. Students in Cluster 2 are characterized by low level of SR, learning attitude, academic motivation, personal characteristics, excluding neuroticism. At the same time, it is noted that they have the highest level of amotivation and the lowest level of emotional and motivational attitude towards learning. As the academic performance is rather low (3.6 on average), self-esteem and well-being are generally at risk. Cluster 4 has a distinctive feature of inconsistency between academic performance and PWB levels. With high PWB, they have the lowest academic performance in the sample. The average values of the clustersꞌ indicators are presented in the Table.

Table

Average values of PWB Indicators, Academic Performance, SR, Motivational and Emotional Attitude to Learning, and Personal Characteristics in four clusters

Cluster		Cluster 1 N=64 (27%)	Cluster 2 N=43 (18%)	Cluster 3 N=73 (31%)	Cluster 4 N=54 (22%)
		M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Academic performance
a	Math [2—5] — acceptable values range for variables	3.9(0.7)	3.8(0.5)	4.6(0.5)	3.4(0.5)
b	Russian [2—5]	4.0(0.5)	3.5(0.6)	4.2(0.5)	3.0(0.1)
PWB
a	Control of Self and Events [0—20]	14.1(2.3)	10.1(2.6)	17.0(1.9)	15.3(2.2)
b	Happiness	18.3(2.9)	14.4(3.2)	22.5(2.1)	21.2(2.7)
c	Social Involvement	14.3(2.2)	11.1(3.3)	17.4(1.8)	16.8(2.1)
d	Self-Esteem	14.0(2.3)	9.5(2.7)	16.9(2.1)	14.2(2.5)
e	Mental Balance	13.4(2.3)	11.9(2.8)	17.4(1.8)	16.0(2.4)
f	Sociability	14.7(2.4)	11.3(2.8)	17.5(1.9)	16.9(1.9)
Total level of PWB = a+b+c+d+e+f [0—120]		88.8(5.8)	68.3(9.6)	108.8(7.5)	100.3(8.3)
Motivational and emotional attitude to learning
a	Cognitive activity	16.2(3.5)	14.8(3.4)	19.4(2.9)	18.4(2.9)
b	Achievement motivation	18.5(3.3)	16.5(3.7)	21.1(2.7)	18.8(3.1)
c	Anxiety	11.7(4.4)	15.4(3.3)	9.4(3.2)	11.6(4.2)
d	Anger	11.6(5.0)	13.7(4.8)	8.8(3.3)	10.3(4.2)
e	Motivation for avoiding failure	14.0(3.6)	15.9(2.9)	11.5(3.0)	13.7(3.2)
Total level of attitude to learning = a+b-(c+d+e) [-30 — +30]		-2.7(13.5)	-13.7(9.1)	23(10.3)	1.7(13)
Conscious self-regulation
a	Planning [0-6]	4.2(1.4)	3.3(1.5)	4.9(1.1)	4.4(1.3)
b	Modeling	3.1(1.7)	2.3(1.6)	4.4(1.5)	3.1(1.7)
c	Programming	4.2(1.6)	3.3(1.7)	4.8(1.4)	4.4(1.4)
d	Results evaluation	2.9(1.5)	2.4(1.6)	4.2(1.4)	2.9(1.7)
e	Flexibility	3.2(1.5)	2.8(1.3)	4.4(1.1)	3.3(1.2)
f	Independence	3.8(1.4)	3.2(1.4)	4.2(1.2)	4.1(1.2)
g	Reliability	2.9(1.6)	2.5(1.3)	4.2(1.6)	2.8(1.6)
i	Responsibility	3.8(1.5)	3.1(1.6)	4.9(1.2)	3.9(1.4)
j	Social desirability	2.8(1.0)	2.3(1.1)	3.2(1.0)	2.9(1.1)
Total level of SR = a+b+c+d+e+f+g+i+j [0—60]		28.0(7.9)	22.9(6.5)	36.1(7.3)	28.9(6.8)
Academic motivation
a	Conscious motivation [1—6]	3.7(1.0)	3.4(0.8)	4.4(0.7)	3.9(0.9)
b	Motivation of achievement	3.3(1.2)	3.1(0.7)	4.2(0.8)	3.5(1.0)
c	Motivation of self-development	3.6(0.9)	3.3(0.6)	4.2(0.7)	3.8(0.8)
d	Self-esteem motivation	3.9(0.9)	3.4(0.7)	4.4(0.7)	3.9(0.9)
e	Introjected motivation	3.7(0.8)	3.5(0.8)	3.5(0.9)	3.6(0.8)
f	Motivation of parentꞌs respect	3.7(1.2)	3.4(0.8)	4.1(0.9)	4.1(0.8)
g	External motivation	3.4(1.1)	3.4(0.7)	3.1(1.0)	3.50.9)
i	Amotivation	2.3(1.2)	3.1(1.0)	1.9(1.1)	2.6(1.1)
Personality
a	Extraversion [0—60]	33.5(8.9)	28.1(6.8)	38.0(11.9)	37.7(10.2)
b	Agreeableness	36.0(10)	30.5(7.6)	40.8(13.2)	39.9(11.4)
c	Conscientiousness	34.0(10.7)	27.9(8.7)	39.8(12.4)	37.3(11.4)
d	Neuroticism	26.3(9.7)	24.7(7.4)	20.7(6.7)	23.4(7.4)
e	Openness	35.8(10.9)	28.4(7.4)	41.8(13.2)	38.9(11.2)

To answer the question of whether academic performance and PWB differences in these groups can be explained by differences in SR, academic motivation, and personal characteristics, discriminant function analysis was conducted.

We used the clusters indicator as a dependent variable. The independent variables included all processes and characteristics of conscious SR, personality, motivation, indicators of attitude to learning and academic performance, which were selected by correlation analysis. The results showed that the differences between the four groups in the discriminating function space are statistically significant (Wilks’ Lambda:0.163 approx. F(39.646)=13.95 p<0,000). The quality of classification was at 78.6%.

Analysis showed that three discriminator functions divided sample into 4 groups (p<0.000): the first discriminator function explains 64% of the variance, the second — 22%, and the third — 14%. We estimated standardized coefficients to access contribution of each variable to these functions.

Therefore, the first function (Root 1) is determined by the regulatory process of the results evaluation (β=0.43) and programming (β=0.20) and the motivational characteristics of cognitive motivation (β=0.26) and achievement motivation (β=0.26). The second function includes anxiety (β =-0.87), anger (β=0.55), regulatory planning (β=0.56), and neurosis (β=0.45). The third function (Root 3) is determined by the extraversion (β=-0.715), the regulatory properties of reliability (β= 0.49) and responsibility (β=0.33), the regulatory process of modeling (β=0.26), and amotivation (β=-0.60). In conclusion, academic performance and PWB depended, firstly, on motivation for achieving educational goals, the ability to move towards that goals step by step, and the availability of feedback. The second function describes limitations: combined negative emotions that cannot be controlled and setting learning goals that they cannot achieve. The third factor is the low level of extraversion, and high level of reliability and responsibility, as well as ability to retain permanent interest in learning.

Discussion

The third factor is the low extraversion, and high reliability and responsibility, as well as ability to retain permanent interest in learning. 78% of the students successfully transitioned to secondary school, and achieved high grades and high PWB. The data obtained are consistent with the results of longitudinal studies, demonstrating that the PWB of the fourth graders determines the academic performance and the SR level in the fifth grade [7]. Therefore, PWB can be considered a psychological resource for early adolescentsꞌ academic performance. In fact, three of the four selected groups were consistent with academic performance and PWB. However, the current study shows that there are students (22%) who are not reproducing this pattern. High PWB in this group is associated with poor academic performance.

It was revealed that students in this group are characterized with low SR of learning goals achievement. We found low level of regulatory planning and modelling, as well as independence, regulatory flexibility, achievement motivation, and cognitive activity. The collected data contribute to understanding chronic failure psychological syndrome. It begins to form in primary school and finally appears in the secondary school. It seems that the students of this group are poorly aware of their anger and anxiety. The personal-oriented approach of this study identified variables that differs students of the groups with “full success and happiness” from the group “unsuccessful, but so far satisfied”. The main variables concern the studentsꞌ ability to understand the teachers’ feedback, to plan learning goals, and be interested in specific academic subject and motivation. Furthermore, it is important to be able to deal with negative emotions, especially with anxiety. The variables of regulatory programming of actions and responsibility also contribute to group division.

One objective of the research was to study the role of school anxiety and analyze its contribution to academic performance and PWB. High anxiety (as a condition) had a negative impact on academic performance and well-being. However, neuroticism (as a personal disposition), which enters the second discriminatory function with positive signs, contributes to achieving educational goals in secondary school.

The current study shows that academic performance and PWB are determined by regulatory, motivational, emotional, and personal factors, some of which are at the formation stage. This gives the possibility to identify predictors of academic performance and well-being and estimate their contribution during stressless learning periods with no exams.

Main results of the study

Most of the fifth-grade students have successfully achieved high academic achievement and high PWB (78%). This result is first and foremost provided by timely and clear teachersꞌ feedback, the ability of students to plan their learning activities, to maintain their interest in a particular school discipline as well as high level of motivation of goals achievement.

We identified a group of students (22%), whose high PWB is combined with low grades. In order to overcome chronic failure, conscious self-regulation, particularly planning and modelling processes, and regulatory characteristics of responsibility, reliability and flexibility have to be developed.

It is shown that anxiety and neuroticism contribute in multiple directions to the performance and well-being of the fifth-grade students.

Anxiety as a condition has a negative impact on performance and PWB, neuroticism as a personal disposition provides the achieving of high educational results.

1. Borisova I.V. Vzaimosvyaz’ shkol’noi trevozhnosti i motivatsii uchebnoi deyatel’nosti na etape adaptatsii k obucheniyu v 5-kh klassakh [The relationship of school anxiety and motivation of educational activity at the stage of adaptation to learning in 5th grades]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2018. Vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 22—28. DOI:10.17759/pse.2018230503 (In Russ).
2. Brekina O.V. Osobennosti proyavleniya shkol’noi trevozhnosti v protsesse sotsial’no-psikhologicheskoi adaptatsii k obucheniyu v srednem zvene [Features of the manifestation of school anxiety in the process of socio-psychological adaptation to secondary education]. Problemy sovremennogo pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [Problems of modern pedagogical education], 2017, no. 55—8, pp. 265—276. (In Russ.).
3. Gordeeva T.O., Sychev O.A., Sidneva A.N. Otsenivanie dostizhenii shkol’nikov v traditsionnoi i razvivayushchei sistemakh obucheniya: psikhologo-pedagogicheskii analiz [Assessment of students’ achievements in traditional and developing learning systems: psychological and pedagogical analysis]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Questions of Education], 2021, no. 1, pp. 213—236. DOI:10.17323/1814-9545-2021-1-213-236 (In Russ.).
4. Ishmuratova Yu.A., Potanina A.M., Bondarenko I.N. Vklad osoznannoi samoregulyatsii, vovlechennosti i motivatsii v akademicheskuyu uspevaemost’ shkol’nikov v raznye periody obucheniya [The contribution of conscious self-regulation, involvement and motivation to the academic performance of schoolchildren in different periods of study]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2021. Vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 17—29. DOI:10.17759/pse.2021260502 (In Russ.).
5. Morosanova V.I. Osoznannaya samoregulyaciya kak metaresurs dostizheniya celej i razresheniya problem zhiznedeyatel’nosti [Conscious self-regulation as a meta-resource for achieving goals and solving life problems]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Moscow University]. Ser. 14. Psihologiya [Psychology], 2021, no. 1, pp. 3—37. DOI:10.11621/vsp.2021.01.01 (In Russ.).
6. Morosanova V.I., Bondarenko I.N., Fomina T.G. Osoznannaya samoregulyatsiya i lichnostno-motivatsionnye osobennosti mladshikh podrostkov s razlichnoi dinamikoi psikhologicheskogo blagopoluchiya [Conscious self-regulation and personality-motivational features of younger adolescents with different dynamics of psychological well-being]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2019. Vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 5—21. DOI:10.17759/pse.2019240401 (In Russ.).
7. Fomina T.G. Vzaimosvyaz’ psikhologicheskogo blagopoluchiya i akademicheskoi uspevaemosti mladshikh podrostkov: mediatornaya rol’ regulyatornykh kharakteristik [The relationship of psychological well-being and academic performance of younger adolescents: the mediator role of regulatory characteristics]. Psikhologiya samoregulyatsii v kontekste aktual’nykh zadach obrazovaniya (k 90-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya O.A. Konopkina): sbornik nauchnykh statei [Psychology of self-regulation in the context of urgent educational tasks (to the 90th anniversary of the birth of O.A. Konopkin): collection of scientific articles]. Pod redaktsiei V.I. Morosanovoi, Yu.P. Zinchenko, Moscow: FGBNU «Psikhologicheskii institut RAO, 2021, pp. 112—119. DOI:10.24412/cl-36466-2021-1-112-119 (In Russ.).
8. Fomina T.G., Eftimova O.V., Morosanova V.I. Vzaimosvyaz’ sub”ektivnogo blagopoluchiya s regulyatornymi i lichnostnymi osobennostyami u uchashchikhsya mladshego shkol’nogo vozrasta [Elektronnyi resurs] [The relationship of subjective well-being with regulatory and personal characteristics in primary school age students]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological and pedagogical research, 2018. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 64—76. DOI:10.17759/psyedu.2018100206 (In Russ.).
9. Bergman L., Wångby M. The person-oriented approach: A short theoretical and practical guide Estonian Journal of Education, 2014. Vol. 2(1), pp. 29—49. DOI:10.12697/eha.2014.2.1.02b
10. Bücker S., Nuraydin S., Simonsmeier B., Schneider M., Luhmann M Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 2018. Vol. 74, pp. 83—94. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007
11. Fomina T., Burmistrova-Savenkova A., Morosanova V. Self-regulation and psychological well-being in early adolescence: A two-wave longitudinal study. Behavioral Sciences, 2020. Vol. 10(3). P. 67. DOI:10.3390/bs10030067
12. Fredricks J., Reschly A., Christenson S. Handbook of student engagement interventions: working with disengaged students. London; San Diego: Academic Press, 2019, 410 p.
13. Garcia D. Two models of personality and well-being among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 2011. Vol. 50(8), pp. 1208—1212. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.009
14. Ryan R.M., Deci E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 2000. Vol. 55(1), pp. 68—78. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
15. Wang M., Deng X., Du X. Harsh parenting and academic achievement in Chinese adolescents: Potential mediating roles of effortful control and classroom engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 2018. Vol. 67, pp. 16—30. DOI:10.1016/j.jsp.2017.09.002