Control-value appraisals predicting students’ boredom in accounting classes: a continuous-state-sampling approach

Control-value appraisals predicting students’ boredom in accounting classes: a... koegler@econ.uni-frankfurt.de Goethe University Frankfurt, Background: Boredom is a prevalent experience in school. Findings indicate that stu- Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz dents are bored in a notable amount of instructional time with negative consequences 4, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany for learning outcomes. The control-value theory considers control and value appraisals Full list of author information to be important antecedents of boredom. is available at the end of the article Methods: In our study with 95 commercial school ninth graders, we investigated control-value appraisals and students’ boredom over 2 curricular weeks in the subject accounting by means of an experience sampling procedure with equally spaced meas- urement intervals called Continuous-State-Sampling. The CSSM data design generates a hierarchical data structure. Variability of students’ boredom can be segmented into three components: between times within lessons, between lessons within students and between students. We use multilevel models to address our research questions. Results: We found negative associations for control and value appraisals in predicting boredom over time. In addition, the value appraisal moderates the relation between subjective control and boredom: Interested students get bored when lacking time to reflect on subject matter. Our results further revealed that control and value only inter - act when being conceptualised as state constructs close to the situation. Conclusions: The results show that students’ in situ-experiences of boredom are related to personal and situational factors as well as their dynamic interplay. Keywords: Boredom, Experience-sampling, Control value theory, Hierarchical linear model Background Students’ boredom during class has been considered a major pedagogical challenge for decades (Robinson 1975) and is still an omnipresent condition in schools. There is empirical evidence that students are often and intensively bored during school les- sons—several studies suggest manifestations up to 50%—with possible negative conse- quences for learning outcomes (Götz et al. 2007; Larson and Richards 1991; Lohrmann 2008;  Pekrun et  al. 2010). For instance, given that scarce educational time resources should be spent adequately and efficiently, it is important to  address the question how the feeling of boredom as a subjective void of time arises and if there are pedagogical means to minimise this dissipation of temporal resources. In the field of vocational © The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 2 of 16 education and training (VET), existing results show that students’ boredom is occurring in a notable amount in the commercial core subject accounting (Kögler 2015). Account- ing is said to be challenging for both teachers and students and often taught in a tradi- tional, schematic way, which has been criticised for a long time (cf. Preiss 2001; Seifried 2004a). Hence, investigating the antecedents of students’ boredom in accounting classes seems to be worthwhile. The feeling of boredom is characterised by a subjective temporal dilatation, low arousal, and a fairly negative emotional valence (Götz and Frenzel 2006; Mikulas and Vodanovich 1993). After decades of disregard in the field of educational research, there has been a growing body of knowledge about boredom and its predictors at school (Daschmann et al. 2014). The emergence and development of boredom is attributed to both personal and situational variables and may be seen as a subjective evaluation of the fit between person and environment (Fisher 1993; Daschmann et  al. 2011). More specifically and in accord with appraisal theories of emotion, the individuals’ evaluation of situational control and value are supposed to be considerable antecedents of boredom as stated in the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun 2006; Pekrun and Stephens 2009, 2010). Hence, academic boredom is supposed to occur when students do not evaluate the learning contents and materials as valuable and, at once, lack the impression of control over the situation. The feeling of control during class is associated with the complexity of the learning contents and the pace being set by the teacher dur- ing lesson, while subjective value represents intrinsic qualities of academic studying as well as learning success (Pekrun 2006, pp 319). Moreover, control and value could possibly interact when causing students’ experience of boredom. Interested students should react differently when lacking the impression of control compared to students experiencing low subjective value. Studies investigating the effects of control and value on emotional experiences mostly concentrate on main effects, interactions have been widely neglected in research so far. The scarce existing results indicate significant interactions between control and value appraisals predicting everyday positive emotions (cf. Goetz et  al. 2010) as well as different effects of control appraisals on academic boredom in cases of low versus high value (Bieg et al. 2013). Nevertheless, there do exist open questions concerning the nature of the interaction. For instance, control and value have been usually framed as distinct state concepts close to the situation so far, and thus, the question whether control and value appraisals inter- act differently when being framed either as situational or individual resources remains an important desideratum in research. Adding to that argument, the existing findings on academic boredom are mostly based on students’ trait self-reports which, in a higher degree than state reports, may be biased due to the retrospective evaluation of relevant situations (Robinson and Clore 2002). Only a few recent studies investigating students’ boredom take advantage of process-oriented measurement approaches implementing well-tried experience-sampling procedures in situ (Hektner et al. 2007; Goetz et al. 2010; Nett et al. 2011). Experience sampling methods provide wide scopes for research designs concerning the quantity and frequency of measurement points as well as the type of inducement of probands’ answering. Consequently, the present experience sampling study was conducted in order to achieve two research objectives: First, we sought to examine the main effects of Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 3 of 16 control-value appraisals on students’ boredom and particularly take account for different aggregation levels of control and value—either near to the situation or near to the per- son. In favour of this aim and in order to analyse students’ appraisals on different aggre - gation levels, a hierarchical design which accounts for (1) variability between students (individual level), (2) variability between different school lessons (level of lessons), and (3) variability within school lessons (level of measurement points) is implemented. To this end, we made use of an experience-sampling approach with equidistant measure- ment intervals gathering students’ self-reports over an entire curricular unit of 2 weeks. The method is called continuous-state-sampling and is well-tried in the field of VET (Rausch et al. 2010; Sembill et al. 2008). This enables us to account for differences in situ - ational and aggregated perceptions of the students in order to find out on which level the effects are located. Second, we intended to depict the nature of the interaction between control and value appraisals by analysing interactions on different levels and especially considering cross-level interactions. Research on the predictors of boredom Educational research has provided a variety of highly detailed theoretical concepts to explain students’ experiences of learning situations, such as motivation, interest, or academic emotions (cf. Rheinberg 2006; Deci and Ryan 1985 et passim; Krapp 2002; Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Götz 2004). Most importantly, all of these concepts assume a complex interplay of learners’ individual characteristics (e.g., students’ self-concept, self-efficacy, prior knowledge) on the one hand and perceived features of the task or the learning situation on the other hand (e.g. instructional quality, adaptive support, class- room management). Dual component models also exist for the explanation of boredom. For instance, in the context of work, Fisher (1993) differentiates between personal as well as situational causes of boredom and especially points to the interdependence between person and situational environment, which is—when being mismatched—a possible source of boredom. This dualistic perspective on the causes of boredom overcame the basic “understimulation model”, which mainly attributed the emergence of boredom to repetitive and habituated tasks in factory work. Yet, it is an early model attributing the emergence of boredom to the absence of subjective interest (Smith 1981). Other models explaining students’ boredom in school focus on high ability students in settings with low demands. Thus, they rather focus on the fit between individual skills and curricular standards in terms of subjective control (e.g. Sisk 1988). Here, boredom is characterised as a response to repetitive and monotonous situations, which the individual perceives to be lacking in stimulation. In corresponding empirical studies, monotony and a lack of stimulation are identified as important features of boring situations (Robinson 1975; Hill and Perkins 1985). Further, if people perceive their skills to exceed the situational challenges, they will feel bored (Csikszentmihalyi 1975 et passim). However, older find - ings show that boredom is not only prevalent in gifted students but also especially expe- rienced by those with lower abilities (Roseman 1975; Fogelman 1976). More recently, evidence of empirical studies also suggests that boredom is experienced in the case of being over-challenged in a learning situation. Furthermore, Daschmann et  al. (2011) found a moderately high negative correlation of the two boredom scales of being over- and under-challenged, which leads to the assumption that students are over-challenged Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 4 of 16 by one situation and under-challenged by another—a significant hint for the necessity of investigating boredom and its appraisals in a situation-specific manner. In current research, another important construct amongst the individual precursors of students’ boredom is their interest in learning contents and materials. Subjective inter- est is occurring either as an individual trait in terms of a stabilised construct or as a situation-specific state, which results from an abiding individual value that is allocated to certain issues or circumstances (Hidi 2000, pp 313). Accordingly, students who report lessons, contents or materials to be interesting were significantly less bored in multiple studies (Robinson 1975; Pekrun and Hofmann 1999; Titz 2001; Pekrun et al. 2002; Götz 2004; Götz et al. 2006; Sparfeldt et al. 2009, 2011). Further, some findings accentuate the meaning of subjective value and perceived usefulness of the learning materials, which are—when dismissed by students—important antecedents to the emergence of boredom during class (Mitchell 1993; Robinson 1975). Based on those findings, subjective interest is considered an important antecedent for boredom irrespectively of its operationalisa- tion as an individual trait or a situational trait. Control‑value antecedents of achievement emotions The linkage between person and situation is condensed in appraisal theories of emotion which are highly influential concerning the explanation for the actual genesis of emo - tions in general. In essence, appraisal theories assume that emotions are emerging due to individual evaluations of events and situations (Roseman and Smith 2001, pp 3). Impor- tant questions addressed by appraisal theories, comprise of the dynamics as well as indi- vidual differences in emotional response. One highly influential theory combining expectancy-value approaches with learning emotions is Pekrun’s (2006) control-value theory of achievement emotions. It integrates attributional theories of achievement emotions as well as theories of perceived con- trol and assumptions concerning the effects of emotions on learning and performance (Pekrun 2006, pp 316). The theoretical framework considers the subjective impression of control over achievement activities and outputs as well as their value as the key deter- minants of emotions. Achievement emotions are by definition directly tied to either achievement activities or outcomes. Corresponding to this differentiation, boredom can also be understood as an activity-related achievement emotion, which is supposed to occur when achievement-related learning activities or situations do not offer any incen - tive value and when individuals lack the feeling of control (Pekrun 2006, pp 324; Pekrun et  al. 2010, pp 532). In the framework of the control-value-theory, control refers to the subjective possibility of an individual to influence learning activities and outcomes and may include perceptions such as being adequately challenged in a learning situa- tion (Frenzel et al. 2007). Concerning teaching and learning during class, the feeling of control is closely related to instructional pace and the degree of individualisation. Value, meanwhile, refers to one’s subjective perception of the importance of the learning con- tents, tasks and achievement goals (Eccles 2005) which may correspond with subjec- tive interest during the teaching and learning process—interest by itself “can serve as a source of task value” (Hidi and Renninger 2006). u Th s, the experience of boredom can occur either momentarily in a concrete situation or be conceptualised as a habitual experience relating to certain achievement activities. Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 5 of 16 Pertaining to the emergence of emotions, situational appraisals are presumed to be “proximal determinants” (Pekrun 2006, 317) which mediate the influence of situational factors and personal characteristics. In accord with this, empirical studies found support for the importance of value and control appraisals in predicting students’ boredom. Con- cerning subjective values as antecedents of boredom, Goetz et  al. (2006) showed that students’ values of academic achievement were negatively correlated with their reported boredom. Likewise based on the control-value theory, Pekrun et al. (2014) confirmed a model of reciprocal causation of boredom and academic achievement at university by means of a longitudinal investigation. Pekrun et al. (2010) related both control and value appraisals corresponding to achievement activities to academic boredom in university settings and found strong evidence for stable negative relations over several studies. According to them, students experienced boredom especially in low-control settings, which is further evidence against the formerly proposed positive relation to boredom in routine tasks with high degrees of situational control. In addition, one important feature of the control-value theory is not only the assump- tion of a linear relation between control and the emerging negative emotion boredom, but rather assuming that control and value appraisals determine achievement emotions in a complex non-linear pattern (Pekrun 2006). This concludes that students’ boredom is not only influenced by value and control in an additive way but that they interact in a rather dynamical manner. More explicitly, the control-value theory postulates a non- compensatory relation of value and control in predicting boredom, so that the low- est degree of boredom implies increased value and control. In this regard, Goetz et  al. (2010) found that control and value appraisals predict positive emotions in a multiplica- tive manner. They identified an interaction effect and assumed that perceived control and positive emotional experiences were greater in  situations of high subjective value while controlling for the main effects. These results lead to the presumption of unique effects of both control-value appraisals as well as combined effects, which are important to consider in academic settings. Nevertheless, the study focused on positive everyday emotions and merely stated the desideratum of exploring interactions between control value appraisals and negative emotional experiences such as boredom. Distinct empiri- cal knowledge concerning the emergence of boredom being attributed to the interaction of control and value is still rare, especially when framing the appraisals either as situ- ational or as personal constructs. One existing study identified considerable main effects of control and value appraisals on boredom as well as an interaction, showing the rela- tion between control and boredom to differ depending on the value appraisal (Bieg et al. 2013), but, however, did not consider cross-level effects of the appraisals due to their operationalisation. Experience‑sampling methods in the study of students’ boredom Experience sampling procedures are an adequate approach to distinguish between personal and situational effects and account for interactions on different levels when predicting emotional experiences in situ. When intending to investigate emotional expe- riences during lesson, the use of global and retrospective ratings may lead to interpretive problems as they are prone to recall biases and do not consider intra-individual dynam- ics of subjective states (Robinson and Clore 2002). Accordingly, a few recent studies Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 6 of 16 make use of experience-sampling procedures when gathering data on appraisals and emotional experiences (Goetz et al. 2014). For instance, Bieg et al. (2013) implemented an intra-individual approach with a design that combined event-based and randomized experience sampling over a period of 2  weeks in several school subjects. Students had to activate a personal digital assistant, which then randomly reacted within the next 40 min in order to gather subjective pride, anxiety and boredom as well as control-value appraisals by means of single item measures. The latter are discussed in various research contexts already for a long time (e.g. Nunnally 1978; Sackett and Larson 1990): Some studies find them to be as valid and reliable as complex multi-item scales (Bergkvist and Rossiter 2007; Wanous et al. 1997), while other results point to differences in predictive validity due to varying research contexts (Diamantopoulos et al. 2012). Thus, single-item measures should be implemented under certain circumstances when common method bias or participant’s fatigue might be an issue or when statistical power is weak and the construct to be measured is relatively uncomplicated (Gardner et al. 1998). With respect to process-oriented research settings implementing experience-sampling procedures during class, single-item measures seem advantageous as the interruption of the teach- ing learning process has to be as short as possible and the risk of generating students fatigue or reactance by multiple measurement time points has to be minimised. However, as boredom is a slowly intensifying emotion by definition, it seems worth - while to gather data on state measures in a continuous manner with equidistant shaped measurement points. The so-called continuous-state sampling method (CSSM) has often been implemented in studies within the field of vocational education and train - ing as a time-sampling version of the experience sampling method leading to several insights concerning the interrelations of subjective experiences and situational char- acteristics (Sembill et  al. 2008). It provides the advantage of parallelised measurement intervals, which may also be easily combined with observations from the videography of lessons, and leads to hierarchical data structures with several measurements nested in students. Accordingly, it offers the opportunity to investigate personal and situational characteristics simultaneously. In former studies, the length of the measurement intervals varied between 5 and 10  min (Sembill 2003; Seifried 2004b; Kärner 2015) depending on the volatility of the constructs and the number of implemented items. When defining the length of the intervals, the trade-off between the interruption of the teaching–learning process during class and the frequency of measurements have to be taken into consideration. Exploring the amount and predictors of students’ boredom in accounting lessons, Kögler (2015) conducted a video study and implemented CSSM with parallelized measurement inter- vals of 7  min each. In order to investigate the effects of different situational predictors on boredom, variables from both videography and CSSM were included in the analyses. There was evidence for a notable amount of boredom during class with ranges up to 50% of instructional time and a strong influence of students’ appraisals in  situ which led to the conclusion of CSSM being important when exploring teaching–learning processes. Apart from these findings, the method seems especially promising when intending to trace the development of appraisal-emotion relations over time. Being structured on several levels that account for variability between and within students, the resulting data allows for hierarchical linear modelling and other complex analysis strategies. To Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 7 of 16 summarize, studies focusing on the interaction between control and value appraisals by means of experience-sampling measures are scarce, especially concerning students’ boredom. Nevertheless, the process-oriented exploration of control-value appraisals and boredom by means of CSSM holds the potential to add a new perspective to the existing findings concerning the relations of control and value appraisals with boredom as well as their dynamic interplay during class. Aims and hypotheses of the present study In recent years, a couple of studies shed light on the phenomenon of boredom in school, its appearance, precursors and effects. Remaining research desiderata specifically point to the question of how students’ control and value appraisals affect the emergence of boredom when being conceptualised either as situational or individual constructs and how the appraisals interact when predicting boredom. Especially in VET, evidence con- cerning boredom and its predictors in the core commercial subject accounting is still lacking. Consequently, the present study aims at investigating the main and interaction effects of control-value-predictors on students’ boredom in accounting classes in the field of commercial education. By means of CSSM over an entire curricular unit of 2 weeks, we examined the interplay of control and value appraisals when predicting students’ bore- dom both at the aggregation level of individuals as well as on a situational level. Main effects of control and value on boredom According to control-value-theory, we suppose that a lack of perceived control on the one hand and a subjective lack of value on the other hand induce boredom. Pertaining to the question whether control and value affect boredom in a different way when being aggregated either on situational or on personal levels, we assume, in line with interest theory (cf. Hidi 2000; Krapp 2002), that subjective value should be affecting boredom close to the situation as well as near to the individual. This is the fact, because subjec - tive value is closely related to a persons’ interest in content matter or a specific situation. Interest itself is being strongly associated with positive emotional experiences and an important predictor for learning outcomes irrespectively of being framed as a state or a trait construct. Subjective control, in contrast, should be affecting boredom rather when being framed as a situational concept, due to the fact that existing findings indicate different learn - ing contents or circumstances being over- or under-challenging from situation to situa- tion as well as the rapidly changing didactical conditions during class. This corresponds to existing findings, which indicate the influence of different situational conditions on the subjective feeling of being over- or under-challenged. In fact, concerning situational predictors, the existence of boredom in school is often associated with the situational occurrences’ lack of meaning for students on the one hand and the shortcoming of pos- sibilities to influence the dissatisfying setting on the other hand. They are confronted with the given learning contents and opportunities and -at least in traditional didactical settings—have to adjust to the teacher’s pace. First, we hypothesise that (1) there are Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 8 of 16 negative main effects of subjective value on boredom, irrespectively of its conceptuali - sation and that (2) there are situational negative main effects of subjective control on boredom. Interaction effects Furthermore, it is to assume that a lack of situational value intensifies the feeling of bore - dom when occurring in conjunction with a perceived lack of control. Consequently, when predicting the development of students’ boredom, we suppose to find a multiplica - tive effect in addition to the main effects of subjective control and value. Of particular interest is a decomposition of effects on different levels in order to investigate the impact of different conceptualisations of control and value. Within the same levels, we assume to find negative interaction effects of situational control and value on the emergence of state boredom during class. Based on the assumption of subjective control being a rather situational concept, we suppose a stronger interaction close to the situation, which might show a conceptual difference between control and value. Concerning cross-level interactions such as different framings of control and value, we assume to find effects of situational control as well. The question of how to cope with the situation during class, which is strongly determined by the teacher, should be essential for the effect of subjective value on boredom. Beyond, stabilised interest should increase the individual’s wish to cope with the situation in terms of having enough time to reflect on subject matter that is considered interesting. In the following section, we describe our sample and procedure as well as the implemented measures and statistical analyses. Methods Sample and procedure The study was conducted at a commercial school in southern Germany. N = 95 students (39 male) from four classes of the ninth grade (mean age M = 14.91 years, SD = .85) took part in the study that covered 2 full weeks of accounting lessons in the field of busi - ness education. Within this period, the lessons’ contents were the same in each class and dealt with the basic principles of wage accounting. The study was initiated by the school itself and participation was voluntary. All of the students provided written, informed consent. The teachers were told to organise their lessons as usual, without any concep - tual or didactical changes. To gather information on students’ emotional experiences, we made use of an experience-sampling approach with equidistant measurement inter- vals collecting students’ state self-reports every 7 min during class. The method is called continuous-state-sampling and is well-tried in the field of research on vocational edu - cation and training in Germany (Sembill et al. 2008; Rausch et al. 2010). By use of this experience-sampling procedure, eight school lessons with equally spaced measurement points (N = 4580 in total) were sampled in each class. Every student was equipped with a handheld prompting them every 7 min to complete a short questionnaire consisting of the experience sampling items to be answered on a scale from 0 to 100. Missing data was reconstructed by a multiple imputation based on several personal characteristics, which were investigated by means of a questionnaire before the curricular unit. Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 9 of 16 Table 1 Intercorrelations between variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) Sex (2) Age .034* (3) Interest .066*** .058*** (4) Time-to-reflect − .049** .137*** .426*** (5) Boredom − .082*** .083*** − .648*** − .288*** *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 N = 4580 1 = male, 2 = female Measures and statistical analyses Students’ boredom was investigated using the short item “I feel bored” (M = 38.04; SD = 32.09). Students’ states concerning control and value were operationalised by implementing single items: “I have enough time to reflect on subject matter” (M = 74.21; SD = 17.17) and “I’m interested in the subject matter” (M = 63.25; SD = 18.84). All of the state items were assessed simultaneously. The CSSM data design generates a hierarchical data structure, where students’ multiple boredom ratings (level 1, k) are nested within lessons (level 2, j) which are nested within stu- dents (level 3, i). Therefore, variability of students’ boredom can be segmented into three components: between times within lessons, between lessons within students and between students. Multilevel models (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Singer and Willett 2003), particu- larly three level models, can be used to address our research questions. Multilevel models are suitable to control for correlated scores within higher level units (e.g., lessons or students) and allow conceptual differences of measures at different levels of analysis. We started with a null model to estimate the variability of students’ ratings at each of the levels (i.e., extent of variability between measurement points within lessons, between lessons within students and between students). In the following steps, we (1) included control and value predictors in order to test main effects on each level, (2) accounted for interaction effects within the same levels while controlling for the main effects and (3) analysed cross-level interactions while controlling for the main effects. With the exception of students’ sex (57 female) and age (M = 14.91, SD = .853), all variables were group-mean centred before analysis. Results Preliminary analyses First, we analysed the intercorrelations of all variables (Table  1). We found significant negative correlations of students’ boredom with the control appraisal (“I have enough Table 2 Intraclass-correlations (ICC) of students’ boredom at the level of lessons and measurement time points Fixed effects Var.Comp. S.E p γ = intercept 38.042 2.252 .000 Random effects Var.Comp. S.E p σ r = boredom (r ) 415.301 9.475 .000 ijk ijk σ u = boredom (u ) 167.011 13.161 .000 0jk 0jk σ u = boredom (u ) 451.891 70.035 .000 00k 00k Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 10 of 16 Table 3 Main effects of control and value appraisals Model 1 B SE(B) p Intercept 25.192 21.769 .250 Fixed slopes Sex − 1.233 2.553 .630 Age 4.615 1.483 .002** − .412 .016 .000*** Interest ijk Interest − .699 .034 .000*** jk Interest − 1.01 .077 .000*** Time-to-reflect − .166 .018 .000*** ijk Time-to-reflect .002 .040 .968 jk Time-to-reflect .115 .085 .181 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .00 time to reflect on subject matter”) as well as the value appraisal (“I’m interested in the subject matter”). Control and value were positively correlated, the more interested the students were, the more did they perceive to be in control. In the next step, we analysed the variability of boredom across the three data levels by means of a null model (Table  2). Primarily, we found a significant amount of variability at each of the levels. The intraclass-correlation of variables showed 43.7% of the variance in total being attributed to differences between individuals and 28.7% of the variance in students boredom ratings were attributed to the level of lessons, indicating that substan- tial differences exist both at the level of lessons and individuals. In Accordance with Hox (2002), our findings display that it is appropriate to integrate predictors into the model as the variability on each level exceeds 15% of the variance in total. Control and value as predictors of boredom We then included control and value appraisals on each level into the model to account for main effects (Table  3). The value appraisal shows significant negative effects on stu - dents’ boredom on each level: the more interested the students are in a concrete situ- ation as well as over several lessons and the entire curricular period, the less boredom they report during lessons. The strongest effect is manifested on the individual level. Irrespective of a specific lesson or a single measurement time point within a lesson, indi - vidual differences in interest was strongly associated with individual differences in stu - dents’ boredom. The control appraisal on the other hand is only significantly related with boredom at the level of measurement points within lessons. Students who lack enough time to reflect on subject matter during lessons feel bored at a higher degree than those who are given a sufficient amount of time to reflect. In contrast, there was no relation between control and boredom at the level of single lessons or the individual level. Interaction effects When accounting for interaction effects, we first added interaction terms of control- value appraisals that are located on the same level. We found a significant moderation of the interest appraisal on the level of lessons: Students, which are highly interested over Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 11 of 16 Table 4 Within-level interactions of control and value appraisals Model 2 B SE(B) p Intercept 46.843 26.391 .079 Fixed slopes Sex − 1.992 2.590 .005** Age 4.329 1.493 .000*** − .412 .018 .000*** Interest ijk Interest − .697 .024 .000*** jk Interest − 1.351 .257 .000*** Time-to-reflect − .170 .021 .000*** ijk Time-to-reflect − .005 .028 .869 jk Time-to-reflect − .109 .175 .532 Interest × time-to-reflect − .001 .002 .336 ijk ijk Interest × time-to-reflect − .003 .002 .032* jk jk Interest × time-to-reflect .001 .001 .162 k k * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 Table 5 Cross-level interactions of control and value appraisals Model 3 B SE(B) p Intercept 25.279 21.801 .249 Fixed slopes Sex − 1.384 2.556 .589 Age 4.626 1.485 .002** Interest − .413 .018 .000*** ijk Interest − .698 .024 .000*** jk Interest − 1.008 .077 .000*** Time-to-reflect − .189 .065 .004** ijk Time-to-reflect − .049 .077 .523 jk Time-to-reflect .114 .085 .185 Interest × time-to-reflect − .002 .001 .137 ijk jk Interest × time-to-reflect − .003 .001 .006** jk ijk Interest × time-to-reflect .000 .001 .921 k ijk Interest × time-to-reflect .000 .001 .514 k jk * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 a period of several lessons do get bored when lacking enough time to reflect on subject matter over a period of several lessons (Table 4). In contrast, we found no interaction on the level of measurement points or on the individual level. The main effects remain stable when including interaction terms into the model. In the next step, we analysed cross-level interactions and found the value appraisal on the level of lessons to be moderating the effect of control on boredom during lessons: Interested students also get bored when lacking the feeling of control during a lesson (Table 5). Again, we found no interactions on the individual level. Pertaining to interaction effects, the appraisals’ variability between students over the entire curricular period is not significantly affecting students’ boredom and even close to the situation on the level Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 12 of 16 of measurement points there is no moderating effect of subjective value on the relation between subjective control and boredom. The main effects of control and value also remain stable in this model as well as the effect of age. Discussion Predicting students’ boredom with control‑value appraisals To summarise, findings of the present study showed that students’ in situ-experiences of boredom are related to personal and situational factors as well as their dynamic inter- play. Controlling for sex and age, students’ boredom was affected substantially by their interest and the perceived time given to reflect about subject matter during lessons in terms of subjective control. In detail, our results showed that the value appraisal revealed its relevance not only on the level of measurement points and the level of lessons but also on the individual level. Hence, there is no empirical evidence to reject hypothesis 1a, which stated negative main effects of subjective value on boredom irrespectively of its conceptualisation as a state or trait construct. This result is in consonance with inter - est theory and its differentiation of situational (trigger/hold) and individual interest, which are represented by the implemented aggregation levels in this study. On the other hand, the main effect of the control appraisal only occurred at the level of measurement points. The subjective feeling of control in terms of having enough time to reflect seems to be a rather situational concept whilst interest is a stable predic - tor on all levels, close to the situation as well as close to the individual. Hypothesis 1b assumed negative main effects of subjective control on boredom in a situational concep - tualisation. As we did not identify significant effects on the level of lessons, which repre - sents differences between the observed lessons in the curricular unit, we have to partly reject the hypothesis. When discussing this result, one could assume that the subjective impression of control is rather tied to the dynamic change of didactical conditions and complexity during class than characterised as an experience, which is stable for several lessons. The feeling of being either over- or under-challenged seems to be a rather vola - tile than enduring experience, which may also be a sign of instructional quality. Espe- cially in the field of accounting, falling behind the instructional pace for a longer period is risky as curricular units are schematically built on one another. Consequently, when teaching accounting, it is of particular relevance to balance individual needs in terms of instructional pace. In addition, our data supports the assumption of control-value appraisals interacting when predicting students’ boredom. Concerning interaction effects within the same lev - els, we found evidence for interest being a moderator for the relation between time-to- reflect and boredom on the level of lessons: Students who are lacking a stable interest in subject matter tend to be bored when instructional pace is low over several lessons. Vice versa, interested students get bored when lacking enough time to reflect on subject matter. These findings also correspond to interest theory, as being deeply interested is associated with a change of temporal experience, the feeling of flow is potentially emerg - ing. u Th s, it appears to be relevant to keep students interested over several lessons and to give them enough time to reflect on subject matter. However, we did not find an inter - action of the control-value appraisals on the level of measurement points within les- sons. With respect to the interplay of stabilised subjective value and control, this might Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 13 of 16 imply the need for a coherent didactical concept for a whole curricular unit, instead of planning each lesson independently. Consequently, the presented results partly support hypothesis 2a. Nonetheless, students with a steady interest also need time to reflect on subject mat - ter during lessons to prevent boredom, which we expected in hypothesis 2b. The more an individual is interested in subject matter over a curricular unit, the more boredom emerges when lacking time to reflect on the contents in situ. To recapitulate with respect to the conceptualisation of individuals’ appraisals, subjec- tive value and control seem to influence the emergence of boredom in different ways due to their aggregation level. Subjective value such as interest in subject matter is an impor- tant predictor of boredom, especially when being stable over time and interacting with the control appraisal in situ. In regard to general pedagogical implications, this might be an argument for the deceleration of instructional pace and, at the same time, the neces- sity to illustrate the relevance of the subject matter for students. Strengths, limitations and further research The present study intended to investigate the main and interaction effects of control and value appraisals on the emergence of students’ boredom in accounting classes. Students’ appraisals of subjective control and value and the experience of boredom during the teaching–learning process were collected over an entire curricular unit of 2  weeks by means of continuous-state-sampling in situ. By using parallelised measurement intervals for both the predictors and the criterion, the resulting data allowed to account for vari- ability on different aggregation levels. The corresponding decomposition of effects led to a differential understanding of the interplay of control and value appraisals over time. By that, our results add to the existing findings on the emergence of students’ boredom during teaching–learning processes and contribute to the further differentiation of the control-value theory, especially pertaining to interaction effects. Nevertheless, there are some limitations, which have to be discussed. First, when aggregating the control and value appraisals, which were measured every 7 min during lessons, a potential shift of meaning has to be taken into account. For instance, aggre- gating the control appraisal (“I have enough time to reflect on subject matter”) on the individual level, it may change its meaning into a personal disposition similar to cog- nitive ability. Further analyses should therefore include the interrelations of personality traits and aggregated state appraisals. Second, in contrast to our expectation that inter- est is a moderator for the effect of subjective control on boredom, there is no causal evidence for this assumption as we measured the appraisals simultaneously and did not implement an experimental design. Third, by measuring students’ subjective experiences several times during class, we may have induced reactivity or reactance. During videog- raphy, there was no evidence for reactant student behaviour but in this design, we can- not control for the effects caused by a higher attentiveness on subjective experiences. The CSSM setting may have increased the measures of boredom, which is a rather silent emotion when beginning to occur. However, when investigating subjective experiences by means of self-report measures, retrospective methods are potentially fraught with problems of remembrance compared to approaches gathering data in situ. In the present study, the focus of interest lay on the reconstruction of the actual genesis of boredom, Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 14 of 16 hence, we investigated subjective experiences in  situ. We implemented single-item measures in order to minimise the risk of causing reactivity and reactance. The reliabil - ity of measures at the lessons’ and the students’ level was ensured by aggregating single measures at higher levels of analysis. Given the relatively high intraclass-correlations of variables and the large number of measures within lessons and within individuals, this procedure appears suitable for a reliable assessment of variables including their interac- tions (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Lüdtke et al. 2006). Nevertheless, replications of the present findings using multiple-item measures is one goal for future research. According to the specific advantages of this empirical approach and in order to sub - stantiate our findings, furthermore it would be fruitful to analyse the temporal dynam - ics of the individuals’ appraisals as well as the development and changes of boredom during the instructional process. Especially cross-lagged effects of the appraisals on the development of boredom would be of interest as boredom is discussed to be a slowly emerging emotion and processual knowledge about its development is still lacking. Furthermore, we intend to explore the quality of students’ self-reports under chang- ing situational conditions in terms of rating tendencies. Further evidence concerning the strengths and weaknesses of experience-sampling methods, especially when imple- menting single-item measures, will help to foster research on emotional experiences in teaching and learning processes. With respect to boredom, which is a prevalent experi- ence in school, the potential of experience-sampling studies in vocational education and training has not been fully exploited yet. For instance, it seems worthwhile to investigate the effects of different didactical settings and varying degrees of individualisation on the emergence of boredom and particularly include the question of heterogeneity under dif- ferent perspectives. Authors’ contributions KK conceived, designed, and coordinated the study. KK and RG conceptualised the aim and structure of the research paper. Furthermore, both authors managed the literature searches and statistical analyses, KK drafted a first manuscript, which was revised by both authors. Both authors contributed substantially. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Author details 1 2 Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 4, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Availability of data and materials Data will not be shared as written consent of the students investigated did not comprise a publication of the data set. Further details can be obtained from authors upon request. Ethics approval and consent to participate All participants respectively their parents provided written consent to participate in the study. The school particularly supported to study, too. Funding The study was funded by the chair of business education at the University of Bamberg. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Received: 5 February 2018 Accepted: 22 May 2018 Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 15 of 16 References Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR (2007) The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same con- structs. J Mark Res 44(2):175–184 Bieg M, Goetz T, Hubbard K (2013) Can I master it and does it matter? An intraindividual analysis on control-value ante- cedents of trait and state academic emotions. Learn Individ Differ 28:102–108 Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models in social and behavioral research: applications and data analy- sis methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park Csikszentmihalyi M (1975) Beyond boredom and anxiety. The experience of play in work and games. Jossey-Bass Publish- ers, San Francisco Daschmann EC, Goetz T, Stupnisky RH (2011) Testing the predictors of boredom at school. Development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales. Br J Educ Psychol 81:421–440 Daschmann EC, Goetz T, Stupnisky RH (2014) Exploring the antecedents of boredom: do teachers know why students are bored? Teach Teach Educ 39:22–30 Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York Diamantopoulos A, Sarstedt M, Fuchs C, Wilczynski P, Kaiser S (2012) Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci 40:434–449 Eccles JS (2005) Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS (eds) Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford Press, New York, pp 105–121 Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu Rev Psychol 53:109–132 Fisher CD (1993) Boredom at work: a neglected concept. Hum Relat 46(3):395–417 Fogelman K (1976) Bored eleven-year-olds. Br J Soc Work 6:201–211 Frenzel AC, Pekrun R, Goetz T (2007) Perceived learning environment and students’ emotional experiences: a multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learn Instr 17(5):478–493 Gardner DG, Cummings LL, Dunham RB, Pierce JL (1998) Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: an empirical comparison. Educ Psychol Meas 58(6):898–915 Goetz T, Pekrun R, Hall NC, Haag L (2006) Academic emotions from a social-cognitive perspective: antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the context of Latin instruction. Br J Educ Psychol 76(2):289–308 Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Stoeger H, Hall NC (2010) Antecedents of everyday positive emotions: an experience sampling analysis. Motiv Emot 34:49–62 Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Hall NC, Nett U, Pekrun R, Lipnevich A (2014) Types of boredom: an experience sampling approach. Motiv Emot 38:401–419 Götz T (2004) Emotionales Erleben und selbstreguliertes Lernen bei Schülern im Fach Mathematik. Utz, München Götz T, Frenzel AC (2006) Phänomenologie schulischer Langeweile. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädago- gische Psychologie 38(4):149–153 Götz T, Frenzel AC, Haag L (2006) Ursachen von Langeweile im Unterricht. Empirische Pädagogik 20(2):113–134 Götz T, Frenzel AC, Pekrun R (2007) Emotionen im Lern-und Leistungskontext. Katechetische Blätter 132:13–19 Hektner JM, Schmidt JA, Csikszentmihalyi M (2007) Experience sampling method: measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Hidi S (2000) An interest researcher’s perspective: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In: Sansone C, Harackiewicz J (eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The search for optimal motivation and performance. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 309–339 Hidi S, Renninger KA (2006) The four-phase model of interest development. Educ Psychol 41:111–127 Hill AB, Perkins RE (1985) Towards a model of boredom. Br J Psychol 76(2):235–240 Hox J (2002) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale Kärner T (2015) Erwartungswidrige Minderleistung und Belastung im kaufmännischen Unterricht. Analyse pädagogis- cher, psychologischer und physiologischer Aspekte. Peter Lang, Frankfurt Kögler K (2015) Langeweile in kaufmännischen Unterrichtsprozessen. Entstehung und Wirkung emotionalen Erlebens ungenutzter Zeitpotentiale. Peter Lang, Frankfurt Krapp A (2002) Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learn Instr 12:383–409 Larson RW, Richards MH (1991) Boredom in the middle school years: blaming schools versus blaming students. Am J Educ 99(4):418–443 Lohrmann K (2008) Langeweile im Unterricht. Waxmann, Münster Lüdtke O, Trautwein U, Kunter M, Baumert J (2006) Reliability and agreement of student ratings of the classroom environment—a reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learn Environ Res 9:215–230 Mikulas WL, Vodanovich SJ (1993) The essence of boredom. Psychol Rec 43(1):3–12 Mitchell MT (1993) Situational interest: its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. J Educ Psychol 85:424–436 Nett UE, Goetz T, Hall NC (2011) Coping with boredom in school: an experience sampling perspective. Contemp Educ Psychol 36(1):49–59 Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York Pekrun R (2006) The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educa- tional research and practice. Educ Psychol Rev 18:315–341 Pekrun R, Hofmann H (1999) Lern-und Leistungsemotionen. Erste Befunde eines Forschungsprogramms. In: Jerusalem M, Pekrun R (eds) Emotion motivation und Leistung. Hogrefe, Göttingen, pp 247–267 Pekrun R, Stephens EJ (2009) Goals, emotions, and emotion regulation: perspectives of the control-value theory of achievement emotions. Hum Dev 52:357–365 Pekrun R, Stephens EJ (2010) Achievement emotions: a control-value approach. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 4:238–255 Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W, Perry RP (2002) Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ Psychol 37(2):91–105 Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 16 of 16 Pekrun R, Goetz T, Daniels LM, Stupnisky RH, Perry RP (2010) Boredom in achievement settings: exploring control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. J Educ Psychol 102(3):531–549 Pekrun R, Hall NC, Goetz T, Perry RP (2014) Boredom and academic achievement: testing a model of reciprocal causation. J Educ Psychol 106(3):696–710 Preiss P (2001) Curriculare und methodische Neuorientierung des Rechnungswesenunterrichts: Vom Buchhalter zum kaufmännischen Sachbearbeiter—von der Bilanz zu Wertströmen im Unternehmensmodell. In: Reinisch H, Bader R, Straka GA (eds) Modernisierung der Berufsbildung in Europa. Neue Befunde der berufs-und wirtschaftspädagogis- chen Forschung. Leske + Budrich, Opladen, pp 135–144 Rausch A, Scheja S, Dreyer K, Warwas J, Egloffstein M (2010) Emotionale Befindlichkeit in Lehr-Lern-Prozessen—Konstruk - tverständnis und empirische Zugänge. In: Seifried J, Wuttke E, Nickolaus R, Sloane PFE (eds) Lehr-Lern-Forschung in der kaufmännischen Berufsbildung—Ergebnisse und Gestaltungsaufgaben. Zeitschrift für Berufs-und Wirtschaft- spädagogik, Beiheft 23. Steiner, Stuttgart, pp 93–215 Rheinberg F (2006) Motivation. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Robinson WP (1975) Boredom at school. Br J Educ Psychol 45(2):141–152 Robinson MD, Clore GL (2002) Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: evidence for two judgment processes. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(1):198–215 Roseman WP (1975) Boredom at school. Br J Educ Psychol 45:141–152 Roseman IJ, Smith CA (2001) Appraisal theory: overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In: Scherer KR, Schorr A, Johnstone T (eds) Series in affective science. Appraisal processes in emotion: theory, methods, research. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–19 Sackett PR, Larson JR (1990) Research strategies and tactics in I/O psychology. In: Dunnette MD, Ackerman PL, Hough LM, Triandis HC (eds) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 1. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, pp 419–489 Seifried J (2004a) Fachdidaktische Variationen in einer selbstorganisationsoffenen Lernumgebung—Eine empirische Untersuchung des Rechnungswesenunterrichts. DUV, Wiesbaden Seifried J (2004b) Der Einfluss didaktischer Schwerpunktsetzungen auf das motivationale Erleben des Rechnungswese - nunterrichts in einer selbstorganisationsoffenen Lernumgebung. Zeitschrift für Berufs-und Wirtschaftspädagogik 100(2):242–255 Sembill D (2003) Ergebnisse Selbstorganisierten Lernens in der beruflichen Bildnung/results of self-organized learning in vocational education. In: Achtenhagen F, John EG (eds) Meilensteine der beruflichen Bildung/milestones of vocational education and training, vol 1. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp 81–106 Sembill D, Seifried J, Dreyer K (2008) PDAs als Erhebungsinstrument in der beruflichen Lernforschung—Ein neues Wun- dermittel oder bewährter Standard? Empirische Pädagogik 22(1):64–77 Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York Sisk DA (1988) The bored and disinterested gifted child: going through school lockstep. J Educ Gift 11(4):5–18 Smith RP (1981) Boredom: a review. Hum Factors 23(3):329–340 Sparfeldt JR, Buch SR, Schwarz F, Jachmann J, Rost DH (2009) “Rechnen ist langweilig”—Langeweile in Mathematik bei Grundschülern. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 56(1):16–26 Sparfeldt JR, Buch SR, Kolender J, Rost DH (2011) Überforderungs-und Unterforderungslangeweile in Mathematik: Dif- ferenzierung und Korrelate. In: Dresel M, Lämmle L (eds) Motivation, Selbstregulation und Leistungsexzellenz, vol 9. LIT, Münster, pp 53–70 Titz W (2001) Emotionen von Studierenden in Lernsituationen. Explorative Analysen und Entwicklung von Selbstber- ichtsskalen. Waxmann, Münster Wanous JP, Reichers AE, Hudy MJ (1997) Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? J Appl Psychol 82:247–252 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training Springer Journals

Control-value appraisals predicting students’ boredom in accounting classes: a continuous-state-sampling approach

Free
16 pages
Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/control-value-appraisals-predicting-students-boredom-in-accounting-zXRv9UkX7J
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Education; Professional and Vocational Education; Labor Economics; Organizational Studies, Economic Sociology
eISSN
1877-6345
D.O.I.
10.1186/s40461-018-0065-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

koegler@econ.uni-frankfurt.de Goethe University Frankfurt, Background: Boredom is a prevalent experience in school. Findings indicate that stu- Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz dents are bored in a notable amount of instructional time with negative consequences 4, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany for learning outcomes. The control-value theory considers control and value appraisals Full list of author information to be important antecedents of boredom. is available at the end of the article Methods: In our study with 95 commercial school ninth graders, we investigated control-value appraisals and students’ boredom over 2 curricular weeks in the subject accounting by means of an experience sampling procedure with equally spaced meas- urement intervals called Continuous-State-Sampling. The CSSM data design generates a hierarchical data structure. Variability of students’ boredom can be segmented into three components: between times within lessons, between lessons within students and between students. We use multilevel models to address our research questions. Results: We found negative associations for control and value appraisals in predicting boredom over time. In addition, the value appraisal moderates the relation between subjective control and boredom: Interested students get bored when lacking time to reflect on subject matter. Our results further revealed that control and value only inter - act when being conceptualised as state constructs close to the situation. Conclusions: The results show that students’ in situ-experiences of boredom are related to personal and situational factors as well as their dynamic interplay. Keywords: Boredom, Experience-sampling, Control value theory, Hierarchical linear model Background Students’ boredom during class has been considered a major pedagogical challenge for decades (Robinson 1975) and is still an omnipresent condition in schools. There is empirical evidence that students are often and intensively bored during school les- sons—several studies suggest manifestations up to 50%—with possible negative conse- quences for learning outcomes (Götz et al. 2007; Larson and Richards 1991; Lohrmann 2008;  Pekrun et  al. 2010). For instance, given that scarce educational time resources should be spent adequately and efficiently, it is important to  address the question how the feeling of boredom as a subjective void of time arises and if there are pedagogical means to minimise this dissipation of temporal resources. In the field of vocational © The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 2 of 16 education and training (VET), existing results show that students’ boredom is occurring in a notable amount in the commercial core subject accounting (Kögler 2015). Account- ing is said to be challenging for both teachers and students and often taught in a tradi- tional, schematic way, which has been criticised for a long time (cf. Preiss 2001; Seifried 2004a). Hence, investigating the antecedents of students’ boredom in accounting classes seems to be worthwhile. The feeling of boredom is characterised by a subjective temporal dilatation, low arousal, and a fairly negative emotional valence (Götz and Frenzel 2006; Mikulas and Vodanovich 1993). After decades of disregard in the field of educational research, there has been a growing body of knowledge about boredom and its predictors at school (Daschmann et al. 2014). The emergence and development of boredom is attributed to both personal and situational variables and may be seen as a subjective evaluation of the fit between person and environment (Fisher 1993; Daschmann et  al. 2011). More specifically and in accord with appraisal theories of emotion, the individuals’ evaluation of situational control and value are supposed to be considerable antecedents of boredom as stated in the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun 2006; Pekrun and Stephens 2009, 2010). Hence, academic boredom is supposed to occur when students do not evaluate the learning contents and materials as valuable and, at once, lack the impression of control over the situation. The feeling of control during class is associated with the complexity of the learning contents and the pace being set by the teacher dur- ing lesson, while subjective value represents intrinsic qualities of academic studying as well as learning success (Pekrun 2006, pp 319). Moreover, control and value could possibly interact when causing students’ experience of boredom. Interested students should react differently when lacking the impression of control compared to students experiencing low subjective value. Studies investigating the effects of control and value on emotional experiences mostly concentrate on main effects, interactions have been widely neglected in research so far. The scarce existing results indicate significant interactions between control and value appraisals predicting everyday positive emotions (cf. Goetz et  al. 2010) as well as different effects of control appraisals on academic boredom in cases of low versus high value (Bieg et al. 2013). Nevertheless, there do exist open questions concerning the nature of the interaction. For instance, control and value have been usually framed as distinct state concepts close to the situation so far, and thus, the question whether control and value appraisals inter- act differently when being framed either as situational or individual resources remains an important desideratum in research. Adding to that argument, the existing findings on academic boredom are mostly based on students’ trait self-reports which, in a higher degree than state reports, may be biased due to the retrospective evaluation of relevant situations (Robinson and Clore 2002). Only a few recent studies investigating students’ boredom take advantage of process-oriented measurement approaches implementing well-tried experience-sampling procedures in situ (Hektner et al. 2007; Goetz et al. 2010; Nett et al. 2011). Experience sampling methods provide wide scopes for research designs concerning the quantity and frequency of measurement points as well as the type of inducement of probands’ answering. Consequently, the present experience sampling study was conducted in order to achieve two research objectives: First, we sought to examine the main effects of Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 3 of 16 control-value appraisals on students’ boredom and particularly take account for different aggregation levels of control and value—either near to the situation or near to the per- son. In favour of this aim and in order to analyse students’ appraisals on different aggre - gation levels, a hierarchical design which accounts for (1) variability between students (individual level), (2) variability between different school lessons (level of lessons), and (3) variability within school lessons (level of measurement points) is implemented. To this end, we made use of an experience-sampling approach with equidistant measure- ment intervals gathering students’ self-reports over an entire curricular unit of 2 weeks. The method is called continuous-state-sampling and is well-tried in the field of VET (Rausch et al. 2010; Sembill et al. 2008). This enables us to account for differences in situ - ational and aggregated perceptions of the students in order to find out on which level the effects are located. Second, we intended to depict the nature of the interaction between control and value appraisals by analysing interactions on different levels and especially considering cross-level interactions. Research on the predictors of boredom Educational research has provided a variety of highly detailed theoretical concepts to explain students’ experiences of learning situations, such as motivation, interest, or academic emotions (cf. Rheinberg 2006; Deci and Ryan 1985 et passim; Krapp 2002; Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Götz 2004). Most importantly, all of these concepts assume a complex interplay of learners’ individual characteristics (e.g., students’ self-concept, self-efficacy, prior knowledge) on the one hand and perceived features of the task or the learning situation on the other hand (e.g. instructional quality, adaptive support, class- room management). Dual component models also exist for the explanation of boredom. For instance, in the context of work, Fisher (1993) differentiates between personal as well as situational causes of boredom and especially points to the interdependence between person and situational environment, which is—when being mismatched—a possible source of boredom. This dualistic perspective on the causes of boredom overcame the basic “understimulation model”, which mainly attributed the emergence of boredom to repetitive and habituated tasks in factory work. Yet, it is an early model attributing the emergence of boredom to the absence of subjective interest (Smith 1981). Other models explaining students’ boredom in school focus on high ability students in settings with low demands. Thus, they rather focus on the fit between individual skills and curricular standards in terms of subjective control (e.g. Sisk 1988). Here, boredom is characterised as a response to repetitive and monotonous situations, which the individual perceives to be lacking in stimulation. In corresponding empirical studies, monotony and a lack of stimulation are identified as important features of boring situations (Robinson 1975; Hill and Perkins 1985). Further, if people perceive their skills to exceed the situational challenges, they will feel bored (Csikszentmihalyi 1975 et passim). However, older find - ings show that boredom is not only prevalent in gifted students but also especially expe- rienced by those with lower abilities (Roseman 1975; Fogelman 1976). More recently, evidence of empirical studies also suggests that boredom is experienced in the case of being over-challenged in a learning situation. Furthermore, Daschmann et  al. (2011) found a moderately high negative correlation of the two boredom scales of being over- and under-challenged, which leads to the assumption that students are over-challenged Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 4 of 16 by one situation and under-challenged by another—a significant hint for the necessity of investigating boredom and its appraisals in a situation-specific manner. In current research, another important construct amongst the individual precursors of students’ boredom is their interest in learning contents and materials. Subjective inter- est is occurring either as an individual trait in terms of a stabilised construct or as a situation-specific state, which results from an abiding individual value that is allocated to certain issues or circumstances (Hidi 2000, pp 313). Accordingly, students who report lessons, contents or materials to be interesting were significantly less bored in multiple studies (Robinson 1975; Pekrun and Hofmann 1999; Titz 2001; Pekrun et al. 2002; Götz 2004; Götz et al. 2006; Sparfeldt et al. 2009, 2011). Further, some findings accentuate the meaning of subjective value and perceived usefulness of the learning materials, which are—when dismissed by students—important antecedents to the emergence of boredom during class (Mitchell 1993; Robinson 1975). Based on those findings, subjective interest is considered an important antecedent for boredom irrespectively of its operationalisa- tion as an individual trait or a situational trait. Control‑value antecedents of achievement emotions The linkage between person and situation is condensed in appraisal theories of emotion which are highly influential concerning the explanation for the actual genesis of emo - tions in general. In essence, appraisal theories assume that emotions are emerging due to individual evaluations of events and situations (Roseman and Smith 2001, pp 3). Impor- tant questions addressed by appraisal theories, comprise of the dynamics as well as indi- vidual differences in emotional response. One highly influential theory combining expectancy-value approaches with learning emotions is Pekrun’s (2006) control-value theory of achievement emotions. It integrates attributional theories of achievement emotions as well as theories of perceived con- trol and assumptions concerning the effects of emotions on learning and performance (Pekrun 2006, pp 316). The theoretical framework considers the subjective impression of control over achievement activities and outputs as well as their value as the key deter- minants of emotions. Achievement emotions are by definition directly tied to either achievement activities or outcomes. Corresponding to this differentiation, boredom can also be understood as an activity-related achievement emotion, which is supposed to occur when achievement-related learning activities or situations do not offer any incen - tive value and when individuals lack the feeling of control (Pekrun 2006, pp 324; Pekrun et  al. 2010, pp 532). In the framework of the control-value-theory, control refers to the subjective possibility of an individual to influence learning activities and outcomes and may include perceptions such as being adequately challenged in a learning situa- tion (Frenzel et al. 2007). Concerning teaching and learning during class, the feeling of control is closely related to instructional pace and the degree of individualisation. Value, meanwhile, refers to one’s subjective perception of the importance of the learning con- tents, tasks and achievement goals (Eccles 2005) which may correspond with subjec- tive interest during the teaching and learning process—interest by itself “can serve as a source of task value” (Hidi and Renninger 2006). u Th s, the experience of boredom can occur either momentarily in a concrete situation or be conceptualised as a habitual experience relating to certain achievement activities. Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 5 of 16 Pertaining to the emergence of emotions, situational appraisals are presumed to be “proximal determinants” (Pekrun 2006, 317) which mediate the influence of situational factors and personal characteristics. In accord with this, empirical studies found support for the importance of value and control appraisals in predicting students’ boredom. Con- cerning subjective values as antecedents of boredom, Goetz et  al. (2006) showed that students’ values of academic achievement were negatively correlated with their reported boredom. Likewise based on the control-value theory, Pekrun et al. (2014) confirmed a model of reciprocal causation of boredom and academic achievement at university by means of a longitudinal investigation. Pekrun et al. (2010) related both control and value appraisals corresponding to achievement activities to academic boredom in university settings and found strong evidence for stable negative relations over several studies. According to them, students experienced boredom especially in low-control settings, which is further evidence against the formerly proposed positive relation to boredom in routine tasks with high degrees of situational control. In addition, one important feature of the control-value theory is not only the assump- tion of a linear relation between control and the emerging negative emotion boredom, but rather assuming that control and value appraisals determine achievement emotions in a complex non-linear pattern (Pekrun 2006). This concludes that students’ boredom is not only influenced by value and control in an additive way but that they interact in a rather dynamical manner. More explicitly, the control-value theory postulates a non- compensatory relation of value and control in predicting boredom, so that the low- est degree of boredom implies increased value and control. In this regard, Goetz et  al. (2010) found that control and value appraisals predict positive emotions in a multiplica- tive manner. They identified an interaction effect and assumed that perceived control and positive emotional experiences were greater in  situations of high subjective value while controlling for the main effects. These results lead to the presumption of unique effects of both control-value appraisals as well as combined effects, which are important to consider in academic settings. Nevertheless, the study focused on positive everyday emotions and merely stated the desideratum of exploring interactions between control value appraisals and negative emotional experiences such as boredom. Distinct empiri- cal knowledge concerning the emergence of boredom being attributed to the interaction of control and value is still rare, especially when framing the appraisals either as situ- ational or as personal constructs. One existing study identified considerable main effects of control and value appraisals on boredom as well as an interaction, showing the rela- tion between control and boredom to differ depending on the value appraisal (Bieg et al. 2013), but, however, did not consider cross-level effects of the appraisals due to their operationalisation. Experience‑sampling methods in the study of students’ boredom Experience sampling procedures are an adequate approach to distinguish between personal and situational effects and account for interactions on different levels when predicting emotional experiences in situ. When intending to investigate emotional expe- riences during lesson, the use of global and retrospective ratings may lead to interpretive problems as they are prone to recall biases and do not consider intra-individual dynam- ics of subjective states (Robinson and Clore 2002). Accordingly, a few recent studies Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 6 of 16 make use of experience-sampling procedures when gathering data on appraisals and emotional experiences (Goetz et al. 2014). For instance, Bieg et al. (2013) implemented an intra-individual approach with a design that combined event-based and randomized experience sampling over a period of 2  weeks in several school subjects. Students had to activate a personal digital assistant, which then randomly reacted within the next 40 min in order to gather subjective pride, anxiety and boredom as well as control-value appraisals by means of single item measures. The latter are discussed in various research contexts already for a long time (e.g. Nunnally 1978; Sackett and Larson 1990): Some studies find them to be as valid and reliable as complex multi-item scales (Bergkvist and Rossiter 2007; Wanous et al. 1997), while other results point to differences in predictive validity due to varying research contexts (Diamantopoulos et al. 2012). Thus, single-item measures should be implemented under certain circumstances when common method bias or participant’s fatigue might be an issue or when statistical power is weak and the construct to be measured is relatively uncomplicated (Gardner et al. 1998). With respect to process-oriented research settings implementing experience-sampling procedures during class, single-item measures seem advantageous as the interruption of the teach- ing learning process has to be as short as possible and the risk of generating students fatigue or reactance by multiple measurement time points has to be minimised. However, as boredom is a slowly intensifying emotion by definition, it seems worth - while to gather data on state measures in a continuous manner with equidistant shaped measurement points. The so-called continuous-state sampling method (CSSM) has often been implemented in studies within the field of vocational education and train - ing as a time-sampling version of the experience sampling method leading to several insights concerning the interrelations of subjective experiences and situational char- acteristics (Sembill et  al. 2008). It provides the advantage of parallelised measurement intervals, which may also be easily combined with observations from the videography of lessons, and leads to hierarchical data structures with several measurements nested in students. Accordingly, it offers the opportunity to investigate personal and situational characteristics simultaneously. In former studies, the length of the measurement intervals varied between 5 and 10  min (Sembill 2003; Seifried 2004b; Kärner 2015) depending on the volatility of the constructs and the number of implemented items. When defining the length of the intervals, the trade-off between the interruption of the teaching–learning process during class and the frequency of measurements have to be taken into consideration. Exploring the amount and predictors of students’ boredom in accounting lessons, Kögler (2015) conducted a video study and implemented CSSM with parallelized measurement inter- vals of 7  min each. In order to investigate the effects of different situational predictors on boredom, variables from both videography and CSSM were included in the analyses. There was evidence for a notable amount of boredom during class with ranges up to 50% of instructional time and a strong influence of students’ appraisals in  situ which led to the conclusion of CSSM being important when exploring teaching–learning processes. Apart from these findings, the method seems especially promising when intending to trace the development of appraisal-emotion relations over time. Being structured on several levels that account for variability between and within students, the resulting data allows for hierarchical linear modelling and other complex analysis strategies. To Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 7 of 16 summarize, studies focusing on the interaction between control and value appraisals by means of experience-sampling measures are scarce, especially concerning students’ boredom. Nevertheless, the process-oriented exploration of control-value appraisals and boredom by means of CSSM holds the potential to add a new perspective to the existing findings concerning the relations of control and value appraisals with boredom as well as their dynamic interplay during class. Aims and hypotheses of the present study In recent years, a couple of studies shed light on the phenomenon of boredom in school, its appearance, precursors and effects. Remaining research desiderata specifically point to the question of how students’ control and value appraisals affect the emergence of boredom when being conceptualised either as situational or individual constructs and how the appraisals interact when predicting boredom. Especially in VET, evidence con- cerning boredom and its predictors in the core commercial subject accounting is still lacking. Consequently, the present study aims at investigating the main and interaction effects of control-value-predictors on students’ boredom in accounting classes in the field of commercial education. By means of CSSM over an entire curricular unit of 2 weeks, we examined the interplay of control and value appraisals when predicting students’ bore- dom both at the aggregation level of individuals as well as on a situational level. Main effects of control and value on boredom According to control-value-theory, we suppose that a lack of perceived control on the one hand and a subjective lack of value on the other hand induce boredom. Pertaining to the question whether control and value affect boredom in a different way when being aggregated either on situational or on personal levels, we assume, in line with interest theory (cf. Hidi 2000; Krapp 2002), that subjective value should be affecting boredom close to the situation as well as near to the individual. This is the fact, because subjec - tive value is closely related to a persons’ interest in content matter or a specific situation. Interest itself is being strongly associated with positive emotional experiences and an important predictor for learning outcomes irrespectively of being framed as a state or a trait construct. Subjective control, in contrast, should be affecting boredom rather when being framed as a situational concept, due to the fact that existing findings indicate different learn - ing contents or circumstances being over- or under-challenging from situation to situa- tion as well as the rapidly changing didactical conditions during class. This corresponds to existing findings, which indicate the influence of different situational conditions on the subjective feeling of being over- or under-challenged. In fact, concerning situational predictors, the existence of boredom in school is often associated with the situational occurrences’ lack of meaning for students on the one hand and the shortcoming of pos- sibilities to influence the dissatisfying setting on the other hand. They are confronted with the given learning contents and opportunities and -at least in traditional didactical settings—have to adjust to the teacher’s pace. First, we hypothesise that (1) there are Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 8 of 16 negative main effects of subjective value on boredom, irrespectively of its conceptuali - sation and that (2) there are situational negative main effects of subjective control on boredom. Interaction effects Furthermore, it is to assume that a lack of situational value intensifies the feeling of bore - dom when occurring in conjunction with a perceived lack of control. Consequently, when predicting the development of students’ boredom, we suppose to find a multiplica - tive effect in addition to the main effects of subjective control and value. Of particular interest is a decomposition of effects on different levels in order to investigate the impact of different conceptualisations of control and value. Within the same levels, we assume to find negative interaction effects of situational control and value on the emergence of state boredom during class. Based on the assumption of subjective control being a rather situational concept, we suppose a stronger interaction close to the situation, which might show a conceptual difference between control and value. Concerning cross-level interactions such as different framings of control and value, we assume to find effects of situational control as well. The question of how to cope with the situation during class, which is strongly determined by the teacher, should be essential for the effect of subjective value on boredom. Beyond, stabilised interest should increase the individual’s wish to cope with the situation in terms of having enough time to reflect on subject matter that is considered interesting. In the following section, we describe our sample and procedure as well as the implemented measures and statistical analyses. Methods Sample and procedure The study was conducted at a commercial school in southern Germany. N = 95 students (39 male) from four classes of the ninth grade (mean age M = 14.91 years, SD = .85) took part in the study that covered 2 full weeks of accounting lessons in the field of busi - ness education. Within this period, the lessons’ contents were the same in each class and dealt with the basic principles of wage accounting. The study was initiated by the school itself and participation was voluntary. All of the students provided written, informed consent. The teachers were told to organise their lessons as usual, without any concep - tual or didactical changes. To gather information on students’ emotional experiences, we made use of an experience-sampling approach with equidistant measurement inter- vals collecting students’ state self-reports every 7 min during class. The method is called continuous-state-sampling and is well-tried in the field of research on vocational edu - cation and training in Germany (Sembill et al. 2008; Rausch et al. 2010). By use of this experience-sampling procedure, eight school lessons with equally spaced measurement points (N = 4580 in total) were sampled in each class. Every student was equipped with a handheld prompting them every 7 min to complete a short questionnaire consisting of the experience sampling items to be answered on a scale from 0 to 100. Missing data was reconstructed by a multiple imputation based on several personal characteristics, which were investigated by means of a questionnaire before the curricular unit. Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 9 of 16 Table 1 Intercorrelations between variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) Sex (2) Age .034* (3) Interest .066*** .058*** (4) Time-to-reflect − .049** .137*** .426*** (5) Boredom − .082*** .083*** − .648*** − .288*** *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 N = 4580 1 = male, 2 = female Measures and statistical analyses Students’ boredom was investigated using the short item “I feel bored” (M = 38.04; SD = 32.09). Students’ states concerning control and value were operationalised by implementing single items: “I have enough time to reflect on subject matter” (M = 74.21; SD = 17.17) and “I’m interested in the subject matter” (M = 63.25; SD = 18.84). All of the state items were assessed simultaneously. The CSSM data design generates a hierarchical data structure, where students’ multiple boredom ratings (level 1, k) are nested within lessons (level 2, j) which are nested within stu- dents (level 3, i). Therefore, variability of students’ boredom can be segmented into three components: between times within lessons, between lessons within students and between students. Multilevel models (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Singer and Willett 2003), particu- larly three level models, can be used to address our research questions. Multilevel models are suitable to control for correlated scores within higher level units (e.g., lessons or students) and allow conceptual differences of measures at different levels of analysis. We started with a null model to estimate the variability of students’ ratings at each of the levels (i.e., extent of variability between measurement points within lessons, between lessons within students and between students). In the following steps, we (1) included control and value predictors in order to test main effects on each level, (2) accounted for interaction effects within the same levels while controlling for the main effects and (3) analysed cross-level interactions while controlling for the main effects. With the exception of students’ sex (57 female) and age (M = 14.91, SD = .853), all variables were group-mean centred before analysis. Results Preliminary analyses First, we analysed the intercorrelations of all variables (Table  1). We found significant negative correlations of students’ boredom with the control appraisal (“I have enough Table 2 Intraclass-correlations (ICC) of students’ boredom at the level of lessons and measurement time points Fixed effects Var.Comp. S.E p γ = intercept 38.042 2.252 .000 Random effects Var.Comp. S.E p σ r = boredom (r ) 415.301 9.475 .000 ijk ijk σ u = boredom (u ) 167.011 13.161 .000 0jk 0jk σ u = boredom (u ) 451.891 70.035 .000 00k 00k Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 10 of 16 Table 3 Main effects of control and value appraisals Model 1 B SE(B) p Intercept 25.192 21.769 .250 Fixed slopes Sex − 1.233 2.553 .630 Age 4.615 1.483 .002** − .412 .016 .000*** Interest ijk Interest − .699 .034 .000*** jk Interest − 1.01 .077 .000*** Time-to-reflect − .166 .018 .000*** ijk Time-to-reflect .002 .040 .968 jk Time-to-reflect .115 .085 .181 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .00 time to reflect on subject matter”) as well as the value appraisal (“I’m interested in the subject matter”). Control and value were positively correlated, the more interested the students were, the more did they perceive to be in control. In the next step, we analysed the variability of boredom across the three data levels by means of a null model (Table  2). Primarily, we found a significant amount of variability at each of the levels. The intraclass-correlation of variables showed 43.7% of the variance in total being attributed to differences between individuals and 28.7% of the variance in students boredom ratings were attributed to the level of lessons, indicating that substan- tial differences exist both at the level of lessons and individuals. In Accordance with Hox (2002), our findings display that it is appropriate to integrate predictors into the model as the variability on each level exceeds 15% of the variance in total. Control and value as predictors of boredom We then included control and value appraisals on each level into the model to account for main effects (Table  3). The value appraisal shows significant negative effects on stu - dents’ boredom on each level: the more interested the students are in a concrete situ- ation as well as over several lessons and the entire curricular period, the less boredom they report during lessons. The strongest effect is manifested on the individual level. Irrespective of a specific lesson or a single measurement time point within a lesson, indi - vidual differences in interest was strongly associated with individual differences in stu - dents’ boredom. The control appraisal on the other hand is only significantly related with boredom at the level of measurement points within lessons. Students who lack enough time to reflect on subject matter during lessons feel bored at a higher degree than those who are given a sufficient amount of time to reflect. In contrast, there was no relation between control and boredom at the level of single lessons or the individual level. Interaction effects When accounting for interaction effects, we first added interaction terms of control- value appraisals that are located on the same level. We found a significant moderation of the interest appraisal on the level of lessons: Students, which are highly interested over Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 11 of 16 Table 4 Within-level interactions of control and value appraisals Model 2 B SE(B) p Intercept 46.843 26.391 .079 Fixed slopes Sex − 1.992 2.590 .005** Age 4.329 1.493 .000*** − .412 .018 .000*** Interest ijk Interest − .697 .024 .000*** jk Interest − 1.351 .257 .000*** Time-to-reflect − .170 .021 .000*** ijk Time-to-reflect − .005 .028 .869 jk Time-to-reflect − .109 .175 .532 Interest × time-to-reflect − .001 .002 .336 ijk ijk Interest × time-to-reflect − .003 .002 .032* jk jk Interest × time-to-reflect .001 .001 .162 k k * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 Table 5 Cross-level interactions of control and value appraisals Model 3 B SE(B) p Intercept 25.279 21.801 .249 Fixed slopes Sex − 1.384 2.556 .589 Age 4.626 1.485 .002** Interest − .413 .018 .000*** ijk Interest − .698 .024 .000*** jk Interest − 1.008 .077 .000*** Time-to-reflect − .189 .065 .004** ijk Time-to-reflect − .049 .077 .523 jk Time-to-reflect .114 .085 .185 Interest × time-to-reflect − .002 .001 .137 ijk jk Interest × time-to-reflect − .003 .001 .006** jk ijk Interest × time-to-reflect .000 .001 .921 k ijk Interest × time-to-reflect .000 .001 .514 k jk * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 a period of several lessons do get bored when lacking enough time to reflect on subject matter over a period of several lessons (Table 4). In contrast, we found no interaction on the level of measurement points or on the individual level. The main effects remain stable when including interaction terms into the model. In the next step, we analysed cross-level interactions and found the value appraisal on the level of lessons to be moderating the effect of control on boredom during lessons: Interested students also get bored when lacking the feeling of control during a lesson (Table 5). Again, we found no interactions on the individual level. Pertaining to interaction effects, the appraisals’ variability between students over the entire curricular period is not significantly affecting students’ boredom and even close to the situation on the level Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 12 of 16 of measurement points there is no moderating effect of subjective value on the relation between subjective control and boredom. The main effects of control and value also remain stable in this model as well as the effect of age. Discussion Predicting students’ boredom with control‑value appraisals To summarise, findings of the present study showed that students’ in situ-experiences of boredom are related to personal and situational factors as well as their dynamic inter- play. Controlling for sex and age, students’ boredom was affected substantially by their interest and the perceived time given to reflect about subject matter during lessons in terms of subjective control. In detail, our results showed that the value appraisal revealed its relevance not only on the level of measurement points and the level of lessons but also on the individual level. Hence, there is no empirical evidence to reject hypothesis 1a, which stated negative main effects of subjective value on boredom irrespectively of its conceptualisation as a state or trait construct. This result is in consonance with inter - est theory and its differentiation of situational (trigger/hold) and individual interest, which are represented by the implemented aggregation levels in this study. On the other hand, the main effect of the control appraisal only occurred at the level of measurement points. The subjective feeling of control in terms of having enough time to reflect seems to be a rather situational concept whilst interest is a stable predic - tor on all levels, close to the situation as well as close to the individual. Hypothesis 1b assumed negative main effects of subjective control on boredom in a situational concep - tualisation. As we did not identify significant effects on the level of lessons, which repre - sents differences between the observed lessons in the curricular unit, we have to partly reject the hypothesis. When discussing this result, one could assume that the subjective impression of control is rather tied to the dynamic change of didactical conditions and complexity during class than characterised as an experience, which is stable for several lessons. The feeling of being either over- or under-challenged seems to be a rather vola - tile than enduring experience, which may also be a sign of instructional quality. Espe- cially in the field of accounting, falling behind the instructional pace for a longer period is risky as curricular units are schematically built on one another. Consequently, when teaching accounting, it is of particular relevance to balance individual needs in terms of instructional pace. In addition, our data supports the assumption of control-value appraisals interacting when predicting students’ boredom. Concerning interaction effects within the same lev - els, we found evidence for interest being a moderator for the relation between time-to- reflect and boredom on the level of lessons: Students who are lacking a stable interest in subject matter tend to be bored when instructional pace is low over several lessons. Vice versa, interested students get bored when lacking enough time to reflect on subject matter. These findings also correspond to interest theory, as being deeply interested is associated with a change of temporal experience, the feeling of flow is potentially emerg - ing. u Th s, it appears to be relevant to keep students interested over several lessons and to give them enough time to reflect on subject matter. However, we did not find an inter - action of the control-value appraisals on the level of measurement points within les- sons. With respect to the interplay of stabilised subjective value and control, this might Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 13 of 16 imply the need for a coherent didactical concept for a whole curricular unit, instead of planning each lesson independently. Consequently, the presented results partly support hypothesis 2a. Nonetheless, students with a steady interest also need time to reflect on subject mat - ter during lessons to prevent boredom, which we expected in hypothesis 2b. The more an individual is interested in subject matter over a curricular unit, the more boredom emerges when lacking time to reflect on the contents in situ. To recapitulate with respect to the conceptualisation of individuals’ appraisals, subjec- tive value and control seem to influence the emergence of boredom in different ways due to their aggregation level. Subjective value such as interest in subject matter is an impor- tant predictor of boredom, especially when being stable over time and interacting with the control appraisal in situ. In regard to general pedagogical implications, this might be an argument for the deceleration of instructional pace and, at the same time, the neces- sity to illustrate the relevance of the subject matter for students. Strengths, limitations and further research The present study intended to investigate the main and interaction effects of control and value appraisals on the emergence of students’ boredom in accounting classes. Students’ appraisals of subjective control and value and the experience of boredom during the teaching–learning process were collected over an entire curricular unit of 2  weeks by means of continuous-state-sampling in situ. By using parallelised measurement intervals for both the predictors and the criterion, the resulting data allowed to account for vari- ability on different aggregation levels. The corresponding decomposition of effects led to a differential understanding of the interplay of control and value appraisals over time. By that, our results add to the existing findings on the emergence of students’ boredom during teaching–learning processes and contribute to the further differentiation of the control-value theory, especially pertaining to interaction effects. Nevertheless, there are some limitations, which have to be discussed. First, when aggregating the control and value appraisals, which were measured every 7 min during lessons, a potential shift of meaning has to be taken into account. For instance, aggre- gating the control appraisal (“I have enough time to reflect on subject matter”) on the individual level, it may change its meaning into a personal disposition similar to cog- nitive ability. Further analyses should therefore include the interrelations of personality traits and aggregated state appraisals. Second, in contrast to our expectation that inter- est is a moderator for the effect of subjective control on boredom, there is no causal evidence for this assumption as we measured the appraisals simultaneously and did not implement an experimental design. Third, by measuring students’ subjective experiences several times during class, we may have induced reactivity or reactance. During videog- raphy, there was no evidence for reactant student behaviour but in this design, we can- not control for the effects caused by a higher attentiveness on subjective experiences. The CSSM setting may have increased the measures of boredom, which is a rather silent emotion when beginning to occur. However, when investigating subjective experiences by means of self-report measures, retrospective methods are potentially fraught with problems of remembrance compared to approaches gathering data in situ. In the present study, the focus of interest lay on the reconstruction of the actual genesis of boredom, Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 14 of 16 hence, we investigated subjective experiences in  situ. We implemented single-item measures in order to minimise the risk of causing reactivity and reactance. The reliabil - ity of measures at the lessons’ and the students’ level was ensured by aggregating single measures at higher levels of analysis. Given the relatively high intraclass-correlations of variables and the large number of measures within lessons and within individuals, this procedure appears suitable for a reliable assessment of variables including their interac- tions (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Lüdtke et al. 2006). Nevertheless, replications of the present findings using multiple-item measures is one goal for future research. According to the specific advantages of this empirical approach and in order to sub - stantiate our findings, furthermore it would be fruitful to analyse the temporal dynam - ics of the individuals’ appraisals as well as the development and changes of boredom during the instructional process. Especially cross-lagged effects of the appraisals on the development of boredom would be of interest as boredom is discussed to be a slowly emerging emotion and processual knowledge about its development is still lacking. Furthermore, we intend to explore the quality of students’ self-reports under chang- ing situational conditions in terms of rating tendencies. Further evidence concerning the strengths and weaknesses of experience-sampling methods, especially when imple- menting single-item measures, will help to foster research on emotional experiences in teaching and learning processes. With respect to boredom, which is a prevalent experi- ence in school, the potential of experience-sampling studies in vocational education and training has not been fully exploited yet. For instance, it seems worthwhile to investigate the effects of different didactical settings and varying degrees of individualisation on the emergence of boredom and particularly include the question of heterogeneity under dif- ferent perspectives. Authors’ contributions KK conceived, designed, and coordinated the study. KK and RG conceptualised the aim and structure of the research paper. Furthermore, both authors managed the literature searches and statistical analyses, KK drafted a first manuscript, which was revised by both authors. Both authors contributed substantially. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Author details 1 2 Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 4, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Availability of data and materials Data will not be shared as written consent of the students investigated did not comprise a publication of the data set. Further details can be obtained from authors upon request. Ethics approval and consent to participate All participants respectively their parents provided written consent to participate in the study. The school particularly supported to study, too. Funding The study was funded by the chair of business education at the University of Bamberg. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Received: 5 February 2018 Accepted: 22 May 2018 Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 15 of 16 References Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR (2007) The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same con- structs. J Mark Res 44(2):175–184 Bieg M, Goetz T, Hubbard K (2013) Can I master it and does it matter? An intraindividual analysis on control-value ante- cedents of trait and state academic emotions. Learn Individ Differ 28:102–108 Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models in social and behavioral research: applications and data analy- sis methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park Csikszentmihalyi M (1975) Beyond boredom and anxiety. The experience of play in work and games. Jossey-Bass Publish- ers, San Francisco Daschmann EC, Goetz T, Stupnisky RH (2011) Testing the predictors of boredom at school. Development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales. Br J Educ Psychol 81:421–440 Daschmann EC, Goetz T, Stupnisky RH (2014) Exploring the antecedents of boredom: do teachers know why students are bored? Teach Teach Educ 39:22–30 Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York Diamantopoulos A, Sarstedt M, Fuchs C, Wilczynski P, Kaiser S (2012) Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci 40:434–449 Eccles JS (2005) Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS (eds) Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford Press, New York, pp 105–121 Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu Rev Psychol 53:109–132 Fisher CD (1993) Boredom at work: a neglected concept. Hum Relat 46(3):395–417 Fogelman K (1976) Bored eleven-year-olds. Br J Soc Work 6:201–211 Frenzel AC, Pekrun R, Goetz T (2007) Perceived learning environment and students’ emotional experiences: a multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learn Instr 17(5):478–493 Gardner DG, Cummings LL, Dunham RB, Pierce JL (1998) Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: an empirical comparison. Educ Psychol Meas 58(6):898–915 Goetz T, Pekrun R, Hall NC, Haag L (2006) Academic emotions from a social-cognitive perspective: antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the context of Latin instruction. Br J Educ Psychol 76(2):289–308 Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Stoeger H, Hall NC (2010) Antecedents of everyday positive emotions: an experience sampling analysis. Motiv Emot 34:49–62 Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Hall NC, Nett U, Pekrun R, Lipnevich A (2014) Types of boredom: an experience sampling approach. Motiv Emot 38:401–419 Götz T (2004) Emotionales Erleben und selbstreguliertes Lernen bei Schülern im Fach Mathematik. Utz, München Götz T, Frenzel AC (2006) Phänomenologie schulischer Langeweile. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädago- gische Psychologie 38(4):149–153 Götz T, Frenzel AC, Haag L (2006) Ursachen von Langeweile im Unterricht. Empirische Pädagogik 20(2):113–134 Götz T, Frenzel AC, Pekrun R (2007) Emotionen im Lern-und Leistungskontext. Katechetische Blätter 132:13–19 Hektner JM, Schmidt JA, Csikszentmihalyi M (2007) Experience sampling method: measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Hidi S (2000) An interest researcher’s perspective: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In: Sansone C, Harackiewicz J (eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The search for optimal motivation and performance. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 309–339 Hidi S, Renninger KA (2006) The four-phase model of interest development. Educ Psychol 41:111–127 Hill AB, Perkins RE (1985) Towards a model of boredom. Br J Psychol 76(2):235–240 Hox J (2002) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale Kärner T (2015) Erwartungswidrige Minderleistung und Belastung im kaufmännischen Unterricht. Analyse pädagogis- cher, psychologischer und physiologischer Aspekte. Peter Lang, Frankfurt Kögler K (2015) Langeweile in kaufmännischen Unterrichtsprozessen. Entstehung und Wirkung emotionalen Erlebens ungenutzter Zeitpotentiale. Peter Lang, Frankfurt Krapp A (2002) Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learn Instr 12:383–409 Larson RW, Richards MH (1991) Boredom in the middle school years: blaming schools versus blaming students. Am J Educ 99(4):418–443 Lohrmann K (2008) Langeweile im Unterricht. Waxmann, Münster Lüdtke O, Trautwein U, Kunter M, Baumert J (2006) Reliability and agreement of student ratings of the classroom environment—a reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learn Environ Res 9:215–230 Mikulas WL, Vodanovich SJ (1993) The essence of boredom. Psychol Rec 43(1):3–12 Mitchell MT (1993) Situational interest: its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. J Educ Psychol 85:424–436 Nett UE, Goetz T, Hall NC (2011) Coping with boredom in school: an experience sampling perspective. Contemp Educ Psychol 36(1):49–59 Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York Pekrun R (2006) The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educa- tional research and practice. Educ Psychol Rev 18:315–341 Pekrun R, Hofmann H (1999) Lern-und Leistungsemotionen. Erste Befunde eines Forschungsprogramms. In: Jerusalem M, Pekrun R (eds) Emotion motivation und Leistung. Hogrefe, Göttingen, pp 247–267 Pekrun R, Stephens EJ (2009) Goals, emotions, and emotion regulation: perspectives of the control-value theory of achievement emotions. Hum Dev 52:357–365 Pekrun R, Stephens EJ (2010) Achievement emotions: a control-value approach. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 4:238–255 Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W, Perry RP (2002) Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ Psychol 37(2):91–105 Kögler and Göllner Empirical Res Voc Ed Train (2018) 10:4 Page 16 of 16 Pekrun R, Goetz T, Daniels LM, Stupnisky RH, Perry RP (2010) Boredom in achievement settings: exploring control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. J Educ Psychol 102(3):531–549 Pekrun R, Hall NC, Goetz T, Perry RP (2014) Boredom and academic achievement: testing a model of reciprocal causation. J Educ Psychol 106(3):696–710 Preiss P (2001) Curriculare und methodische Neuorientierung des Rechnungswesenunterrichts: Vom Buchhalter zum kaufmännischen Sachbearbeiter—von der Bilanz zu Wertströmen im Unternehmensmodell. In: Reinisch H, Bader R, Straka GA (eds) Modernisierung der Berufsbildung in Europa. Neue Befunde der berufs-und wirtschaftspädagogis- chen Forschung. Leske + Budrich, Opladen, pp 135–144 Rausch A, Scheja S, Dreyer K, Warwas J, Egloffstein M (2010) Emotionale Befindlichkeit in Lehr-Lern-Prozessen—Konstruk - tverständnis und empirische Zugänge. In: Seifried J, Wuttke E, Nickolaus R, Sloane PFE (eds) Lehr-Lern-Forschung in der kaufmännischen Berufsbildung—Ergebnisse und Gestaltungsaufgaben. Zeitschrift für Berufs-und Wirtschaft- spädagogik, Beiheft 23. Steiner, Stuttgart, pp 93–215 Rheinberg F (2006) Motivation. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Robinson WP (1975) Boredom at school. Br J Educ Psychol 45(2):141–152 Robinson MD, Clore GL (2002) Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: evidence for two judgment processes. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(1):198–215 Roseman WP (1975) Boredom at school. Br J Educ Psychol 45:141–152 Roseman IJ, Smith CA (2001) Appraisal theory: overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In: Scherer KR, Schorr A, Johnstone T (eds) Series in affective science. Appraisal processes in emotion: theory, methods, research. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–19 Sackett PR, Larson JR (1990) Research strategies and tactics in I/O psychology. In: Dunnette MD, Ackerman PL, Hough LM, Triandis HC (eds) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 1. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, pp 419–489 Seifried J (2004a) Fachdidaktische Variationen in einer selbstorganisationsoffenen Lernumgebung—Eine empirische Untersuchung des Rechnungswesenunterrichts. DUV, Wiesbaden Seifried J (2004b) Der Einfluss didaktischer Schwerpunktsetzungen auf das motivationale Erleben des Rechnungswese - nunterrichts in einer selbstorganisationsoffenen Lernumgebung. Zeitschrift für Berufs-und Wirtschaftspädagogik 100(2):242–255 Sembill D (2003) Ergebnisse Selbstorganisierten Lernens in der beruflichen Bildnung/results of self-organized learning in vocational education. In: Achtenhagen F, John EG (eds) Meilensteine der beruflichen Bildung/milestones of vocational education and training, vol 1. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp 81–106 Sembill D, Seifried J, Dreyer K (2008) PDAs als Erhebungsinstrument in der beruflichen Lernforschung—Ein neues Wun- dermittel oder bewährter Standard? Empirische Pädagogik 22(1):64–77 Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York Sisk DA (1988) The bored and disinterested gifted child: going through school lockstep. J Educ Gift 11(4):5–18 Smith RP (1981) Boredom: a review. Hum Factors 23(3):329–340 Sparfeldt JR, Buch SR, Schwarz F, Jachmann J, Rost DH (2009) “Rechnen ist langweilig”—Langeweile in Mathematik bei Grundschülern. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 56(1):16–26 Sparfeldt JR, Buch SR, Kolender J, Rost DH (2011) Überforderungs-und Unterforderungslangeweile in Mathematik: Dif- ferenzierung und Korrelate. In: Dresel M, Lämmle L (eds) Motivation, Selbstregulation und Leistungsexzellenz, vol 9. LIT, Münster, pp 53–70 Titz W (2001) Emotionen von Studierenden in Lernsituationen. Explorative Analysen und Entwicklung von Selbstber- ichtsskalen. Waxmann, Münster Wanous JP, Reichers AE, Hudy MJ (1997) Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? J Appl Psychol 82:247–252

Journal

Empirical Research in Vocational Education and TrainingSpringer Journals

Published: May 30, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off