methodology used since both strategy use and affect were assessed using
self-report measures. However, it is also possible that positive affect has a
different relation with effort and cognitive regulation versus actual learning
and achievement. For instance, positive affect may serve as a motivational
tool, such that students who feel positively are more willing to engage and
persist and even more willing to use effortful strategies such as those re-
quired for cognitive regulation. However, there may be another component
of positive affect that is detrimental for learning mathematics in that it in-
terferes with the storage or processing of the information. In this way, posi-
tive affect may help with engagement and strategy use, but if it interferes
with cognitive processing, it will still hinder learning. This possibility needs
to be explored in future research where either affect is experimentally ma-
nipulated or effort and cognitive regulation are not assessed with self-report
measures in order to eliminate the possibility that the findings are based on
a mono-method bias in assessment.
In summary, our work on the relation between affect and students’ learn-
ing of mathematics material is consistent for effort and cognitive regulation
but not for math performance or learning (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). As
noted previously, it is possible that the discrepancy in the findings may be
linked to the differences in the measurement of affect, although follow-up
analyses indicated that this was not the case suggesting that we must consider
other possibilities. For instance, the discrepant findings may have occurred
because the tasks used were very different and the duration and context of the
study differed.
Given these differences, it is somewhat surprising that affect did not alter
students’ performance on the math exam in study 1 since it was more similar
both in terms of the task and the design to typical social psychology experi-
ments. That is, students were tested outside of the regular classroom and
asked to respond to tasks in an atypical manner (using a computer to record
responses). Furthermore, the task was relatively short in duration, lasting 15
minutes. In contrast, study 2 was more similar to a typical classroom. The
study took place during a 6-week math unit and students completed the post-
test and follow-up tests as part of their regular classroom work. Further-
more, the affect measure was more general in that it was designed to assess af-
fect during the 6-week math unit and examine the effects of that general affect
or mood on their learning during the unit. In this sense, the relation of affect
to learning was expected to take place over a longer time period and may not
have influenced cognitive processing at the same level as was assessed in the
first study. We consider these differences in applying the theoretical models
to our findings.
It is also interesting that while study 1 and study 2 differed greatly in du-
ration, the findings for engagement, as measured by effort regulation and
cognitive regulation, were similar. This suggests that the differences in find-
76 LINNENBRINK AND PINTRICH