This third limitation was of particular concern in the current study in that
all three measures of affect were unrelated to students’ math performance.
However, when we split the sample based on the bipolar indicators so that
the scale assessed either end of the bipolar measure (e.g., neutral to happy or
neutral to sad) for each of the three affect measures, the correlations between
the affect measures and math performance were not significant suggesting
that the use of the bipolar measure did not limit our ability to detect a signifi-
cant relation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that for sad–happy, while
the correlation was not significant, the correlations for sad and happy were
both in the negative direction; this suggests that future studies may want to
avoid using bipolar measures, especially when examining the relation be-
tween affect and math performance.
In another study conducted with upper elementary students (fifth and
sixth graders) during a 6-week math unit on reading and interpreting graphs,
we investigated the relation between students’ affect and their learning during
the unit (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003, study 2). In order to examine how af-
fect during the entire unit related to how much students learned in the unit,
we regressed their post-test math score on self-reported positive and negative
affect during the 6-week math unit. The measures of positive and negative af-
fect included both high activation (e.g., energetic, agitated) and low activa-
tion (e.g., calm, sad) indicators of affect and asked students to rate how they
felt during the entire mathematics unit. Therefore, they serve as indicators of
valence but not arousal. The scales were initially designed to assess both va-
lence and arousal, but the four dimensions did not separate in exploratory
factor analyses, suggesting that younger children have a difficult time differ-
entiating, or at least reporting, valence versus arousal. We also examined the
relation of affect reported at the post-test to a follow-up measure of achieve-
ment given 6 weeks after the end of the unit and two self-reported measures
of strategy use (effort and cognitive regulation).
Surprisingly, students’ reports of both positive affect (b= –.24,p< .01)
and negative affect (b= –.30,p< .01) were negatively related to how much
students learned during the math unit and how much they retained 6 weeks
later (positive affect:b= –.22,p< .01; negative affect:b= –.41,p< .001). For
strategy use, positive affect was associated with higher levels of effort regula-
tion (b= .22,p< .01) and cognitive regulation (b= .53,p< .001) while nega-
tive affect was unrelated.
It is somewhat surprising that positive affect was linked to higher levels
of effort and cognitive regulation during the math unit, but this association
did not seem to be beneficial for how much students learned during the
math activity. In fact, positive affect was related to lower levels of achieve-
ment at the end of the unit and lower levels of retention 6 weeks later. One
possibility is that the findings for strategy use may be influenced by the
- AFFECT AND COGNITIVE PROCESSING 75