Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teacher Efficacy23
Teacher Efficacy23
Abstract. This study examined the self-efficacy for self-regulated learning of 146 early adolescents with and without learning
disabilities (LD). Results from the study showed that a 7-item selfregulatory efficacy measure demonstrated factorial invariance for
the adolescent sample and also for a validation sample of 208
undergraduates with and without LD. Adolescents with LD rated
their self-regulatory efficacy and reading self-efficacy lower than
their NLD peers. Hierarchical multiple regression showed that selfregulatory efficacy made a significant contribution to end-of-term
English grade after controlling for sex, SES, reading self-efficacy,
and reading score. Finally, students with LD who scored low on
self-regulatory efficacy were significantly more likely than their
higher-scoring LD peers to have a low end-of-term English grade,
although there was no difference on a reading performance score.
Several suggestions for teachers working with adolescents with LD
are provided, along with directions for future research.
ROBERT M. KLASSEN, Ph.D., Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
This study examined the self-efficacy for self-regulated learning of adolescents with learning disabilities
(LD). Social cognitive theory presumes that people have
a measure of agency over important aspects of their
lives and that they exercise this agency in a productive
manner in the pursuit of important goals. In selfefficacy theory, people evaluate their skills and abilities
and convert their beliefs about their capabilities into
purposive action (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy, popularly known as confidence, refers to beliefs in the capabilities to carry out the courses of action needed for
desired goals; self-regulated learning refers to the ability
to regulate cognition, motivation, affect, and behavior
in a learning context.
As people enact their self-efficacy beliefs, they demonstrate a degree of control over (a) the activities they
choose to pursue, (b) the persistence they display in the
pursuit of goals, and (c) their reactions to challenges and
failures (Bandura, 1997). Qf course, desired outcomes are
not brought about only by the strength of one's beliefs.
In academic settings, specific skills are needed to master
difficult tasks, and important factors like educational
opportunities, quality of teaching, and learning ability
influence student success. In order to be successful, students must exercise control over their learning by activating and regulating behaviors, thoughts, and
emotions, and they must learn to manage their learning
environment in a planful way (Zimmerman, 2000).
19
when academic achievement becomes critically important, and when future and academic and vocational
opportunities rest on successful navigation of adolescent schooling. In Caprara et al.'s longitudinal study of
self-regulatory efficacy, low levels of self-regulatory efficacy at Time 1 (early adolescence) infiuenced school
grades at Time 3 (end of junior high), which, along with
social-economic status (SES) and self-regulatory efficacy
at Time 4 (secondary school), influenced the decision to
drop out of secondary school at Time 5.
Exploring academic self-regulatory efficacy during
adolescence is crucial, because it not only influences
school performance but also has ramifications for the
life course. For students with learning difficulties, selfefficacy for self-regulated learning may be even more
critical than for typically achieving students, because
the academic doubts stemming from specific skill
deficits may be neutralized by the confidence to engage
in self-regulatory processes like strategic planning, selfmonitoring, and accurate self-evaluation.
Most studies of academic motivation and self-regulation have examined typically achieving students, with
less research attention paid to students with learning
difficulties. Adolescents with LD experience deficits in
specific areas of academic functioning but go through
the physical and psychological changes that characterize the development of all adolescents. Although low
skill levels in students with LD may be associated with
lower levels of self-regulated learning, the two areas (i.e.,
academic skills and self-regulated learning) are theoretically distinct. For example, students with a reading
deficit are capable of learning to organize their learning
environment, plan learning activities, and monitor
their learning progress in ways that are not influenced
by poor reading skills.
Early studies of metacognitive functioning found
that students with LD were less skilled in two forms of
metacognition: problem solving and performance
monitoring (Slife, Weiss, & Bell, 1985). More recent
studies have found that adolescents with LD reported
lower academic and social self-efficacy beliefs (e.g.,
Baird, Scott, Dearing, & Hamill, 2009; Lackaye,
Margalit, Ziv, & Ziman, 2006). Klassen (2007) included
a measure of self-regulatory efficacy in a study of the
spelling and writing of adolescents with and without
LD. He noted that self-regulatory efficacy was lower for
students with LD, but it did not contribute to spelling
and writing performance. In a qualitative follow-up
study, Klassen and Lynch (2007) found that adolescents attributed their performance on learning tasks to
controllable factors such as effort, whereas their teachers attributed LD students' learning performance to
uncontrollable deficits.
20
study Purpose
Research on the self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents
with LD is scarce, but there is potential instructional
benefit to be gained by investigating the learning beliefs
of adolescents who find learning difficult.
There, were four key purposes to this research.
1. To examine the validity of the 7- and 11-item SelfEfficacy for Self-Regulated Learning (SESRL) scale
in a sample of early adolescents with and without
LD. The SESRL scale was originally developed by
Bandura (1990), with two versions currently in
use: a long version with 11 items (occasionally 10
items) and a more succinct 7-item adaptation.
Both versions have been used extensively (e.g.,
Caprara et al., 2008; Pajares & Valiante, 2002;
Usher & Pajares, 2008; Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Pons, 1992), although their comparative
validity has not been examined. Recent examples
of use include Caprara et al.'s use of the original
11-item scale in their study of adolescents in Italy,
and Usher and Pajares' use of the 7-item scale in a
study of American students in grades 4 to 11. The
short form of the measure is derived from the long
form, and both measures are hypothesized as unidimensional measures of students' beliefs in their
self-regulatory capabilities. Previous research has
not explored the comparative validity of the 7item and 11-item forms of the scale, nor have prer
vious studies validated the measure for students
with LD.
2. To compare levels of self-regulatory efficacy and
related variables (reading self-efficacy, reading performance, and English grade) in adolescents with
and without LD.
3. To investigate whether self-regulatory efficacy
made a unique contribution to the prediction of
end-of-term English grade beyond the contributions of reading performance and reading selfefficacy.
4. To investigate the reading performance, self-efficacy, English grade, and SES of LD adolescents
with high and low levels of self-regulatory efficacy.
The variables of reading performance, reading selfefficacy, and end-of-term English grade were included
because reading proficiency and the literacy skills
required in English classes are key enablers of learning
across all subject areas and grade levels. Furtherrhore,
they are critical factors in adult employability and
career success. Students who struggle to read confidently and fiuently not only do poorly in English class
but also are at risk for school dropout and lower engagement in the workforce (Daggett & Hasselbring, 2007).
(End-of-term grades are imperfect measures of language-
related achievement and include assessment of a number of activities that vary from teacher to teacher and
school to school. However, high school grades more
accurately predict future academic success in high
school and college than any other factor [Hoffman &
Lowitzki, 2005].)
A measure of SES (father's educational attainment)
was included because SES influences academic achievement through access to resources that promote intellectual development (Caprara et al., 2008). For example,
Eamon (2002) found that income level influenced early
adolescent reading achievement through its association
with level of cognitive stimulation in the home environment.
Four hypotheses pertaining to the self-regulatory
efficacy of adolescents with and without LD were
proposed:
Hi: Based on social cognitive theoretical principles
and recent research (Usher & Pajares, 2008), the
SESRL measure will form a unidimensional construct that shows an equivalent factor structure
for students with and without LD. (No hypothesis
about the preference of the 7-item over the 11-item
measure was proposed.)
H2: Based on previous research (e.g., Klassen, 2007)
and on theory suggesting that learning disabilities
are associated with metacognitive deficits (e.g.,
Butler, 2003; Slife et al., 1985), students with LD
will report lower levels of self-regulatory efficacy
than their peers without learning disabilities
(NLD).
H3: Because the capacity to regulate learning is of
critical importance in the academic performance
of all students, levels of self-regulatory efficacy
will significantly contribute to the prediction of
academic achievement for students with and without LD.
H4: Because self-regulatory efficacy influences
learning in a variety of domains, adolescents with
LD who report low self-regulatory efficacy will
score lower on reading performance, reading selfefficacy, and attainment on end-of-term English
grades.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 146 early adolescents in grades 8
and 9 at three high schools in Western Canada.
Participants were recruited by the author and by special
education teachers in each of the schools. The LD group
consisted of 73 early adolescents with LD (Mage = 13.89
years) who received pullout learning support in a
resource room one class period out of eight each school
day due to identification of a diagnosed learning dis-
21
= 1.56 on a 1 = D [or Incomplete] to7 =A scale) than students in the NLD group (M = 4.79, SD = 1.76), f(l,145)
= 17.37, Cohen's d=.69.
Procedure
Ethics approval for the research was provided by the
university and the school district, and parental permission was received for all students who participated. The
measures were pilot-tested in one class of grade 8 students in one of the target schools, resulting in minor
changes to the oral directions to improve student
understanding.
Data were collected over a three-week period by the
author, with assistance from the resource room teachers
in the pullout classes for students with LD. The measures were administered to groups of 8-15 students with
LD in the resource room setting and to class groups of
15-25 students in the control setting. Directions were
read aloud, and the researcher and teachers provided
clarification for students who needed it. The participation rate was estimated at over 75% in both groups.
Measures
The 11-item SESRL measure assesses students' beliefs
that they hold the capability to successfully employ selfregulatory strategies (Zimmerman et al., 1992). The
measure has shown reliability and validity in recent
studies of students with LD (e.g., Klassen, 2007; Klassen,
Krawchuk, Lynch, & Rajani 2008) and without LD (e.g.,
Caprara et al., 2008). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients in previous research were typically aboye .80. The
7-item version of the SESRL scale is a recently used adaptation of the 11-item scale, with a Cronbach's alpha of
.83 in a recent scale validation (Usher & Pajares, 2008).
Example items that are identical across the 11- and 7item scale include. How well can you finish study when
there are other interesting things to do? and How well can
you finish assignments by deadlines? Scores were measured on an 11-point scale, anchored at 0 by Not well at
all and at 10 by Very well. The range of possible scores
was 0 to 110 for the 11-item scale, and 0 to 70 for the 7item scale.
Reading skill was measured using an adaptation of a
reading test from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), in
which students are given 50 brief sentences to read in a
2-minute period. Students must read each sentence and
indicate whether the statement is True or False (e.g., A
mountain is usually made of water). The total score of correct responses was summed to give the reading score,
with a possible range of 0 to 50. Median reliability on
the subtest is listed as .90 by the test authors (Woodcock
et al.).
Reading self-efficacy was measured using procedures
outlined in Bandura's (2006) guide to constructing self-
22
RESULTS
The first research question to be answered related to
the choice of the standard 11-item or adapted 7-item
SESRL measure and the relative invariance of the two
versions for LD and NLD samples. Table 1 presents fit
indices for the two versions of the SESRL measure for
LD, NLD, and combined groups. Goodness-of-fit was
evaluated by the conventional use of change in x^ (^X^),
in which a significant Ax^ indicates invariance, and by
changes in the comparative fit index (ACFI), wherein a
ACFI less than or equal to .01 indicates invariance
between models (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The ACFI
is viewed as superior to the use of Ax^ as a test of invariance, because it is not affected by sample size. However,
reporting Ax^ is conventional and is included in the current article to enable comparison with other research
(see Cheung & Rensvold, for further explanation). As
reported in Table 1, the 7-item SESRL measure provides
a significantly better fit for the LD, NLD, and combined
groups, with significant differences in x^ and CFI (range
.11-.21) for each comparison.
The 7-item model showed good fit for the LD, NLD,
and combined groups, with all x^/df ratios below the
upper threshold proposed by Byrne (2004), ranging
from 1.18 for the LD group to 2.04 in the combined
Table 1
Fit Indices for 7- and 11-Item Measures of Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning
j2ldf
CFI
RMSEA
<.OO1
2.37
.11
.14
44
<.OO1
2.06
.85
11
150.49
44
<.OO1
3.42
.83
.13
LD (n = 73)
16.50
14
.28
1.18
.97
.05
87.96(30)**
.21
NLD ( = 73)
20.18
14
.12
1.44
.96
.07
70.28(30)**
.11
Combined (N = 146)
28.56
14
.01
2.04
.96
.08
121.93(30)**
.13
Model
x'
df
104.46
44
90.46
ACFI
Model 1: 11 Items
LD (n = 73)
NLD ( = 73)
Combined (N = 146)
Model 2: 7 Items
23
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Key Variables for Early Adolescents with and
Without LD
NLD
LD
(w = 73)
in = 73)
SD
SD
SESRL (7 items)
.81
42.17
11.54
49.92
10.25
.71
Reading SE
.91
52.89
16.53
62.09
12.61
.63
.95
33.79
9.77
42.49
7.65
.99
3.64
1.56
4.79
1.76
.69
English Grade
Note. SESRL = Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning. Possible range for SESRL = 0-70. SE = self-efficacy. Possible range for reading SE = 0-80.
English grade is reported on a 7-point scale. All comparisons were significantly different, ps < .001.
Table 3
Correlations for Key Variables for Early Adolescents with and Without LD
1.
2.
3.
4.
.37**
.18
.42**
.34**
.64**
.33**
3. Reading Score
.18
.48**
.43**
4. English Grade
.50**
.37**
.51**
1. SESRL
2. Reading SE
Note. SESRL = Self-Efflcacy for Self-Regulated Learning. SE = self-efflcacy. English grade is reported on a 7-point scale. Correlations for the LD sample
are above the diagonal; correlations for the NLD sample are below the diagonal.
*p < .05. "p < .01.
24
for individuals with and without LD. Thus, Hj - that the for LD status, f(4, 138) = 14.18, p < .001,1. = .71; and for
SESRL measure would form a unidimensional structure sex, f (4, 138) = 5.44, p < .001, A, = .86; but not for the
for students with and without LD - was confirmed. (For interaction between LD status and sex, f(4, 138) = 1.19,
the remainder of this article, references to the SESRL p = .32, X = .97.
Univariate tests revealed significant differences for all
measure refer to the 7-item version.)
Table 2 presents reliability indices, means, and stan- the dependent variables according to LD status: Mean
dard deviations for the SESRL measure, reading self-effi- scores for the NLD group were significantly higher than
cacy, reading score, and end-of-term English grade for mean scores for the LD group for each variable (ps <
the LD and NLD samples. The measures showed ade- .001), with Cohen's d effect sizes ranging from medium
quate internal reliability: Cronbach's alpha reliability (.63 for reading self-efficacy) to large (.99 for reading
indices ranged from .81 for SESRL to .95 for the reading score) using Cohen's effect size descriptors (Cohen,
measure. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) 1988). Mean scores for SESRL and English grade were
was conducted with LD status and sex as independent significantly higher for girls across the LD and NLD
variables, and SESRL (7-item), reading self-efficacy, read- groups ip = .007 for SESRL, and p = .005 for English
ing score, and English grade as dependent variables. grade), but reading self-efficacy and reading score were
Comparisons showed a significant multivariate effect not significantly different according to sex. Because of
Table 4
Hierarchical Multiple-Regression Analyses Predicting English Grade from Reading
Performance, Reading Self-Efficacy, and Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning for LD and
NLD Adolescents
Step 1
Control Variables
Step 2
Control Variables
Reading Score
Reading SE
Step 3
Control Variables
Reading Score
Reading SE
SESRL
Total
n
Note. Control variables included sex of student and father's educational level.
*p<.05. " p < .
25
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Key Variables for LD Adolescents with High and Low
Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation
High SESRL
(n == 27)
Low SESRL
(n == 25)
SD
SD
Reading SE
56.11
15.66
47.01
18.89
.52
33.74
10.96
32.32
9.87
.14
English Grade**
4.30
1.64
3.00
1.71
.78
SES*
3.60
1.34
2.71
1.16
.70
Note. SE = self-efficacy. English grade is reported on a 7-point scale. SES is measured as father's highest educational attainment on a 5-point scale.
*p< .05. **p< .01.
the similarities in patterns between sexes in the key variables, the decision was made to combine males and
females for further analyses. The second hypothesis,
H2 - that early adolescents with LD would report lower
levels of self-regulatory efficacy - was confirmed.
Bivariate correlations for the key variables between
the LD and NLD groups were similar (see Table 3). The
SESRL variable was significantly and moderately correlated with reading self-efficacy (r = .37, r = .34, ps < .01)
and English grade (r = .42, r = .50, ps < .01) for the LD
and NLD groups, respectively. But SESRL was not significantly correlated with reading score in either group.
The reading score was significantly correlated with reading self-efficacy in each group, ps < .01.
Table 4 presents the results from hierarchical multiple
regression for the LD and NLD groups, with end-of-term
English grade as the dependent variable. Control variables of SES (parent education level) and sex were
entered at Step 1, followed by reading score and reading
self-efficacy at Step 2, and finally SESRL at Step 3.
For the LD group, the entry of the control variables at
Step 1 did not significantly predict English grade. The
entry of reading score and reading self-efficacy at Step 2
significantly increased explained variance (Ai^^ = .21), as
did the entry on the final step of SESRL (M^ = .08), with
a final K^ of .35, f(5, 69) = 6.81, p < .001. At the final
step, reading score was the strongest predictor of
English grade ( = .44), followed by SESRL ( = .34).
Reading self-efficacy did not significantly contribute to
26
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of two versions of the SESRL scale in samples of
early adolescents with and without LD, and to examine
the role of self-regulatory efficacy and its relationship
with reading self-efficacy, reading performance, and
English grade for adolescents with and without LD.
The 7-item version of the SESRL measure fit the data
significantly better than the 11-item measure for early
adolescents with and without LD. A second CFA using
an undergraduate sample confirmed the same pattern
of a better fit for the 7-item measure compared to the
11-item measure.
As hypothesized, the CFA showed that the items in
the 7-item measure formed a unidimensional structure
that was invariant for students with and without LD.
The first finding from this study, then, was that the 7item version of the SESRL measure showed construct
validity with samples of adolescents and undergraduates with LD. These results pave the way for future studies of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in samples
of students with LD, with evidence that the modified 7item measure is internally valid and shows structural
integrity across samples.
As predicted, early adolescents with LD rated their
self-regulatory efficacy lower than did their NLD peers.
Furthermore, girls rated the variable higher than boys,
and this difference held true for adolescent boys and
girls with and without LD. These results are consistent
with previous research showing that female students
have the edge in terms of confidence to regulate their
learning over their male peers. That this relationship
holds true for adolescent girls and boys with LD is not
surprising, given that past research with NLD samples
has revealed that comparatively more girls than boys
employ strategies that optimize management of the
learning environment (e.g., Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Past studies have
shown that adolescent girls show higher levels of
metacognitive self-awareness and accuracy in calibrating their academic self-efficacy beliefs with performance, and tend to be less self-congratulatory than
adolescent boys (e.g., Klassen, 2007). Results from this
study revealed that adolescent girls with and without
LD showed higher levels of confidence to regulate and
. monitor their learning, hinting at better developed
metacognitive skills with resultant higher levels of selfregulatory efficacy.
The results from the hierarchical multiple regression
showed that self-regulatory efficacy contributed significantly to the prediction of end-of-term English grades
for early adolescents, and that this contribution held
true for LD and NLD adolescents even after controlling
for SES and sex. In fact, for both groups, self-efficacy for
self-regulated learning contributed almost as much to
the prediction of English grade as did reading ability.
The importance of reading skill to academic performance in English class is expected: Better readers tend to
do better in literacy-oriented classes. The significant
contribution of self-regulatory efficacy for students
with ahd without LD is of critical importance.
Although reading instruction typically ends after the
elementary grades, and reading difficulties are notoriously difficult to remediate in adolescence (Daggett &
Hasselbring, 2007), self-regulation skills can be readily
taught and learned through strategy instruction
schemes such as Butler's Strategic Content Learning
(Butler, 2003). Self-efficacy to self-regulate can be developed in students with LD if they are allowed opportunities for successful experiences, offered verbal
persuasion, and provided with appropriate models.
The relationship between self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and school achievement is highlighted
in the results shown in Table 5, and underlines the
need for further research and attention to practice. Two
critical findings emerge by examining adolescents with
high and low self-regulatory efficacy. First, and contrary to expectations, there was no difference in reading ability between the two groups. In other words,
early adolescents with high and low self-regulatory efficacy do not differ in their basic reading comprehension
and fluency; yet, there is a marked difference in English
grade.
This is an important finding for researchers and practitioners alike. For students with LD, performance in
literacy-based subjects like English is only partially
dependent on reading ability (as shown in the multiple
regression in Table 4). Of almost equal importance is a
student's belief in his or her capabilities to manage the
learning environment. The implication of this finding
is that remedial instruction for adolescents with LD
should include a focus on building self-regulatory skills
and the confidence to use these skills. For some students with LD, poor academic performance may be the
result of low confidence to manage their learning, not
merely low skill levels.
The second key finding is the significant difference in
SES found for students who were high and low in selfregulatory efficacy. Previous studies have found links
between reading achievement and income level (e.g.,
Eamon, 2002), but the results from the current study
showed that students who are low in self-regulatory
efficacy come from families with lower levels of paternal educational attainment. This finding is consistent
with that of Caprara et al. (2008), who proposed that
low SES influences students' confidence to use selfregulated learning tools.
27
28
29
regulated learning by adolescents and adults with learning disstudents with learning disabilities and their non-LD-matched
abilities. Exceptionality, 11, 39-60.
peers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 111-121.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using
Learning Disabilities of Ganada. (2002). Official definition
AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation
of learning disabilities. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from
Modeling, 11, 272-300.
http://www.ldac-taac.ca/Defined/defined_new-e.asp
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G.
Lien, N., Friestad, G., & Klepp, K-I. (2001). Adolescents' proxy
M., Barbaranelli, G., et al. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the
reports of parents' socioeconomic status: How valid are they?
role of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in acajournal of Epidemiological Community Health, 55, 731-737.
demic continuance and achievement, journal of Educational Melekian, B. A. (1990). Family characteristics of children with
Psychology, 100(3), 525-534.
dyslexia, journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 386-391.
Gheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-ofPajares, F., & Vahante, G. (2002). Students' self-efficacy in their
fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
self-regulated learning strategies: A developmental perspective.
Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Psychologia, 45, 211-221.
Gohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors.
Daggett, W. R., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2007). Adolescent reading
In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement
whitepaper: What we know about adolescent reading. Rexford, NY: motivation (pp. 249-284). San Diego, GA: Academic Press.
International Genter of Leadership in Education.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (in press). Assessing self-efficacy for
Eamon, M. K. (2002). Effects of poverty on mathematics and readself-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk
ing achievement of young adolescents, journal of Early
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance.
Adolescence, 22, 49-74.
New York: Routledge.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, G., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, G. M., Reuman,
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning:
D., Elanagan, G., & Iver, D. M. (1993). Development during
From teaching to self-refiective practice. New York: Guilford.
adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young
Slife, B. D., Weiss, J., & Bell, T. (1985). Separability of metacogniadolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American
tion and cognition: Problem solving in learning disabled and
Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
regular students, journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 437-445.
Fraser Institute. (2009). School performance. Retrieved October
Statisfics Ganada. (2009). 2006 census dictionary. Retrieved October
21, 2009, from http://www.fraserinstitute.org/reportcards/
21, 2009, from http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/english/censusO6/
schoolperformance/
reference/dictionary/geoOSO.cfm
Garcia-Snchez, J-N., & Fidaigo-Redondo, R. (2006). Effects of two
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated
types of self-regulatory instruction programs on students with
learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological
learning disabilities in writing products, processes, and self-effiMeasurement, 68, 443-463.
cacy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 181-211.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). WoodcockGraham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and
Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
writing: Where do we go from here? Educational Psychologist, Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cog35, 3-12.
nitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
Hoffman, J. L., & Lowitzki, K. E. (2005). Predicting college success
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, GA:
with high school grades and test scores: Limitations for minorAcademic Press.
ity students. The Review of Higher Education, 28, 455-474.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). SelfKlassen, R. M. (2007). Using predictions to learn about the selfmotivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy
efficacy of early adolescents with and without learning disabilbeliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research
ities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 173-187.
journal, 29, 663-676.
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., Lynch, S. L., & Rajani, S. (2008).
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differProcrastination and motivation of undergraduates with learnences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and gifteding disabilities: A mixed methods inquiry. Learning Disabilities
ness to self-efficacy and strategy use. journal of Educational
Research and Practice, 23, 137-147.
Psychology, 82, 51-59.
Klassen, R. M., & Lynch, S. L. (2007). Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with learning disabilities and their spePlease address correspondence about this article to: Robert M.
cialist teachers, journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 494-507.
Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology, University
Lackaye, T., Margalit, M., Ziv, O., & Ziman, T. (2006).
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Ganada T6G 2G5;. e-mail:
Gomparisons of self-efficacy, mood, effort, and hope between
robert.klassen@ualberta.ca
30
Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.