See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256001958

Developing and Assessing Self-Regulated Learning

Article · May 2009

CITATIONS READS
10 2,390

1 author:

Carlo Magno
De La Salle Araneta University
98 PUBLICATIONS   568 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Facilitating Academic Self-regualtion using a Learning Mnagement System View project

Knowledge Channel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlo Magno on 31 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 26
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Developing and Assessing Self-regulated Learners

Carlo Magno
De La Salle University, Manila

Abstract
The report focuses on aspects in the development and assessment of self-regulated learning in the
school context. The nature of self-regulated learning was discussed by identifying its critical
characteristics. Different models showing the components and process of self-regulation was
presented in order to focus different ways of assessing it as a construct. Different studies are then
presented to show the effects of developing self-regulation in the classroom context. The need to
assess self-regulation as part of the teaching and learning process is discussed under certain
needs in the school setting. Different protocols with examples are shown in assessing self-
regulated learning as applied in the classroom.

Who is a self-regulated learner?

Teachers generally commend students that are more independent in their studies, diligent
in listening inside the classroom, focused on doing their task inside the classroom, gets high
scores in tests, able to recall teachers instruction and facts lectured in class, and submits quality
work. However, teachers see problematic students when they miss assignments, inattentive
during lectures, volatile during class activities, fails to recall instructions taught in the classroom,
submits poor work and worst is not submitting any work at all. These two scenarios differentiate
self-regulated students with those who are poor in regulating their learning. Self-regulated
learners are generally characterized as independent learners, ability to control their learning,
focused in their studies, plans and studies in advance to obtain high scores in tests, and uses
strategies to recall instruction. By showing these characteristics, self-regulated students
eventually performs well and obtains successful academic outcomes. Self-regulation is generally
defined by Zimmerman (2005) as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned
and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (p. 14). Zimmerman (2002) further
explained that self-regulation is “a self-directive process by which learners transform their
mental abilities into academic skills” (p. 65).
There are various contexts where self-regulation can be practiced. It can be applied in
sports to regulate one’s performance, in health to attain potent physical condition, in the
industrial setting to determine effective employees, and in managing one’s emotions (emotion
regulation). This report focuses on self-regulated learning in the academic context. In the
academic setting, one of the main goals is to develop students to be self-regulated learners.
Learners that are self-regulated become independent of their own learning and thus control their
own learning in general. Self-regulation entails students that carefully plan their actions, set
goals, and use a variety of strategies in accomplishing a task. Zimmerman (2002) further
characterizes self-regulated students as having superior motivation, adaptive learning methods,
and views their future optimistically.
There are numerous ways of characterizing a self-regulated learner. Generally the
characteristics involve traits that enable a student to achieve their goals. These traits are
organized into a set of components in order to frame specific variables for self-regulation. These

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1426045

 27
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

components are processes are used in order to attain goals. Zimmerman (2002, p. 66) presented
six components of self-regulation:
The component skills include: (a) setting specific proximal goals for oneself, (b) adopting
powerful strategies for attaining the goals, (c) monitoring one's performance selectively
for signs of progress, (d) restructuring one's physical and social context to make it
compatible with one's goals, (e) managing one's time use efficiently, (f) self-evaluating
one's methods, (g) attributing causation to results, and (h) adapting future methods.

There are several studies indicating that self-regulated learners turn out to perform well in
school related tasks (Blakey & Spencer, 1990; Collins, 1982; Corsale & Ornstein, 1980; Kluwe,
1982; Lopez, Little, Oettingen, Baltes, 1998; Rock, 2005; Schneider, 1985). There is also an
established theory that learners who self-regulate have increased self–efficacy or beliefs in one’s
ability to execute actions (see Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Schunk, 1981, Schunk, 1983; 1984). It
is also notable that self-regulated learners are more motivated (see Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Corno
& Mandinach, 1983). Specifically for the Filipino adolescent, students’ who see the consequence
of their actions and those who structure their environment for study showed to be more mastery
oriented (developing competency and gaining understanding) (see Magno & Lajom, 2008). In a
developmental perspective, the study of Magno and Lajom (2008) showed that all components of
self-regulation increased from high school to college students.

Models of Self-regulation

There are several models of self-regulation that are used depending on the specific area
how self-regulation is viewed. Bandura (1986) sees self-regulation as a triadic process where
there is an interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental aspects. Framed in this theory,
the behavioral aspect of self-regulation involves self-observation and strategically adjusting
performance. The environmental aspect includes observing and adjusting environmental
conditions or outcomes. Covert regulation (personal) includes monitoring and adjusting
cognitive and affective strategies.
Based on the social cognitive perspective, Zimmerman (2002; 2005) derived the process
involved in self-regulation. In this cyclical process, self-regulation in a three-phase structure
(forethought phase, performance phase, and self-reflection phase). The forethought phase is the
stage where the learner analyzes the task by planning and setting goals. Analysis of tasks is
influenced by learners’ self-monitored beliefs, intrinsic interest, and goal orientations. After
careful planning the learner proceed to the performance phase or the execution of a task. While
executing a task, the learner maintains self-control by establishing self-instruction, imagery,
attention focusing, and strategies used for accomplishing the task. The performance phase is also
accompanied by self-observation by self-recording and self-experimentation. After the
performance, the self-regulated learner reflects on the execution which is the self-reflection
phase. In this phase the learner judges how well they have planned and executed the task through
self-evaluation and causal attribution. The start to react on the plan and execution whether they
are satisfied and identify what possible adaptations can be used when engaged in the same task
again. Their reflections are carried out in the forethought phase the next time they engage in a
task that will require them to self-regulate.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1426045

 28
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

There are other models of self-regulated learning. For example, Craver and Scheir (2005)
sees self-regulation as a feedback loop. The process starts with a goal, standard, or reference
value. Then the performance is compared with the output value (comparator). If the output is
same or exceed the reference value, then performance is successful, if not, there is discrepancy.
Shah and Kruglanski (2005) see self-regulation as a network of goals. They use a connectionist
perspective where goals and means are viewed as a network of complex cognitive associations.
A personality systems perspective in self-regulation identify ways how positive and
negative affect influence self-regulation as a cognitive system. This was operationalized in the
model of Magno (2008) where systems of activation and inhibitions to self-regulated learning
were identified and their effects on self-regulation were tested. The activation system was
composed of self-determination, disengagement, initiative, and persistence while negative affect
is composed of anxiety, worry, thought suppression, and fear of negative evaluation. It was
found that the activation and inhibition systems served their purpose. The activation system
increased with self-regulation while the inhibition system identified as negative affect decreased
self-regulation. This showed that experience of negative affect such as worry, anxiety, thought
suppression, and fear of negative evaluation interfered with the use of self-regulation. When
levels of the activation system (high and low) were varied, it was found that individuals who
used high levels of the activation system who used self-regulation were not affected by the
negative affect. Those individuals with low levels of the activation system, their self-regulation
were negatively impacted by the inhibitions such as the negative affect. This model provides a
theoretical perspective of identifying certain conditions how to make self-regulation work and
not work well.
Moreover, Winne (1995; 1997) views self-regulation as composed of metacognition,
intrinsic motivation, and strategy use. Metacognition is the awareness of the learners in their own
academic strengths and weaknesses, cognitive resources that they can apply to meet the demands
of tasks, and how to regulate the engagement of tasks. Intrinsic motivation is the belief in
incremental learning, high value placed on personal progress, and high efficacy for learning. His
process model of self-regulation starts with task and cognitive conditions that individuals set.
These conditions provide information on how the task in the environment will be evaluated. The
second phase involves setting goals and planning how to reach them. This includes decision
making supplemented by information retrieved from memory, framing goals, and assembling a
plan to approach them. The third phase involves enacting tactics by controlling and monitoring
used during the performance. The products of self-regulation may turn out as definition of a task,
goals and plans, studying tactics and adaptation. The last phase involves adapting metacognition.
In the past phase the learner makes major adaptations to those parts of the model under their
control.
The various models of self-regulation provides a view on how self-regulation involves
other variables, its process, how its components are interrelated to each other.

The Need to Develop Self-regulated Learners

Contemporary principles in education espouse that the process of student learning

involves not only teaching the content but the process on how to learn the content as well. Being
aware in the process of learning a material involves self-regulation.
 29
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

One of the direct applications of self-regulation can be used in teaching. This means that
self-regulatory processes can be taught to students. Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) showed in
their study that when self-regulation was taught to students, it increased their motivation and
achievement. Self-regulation can be taught through modeling by parents, teachers, coaches, and
peers. There is much room for different research to propose ways on how to teach students to
self-regulate since current literature focuses too much on its conceptualizations and factors that
influence it. Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (1996) raised issues that (1) few teachers are
preparing students to effectively learn by themselves, (2) students are seldom given choices
regarding academic tasks, (3) few teachers encourage students to establish specific goals for
work and teacher learning strategies, (4) students are rarely asked to evaluate their own work,
and (5) very few teachers assess students beliefs about their own learning. These issues were
raised due to the lack of models, strategies, methods, and techniques that teachers can use as
exemplars in implementing the instruction for self-regulation. This notion is often raised because
teachers rely mostly on strategic formulas in their process of teaching especially in the Philippine
context (Magno, 2007). Teachers need to change their perspective about their belief on what
learning is and what their teaching should become from conventional ways of teaching content.
Since learners are believed to self-regulate their learning, teachers should concentrate on how to
activate their students’ self-regulatory processes. Focusing on techniques of teaching students to
self-regulate concerns much of the need to identify ways to activate it which is proposed in the
present study.
Some of the research attempts that translate self-regulation into the actual teaching
practice were shown in the work of de la Fuente Arias, Justicia, and Garcia Berben (2006), Fok
and Watkins (2007), and Paris and Paris (2001). It is important to mention these studies because
self-regulation when used in teaching demonstrates different ways of activating it among
students.
The study by dela Fuente Arias, Justicia, and Garcia Berben (2006) developed a teaching-
learning process using the “Interactive Model of Regulated Teaching and Self-regulated
Learning.” In their new model, they improved the “presage-process-product” model of Biggs
(2001) where the interactive dimension of the teaching-learning process becomes the primary
function and the model explicitly incorporates the dimension of regulated teaching and self-
regulated learning. They provided evidence that improvement of general teaching strategies,
adjustments in the evaluation system, and improving specific teaching strategies (regulation of
teaching) as implemented in their teaching-learning model have produced a general improvement
in general learning behavior and in students’ specific learning strategies (self-regulated learning),
as measured through the evaluation scales used.
The study by Fok and Watkins (2007) used a constructivist teaching approach which is
typically a self-regulation technique and investigated its effect using the Learning Process
Questionnaire (LPQ) and the Constructivist Learning Environment Scale (CLES). The
constructivist technique employed involves students to give their own examples, authentic
problems, testing own ideas, challenge each others’ conceptualizations, group presentations, self-
analysis, self-reflective thinking, and evidence to support ideas, and present ideas. The study
found significant post-test gains among the high achieving group on the learning process and
constructivist learning environment after the constructivist technique. This shows that a
constructivist learning environment that includes self-regulation is effective in developing deeper
approaches to learning.
 30
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Paris and Paris (2001) described 12 principles that teachers can use to design activities in
classrooms that promote students self-regulation. They emphasized that self-regulation can be
taught with explicit instruction, directed reflection, metacognitive discussions, and participation
in practices with experts. Self-regulation can be promoted indirectly by modeling and activities
that entail reflective analyses of learning.
There are also other studies that employed self-regulation in the classroom setting and
tested the procedures on their effectiveness on students’ performance in different tasks and
subject areas.
The study by Glaser and Brunstein (2007) examined whether self-regulation procedures
would increase the effectiveness of a writing strategies training designed to improve 4th graders'
(N = 113) composition skills. The strategy training included methods of direct instruction and
cognitive modeling as well as phases of guided and independent practice to help students acquire
effective strategies (e.g., the widely used story grammar strategy) for planning and redrafting
stories. Students who were taught composition strategies in conjunction with self-regulation
procedures were compared with (a) students who were taught the same strategies but received no
instruction in self-regulation and (b) students who received didactic lessons in composition. Both
at posttest and at maintenance (5 weeks after the instruction), strategy plus self-regulation
students wrote more complete and qualitatively better stories than students in the 2 comparison
conditions. They also displayed superior performance at a transfer task requiring students to
recall essential parts of an orally presented story.
The study of Azevedo and Cromley (2004) examined the effectiveness of self-regulated
learning (SRL) training in facilitating college students' learning with hypermedia. The training
included planning (planning, subgoals, prior knowledge activation), monitoring (feeling of
knowing, judgment of learning, self-questioning, content evaluation, identifying the adequacy of
information), strategies (selecting new informational source, summarization, rereading, and
knowledge elaboration), task difficulty and demands (time and effort planning, task difficulty,
and control of context), and interest. Undergraduate students were randomly assigned to either a
training condition or a control condition and used a hypermedia environment to learn about the
circulatory system. Students in the self-regulation group were given a 30-min training session on
the use of specific, empirically based self-regulation variables designed to foster their conceptual
understanding; control students received no training. Pretest, posttest, and verbal protocol data
were collected from both groups. The SRL condition facilitated the shift in learners' mental
models significantly more than did the control condition; verbal protocol data indicated that this
was associated with the use of the SRL variables taught during training.
The study by Fuchs et al. (2003) assessed the contribution of self-regulated learning
strategies, when combined with problem-solving transfer instruction, on 3rd-graders'
mathematical problem solving. SRL incorporated goal setting and self-evaluation. Problem-
solving transfer instruction taught problem-solution methods, the meaning of transfer, and four
superficial-problem features that change a problem without altering its type or solution. The
problem-solving transfer also prompted metacognitive awareness to transfer. The effectiveness
of transfer plus SRL was contrasted with the transfer treatment alone and to teacher-designed
instruction for 16 weeks. Students were pre- and posttested on problem-solving tests and
responded to a posttreatment questionnaire tapping self-regulation processes. SRL positively
affected performance.
 31
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

A local study by Dedel (2002) taught students in an experimental group different

strategies like orientation, planning, action, and checking (OPAC) strategies to enhance students'
problem-solving skills and conceptual understanding in teaching selected topics in mechanics.
Although the study did not explicitly mention that the OPAC strategies are self-regulation in
itself. The strategies are similar with conceptualizations on the components of self-regulation.
Consistent with the findings of other research, the OPAC problem-solving strategy used in
physics instruction significantly enhanced students' achievement in terms of problem-solving
skills and conceptual understanding.
Developing self-regulation among students can be integrated in the teaching and learning
process. Certain classroom activities that involve the active participation of students can help
them develop self-regulation. For example, in a mathematics class where students learn concepts
of fraction, identify similar and dissimilar fraction, add and subtract factions (see table 1). A
group of teachers devised some activities where self-regulation is tapped in different subject
areas (Tables 1 to 3).
Table 1
Self-regulation Activities in a Third Grade Mathematics Class
Self-regulation Student and Teacher Tasks
component
Goal-setting Students will verbalize at the start of the lesson what will be their
specific goals for the topic on fraction.
Time management Students create a daily schedule and express in fraction how much
time is devoted for specific activities.
Learning strategies Students are taught with strategies in identifying the Least Common
Denominator (LCD).
Self-evaluation Students solve board work and let the other students evaluate of the
answers are correct. The other students also point out where the
mistake is.
Seeking help or Students are paired and they test each other how well they add and
information subtract fractions. They teach each other the correct answers for the
items missed.
Motivational beliefs Students whose works shows exemplary and acceptable proficiency
are posted on the board.

Table 2
Self-regulation Activities in a Second Year High School Class on Anatomy

Self-regulation Student and Teacher Tasks

component
Goal-setting Students list down the future benefits of knowing the parts of the
different body systems. What will the good consequences if they have
mastered the labels for the parts.
Time management Students allot specific time of their day to restudy and memorize the
parts presented in class.
 32
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Learning strategies Students list down different memory strategies to easily remember the
parts of an organ or body system.
Self-evaluation The students once in a while are reviewed if they can recall the parts of
a specific organ.
Seeking help or Students will go to the library and seek other references to determine
information the complete parts of the organ rather than relying on a single
reference.
Motivational beliefs After taking the test, students are given feedback that they can still
make it for the next test.

Table 3
Self-regulation Activities in a Fourth Grade Class on Reading

Self-regulation Student and Teacher Tasks

component
Goal-setting Students aim to finish reading a children’s novel (ex. Harry Potter)
within two weeks.
Time management Students are required to read a children’s novel and time themselves
how long they finish a chapter with 8,000 words. They will constantly
time themselves each chapter to monitor if they are improving.
Learning strategies Students are asked by the teacher once in a while to report the events
that they read already in the novel to check their pace and
understanding. They are taught specific reading strategies such as
skimming, scanning etc.
Self-evaluation They stop after each paragraph and check if they understand what they
are reading. They will reread in case they did not fully understand a
part of the text.
Seeking help or Other students share the strategies they use to read the text with better
information comprehension. Other students will be encouraged to try the strategies.
Motivational beliefs Students with good book reports will be given awards. Students will be
given a selection on which book to read and select the ones that they
will be interested on.

Why Assess Self-regulated Learning in Schools?

It is important to assess student self-regulation in the school setting under two accounts.
First, most schools based major decisions and classroom interventions on results of achievement,
aptitude, and diagnostic tests that are based on ability of students. It assumed that these abilities
are gained overtime as a result of instruction. The problem with this issue is the
representativeness of the test items in the form of instruction that has taken place. Most of the
time, there is mismatch between the approach and philosophy used in teaching and learning
inside the classroom and the kind of assessment that will take place. Traditional standardized
tests are commonly used to assess if students have learned from instruction. There is mismatch
when the classroom instruction is based on contemporary constructivist approach to teaching
 33
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

which is not captured by traditional paper and pencil tests. Second, most of the assessment of
learning is focused as an outcome and not as a process. Traditional paper and pencil tests such
as an achievement test is usually administered towards the end of the school year that assumes to
measure the collective learning of students overtime. Much of the concern is the outcome of
learning and there are no specific steps to assess what went on during the learning process. There
should be subsequent assessment that takes place in the classroom while students are learning.
Third, most of the assessment is focused on ability as a construct and not on certain cognitive
and strategic processes of students thinking. If there are such assessments on the affective
domain, it is concentrated on personality and vocational interests. This is brought about by the
paradigm and focus of homeroom and other guidance programs in the grade school and high
school. Because of the nature of these assessment orientations, schools fail to determine what is
currently going in the students learning process. Much of the concern is fast tracking the students
and not on the interventions that could be done while students are learning. Given these scenario,
aspects of students learning process such as self-regulation should be included as part of the
assessment package given to students. Self-regulation can be assessed both as an outcome and
process. As an outcome, there are available assessment tools that provide a rating on the extent
of student self-regulation. As a process there are certain techniques that teachers can use while
conducting instruction such as think aloud techniques (see Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), error
detection tasks (see Baker & Zimlin, 1989), and observation of performance (see Turner, 1995).
Certain protocol techniques will be described that can be helpful in assessing academic
self-regulation in the classroom context. These assessment techniques are classified under seven
protocols: Questionnaires, structured interview, teacher judgments, think aloud techniques, error
detection tasks, trace methodologies, and observation of performance. These classification are
based on Winne and Perry’s (2005) assessment of self-regulation as aptitude and event.
Before using any of the protocols in assessing self-regulation, users must be critical of the
methods and rigors on how the tools were established that concerns their validity and reliability.
The process of establishing the tests and scales first involve the construction and selection of
items based on a framework, an empirical model, or grounded on some empirical data. The
underlying factors of the items are then explored using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
techniques. The underlying factors are further tested by using a more rigorous method called
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). On some instances the test developer may opt to use a
different approach such as the Item Response Theory (IRT). In this approach items are good if
they have acceptable item characteristic curves based on the logit measures. In such cases items
with good fit (Mean Square within 0.8 to 1.2, z standard score of below 2.00), high point biserial
correlations (indicative of item discrimination for a one-parameter Rasch model), adequate item
information functions, and devoid of item differential functioning (free of bias). On the second
criteria, responses to items should indicate acceptable reliability or consistencies. Most
commonly internal consistencies of test are established using Cronbach’s alpha, split-half, or
interitem correlation. Tests and scales of self-regulation evidence to have acceptable validity and
reliability are safe to use.

Protocols in Assessing Self-regulation

Questionnaires. Self-regulation questionnaires are composed of a set of a sample items

that are responded numerically. The items are classified under certain factors of self-regulation.
 34
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

A score is derived per factors and interpreted whether it is above or below norms. Examples of
questionnaires that are commonly used in literature that measures self-regulation are the
Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, 1987), Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991), and the
Metacognitive Strategies Inventory (MAI) (Scraw & Dennison, 1994). The LASSI and MSLQ
are standardized and available in the market. The MAI is have consistent psychometric
properties and across adults in different samples. The issue with these questionnaires is that the
items typify strategies and scenarios within a western context. In the Philippine setting, Magno
(2009) developed the Academic Self-regulated Learning Scale (A-SRL-S). The A-SRL-S was
based on the model derived by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986; 1988). The A-SRL-S
measures students’ academic self-regulation under seven subscales: Memory strategy, goal-
setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance, environmental structuring, responsibility, and
organizing. What is new in the A-SRL-S is the responsibility subscale that is not present in the
foreign scales. The subscale on responsibility typifies the high regard of a Filipino student for
their studies. The items on this subscales reflects prioritizing one’s studies, concern for tasks
related in school, and immediately attending to school related tasks. The subscales of the A-SRL-
S was confirmed in a measurement model with good fit (RMR=.02, GFI=.94, CFI=.91). The
items showed high internal consistencies (refer to Table 4). Convergent validity was also
established where all factors increase with each other (refer to table 5). Apart from the foreign
questionnaires the A-SRL-S was analyzed using an IRT approach, specifically using the one-
parameter Rasch model. The items also showed adequate fit using the one-parameter Rasch
model with acceptable item characteristic curves (ICC’s).

Table 4
Properties of the A-SRL-S

Subscales M Variance Cronbach’s No. CFA Person Item

Alpha of Standardized Reliability Reliability
items Parameter
estimate
Memory Strategy 2.53 .81 .82 14 .70*** .76 .99
Goal-setting 2.73 .99 .87 5 .54*** .42 .80
Self-evaluation 2.84 .70 .84 12 .69*** .80 .84
Seeking assistance 3.12 .68 .74 8 .62*** .30 .97
Environmental 2.82 .94 .73 5 .51*** .34 .95
structuring
Responsibility 2.95 .69 .75 5 .68*** .27 .97
Organizing 3.26 .69 .78 6 .65*** .71 .77
***p<.001

Table 5
Convergent Validity of the Subscales of the A-SRL-S
 35
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) Goal-setting ---
(2) Memory Strategy 0.52*** ---
(3) Self-evaluation 0.32*** 0.55*** ---
(4) Seeking Assistance 0.27*** 0.39*** 0.49*** ---
(5) Environmental Structuring 0.25*** 0.27*** 0.35*** 0.31*** ---
(6) Responsibility 0.28*** 0.43*** 0.48*** 0.44*** 0.41*** ---
(7) Organizing 0.42*** 0.43*** 0.35*** 0.41*** 0.38*** 0.51*** ---
***p<.05

The advantage of using questionnaires is the economical way of administration, scoring,

and interpretation. Questionnaires can be administered to numerous students at a single time.
This ensures consistency in the instructions given for respondents and control for the testing
conditions. Scores can be obtained by computing for means on the certain factors. The numerical
scores are easily interpreted by constructing norms for groups of standards for interpreting
scores. Generally high scores indicate the optimum presence of self-regulation characteristics
measured and low scores indicate less of the characteristic. Interventions may be suggested for
students with low A-SRL-S scores.

Structured Interview. Assessing self-regulation through structured interview was

pioneered by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986; 1988). They devised an interview called the
self-regulated Learning Interview Schedule (SRLIS) composed of 14 self-regulation strategies
under six different learning contexts. If a response occurred that do not belong in the 14
categories, it is classified under a new category (others).

Table 6
Self-regulated Learning Strategies Based on the SRLIS

SRL Category Example of response

Self-evaluation
Organizing and
Transforming
Goal-setting and planning
Seeking information
Keeping records and
monitoring
Environmental structuring
Self-consequences
Rehearsing and
memorizing
Seeking social assistance
Reviewing records
I check my solution in a math problem if it is correct.
I make an outline of information presented in long paragraphs from
various references.
I study one week before the schedule of the exam.
I search the internet for references that I can use when searching for
information.
I keep all my notes for future reference.
I go to a quiet place where I can study well.
If I got low on a test, I make sure to study well for the next test.
I keep on repeating the important facts learned in class so that I will
not forget about it.
If I could not figure out how to solve a math problem I ask the help
of my teacher.
I make sure that I review my books and notes to prepare for an
 36
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

exam.

The responses in the interview can be quantitatively scored in three ways: Strategy use,
strategy frequency, and strategy consistency. The first two ways are scored by coders and the
last is estimated y students. Strategy use is scored dichotomously as having occurred or not in the
six contexts. Strategy frequency is counting the number of times a strategy is mentioned.
Strategy frequency is rated by students based on the frequency of using the mentioned strategies
(1=seldom, 2=occasionally, 3=frequently, 4=most of the time). The instrument demonstrated
discriminant validity across high and low ability groups.
In subsequent studies of Zimmerman, eight prompts were provided that measures each
self-regulation strategy: Rehearsing and memorizing, organizing and transforming, seeking
information, self-evaluation, goal-setting and planning, keeping records and monitoring, self-
consequencing, and environmental structuring. These prompts were adapted by Magno (2008)
for the Filipino context. The responses were scored by the respondents using strategy frequency.

Table 7
Adapted SRLIS for Filipino College Students

Self-regulation Component Prompt

Rehearsing and memorizing
Organizing and transforming
Seeking information
Self-evaluation
Goal-setting and planning
Keeping records and
monitoring
Self-consequencing
Assume your teacher is discussing with your class the history of the
Philippine revolution. Your teacher says that you will be tested on the
topic the next day. What method do you use to help you learn and
remember the information being discussed?
Assume your teacher asked your class to write a short paper on a topic
on the history of the organization in school that you belong to. Your
score on this paper will affect your course card grade. In such cases,
what method in particular will help you plan and write your paper?
Teachers usually expect much accuracy with students’ math home work.
Many of these assignments must be completed without the help of the
teacher. What particular method do you use when you don’t understand
a math problem when you’re already at home?
When completing homework assignments such as science reports or
English grammar exercises, what method do you use in particular for
checking your work after it is finished?
Most teachers give important tests at the end of the semester/term, and
these tests greatly affect course grades. What particular method do you
use for preparing for these tests?
When taking a test in school, what particular method do you use for
obtaining as many correct answers as possible?
Many times students have difficulty completing homework assignments
 37
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Environmental structuring
because there are other more interesting things they would rather do,
such as watching TV, daydreaming, or talking to friends. What
particular method do you use to motivate yourself to complete your
homework under these circumstances?
Some students find it easier if they can arrange the place where they
study. What particular method do you use for arranging the place where
you study?

The interview is accurate to derive authentic data from students regarding specific self-
regulation strategies they use. When these self-regulation strategies are verbalized by students,
other students can learn and try the strategies elicited. Teachers can catalogue a list of self-
regulation strategies and teach it to future students.

Teacher Judgments. In a subsequent study by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988),

they devised a version of the SRLIS that is used by teaches to assess their students self-
regulation strategies. In the study, 12 items were produced that indicate students self-regulated
learning strategies that is readily observable by teachers. Students were rated by the teacher for
each item using a five-point scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). The self-regulation
components measured are seeking information, self-evaluation activities, goal-setting and
planning, seeking assistance, organizing and transforming, and intrinsic motivation to learn.
When the ratings were factor analyzed, the 12 items loaded only to three factors. These factors
were labeled as student self-regulated learning, student verbal expressiveness, and student
achievement.
Teacher’s judgment about students’ self-regulation strategies can be very accurate if they
are trained to be observant of students’ behavior. Teachers can look at several situations where
self-regulation can occur such as during drills, seat works, group works, tests, recitations, and
even during class discussion.

Think aloud techniques. In think aloud techniques, students report their thoughts and
cognitive processes while performing a task (Erricson, 2006). There are some studies that made
use of the think aloud protocol. For example Greene and Azevedo (2007) studied learning
through a science module about the human circulatory system. Students were instructed to say
everything that they were thinking while performing the computerized task. Example of prompts
for think aloud techniques are:

1. Why do you think it is correct?

2. It is easy for you? Why?
3. What made it difficult?
4. Do you think you can solve it using another technique?
5. How accurate are you with your answer?
6. Is it easy to work with others or better if alone?

The think aloud protocol is advantageous because it does not limit students of their
response on a task. The teacher can detect multiple signs of self-regulation strategies the students
are engaging in. This can help teachers by creating tasks that would enrich students to develop
further their self-regulation skills.
 38
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Error Detection Tasks. Error detection tasks are created to assess students’ ability to
monitor their performance and evaluate the material exposed to. The ability to detect errors is a
means that a student can exercise metacognitive control because they should have the ability to
correct errors after identifying them. Error detection can be done by providing an evaluation of
errors conducted. Another technique is by underlining specific spots where the error occurred.
The ability to detect errors is a sign that students have mastered the lesson and have
developed evaluation and monitoring skills.

Trace Methodologies. Traces are observable indicators about cognition that students
create as they engage with a task (Winne, 1982). Traces of student self-regulation can be
assessed by looking at their underlines on texts, highlights on particular information in a text,
writes notes in the margin of reading materials, and writes mnemonic devises on the text. These
traces indicate that students are isolating information from the rest of the material that they see as
important. They serve as cues for students to easily locate and remember needed information.
Notes on the margin provide students the needed cue to easily comprehend their method of
studying the material. Some notes may also signal specific strategies they use to remember
important points of the material.
Trace methodologies help teachers determine what strategies students use to learn a
material. This can easily identify and predict students who would be successful in a task or not.

Observation of performance. The most common method of assessing self-regulation is

constant observation of students. The teacher can create specific classroom scenarios and
activities that tap self-regulation. During these tasks the teacher notes students’ behavior that
may indicate self-regulation. Some students are asked how they arrived with their answer, what
technique did they use to remember information easily, what strategy was used to understand the
problem.

There are varied ways on how self-regulation can be implemented and assessed inside the
classroom. Developing self-regulation takes one to believe that it is necessary as a learning
process in order to work well. Initial steps to assess and implement self-regulation inside the
classroom would be difficult especially if students are not used to it. But once the teacher
develops the skill to use it inside the classroom, students would well develop the skills. It should
be realized that self-regulation is necessary in order for students to be successful in their
performance on academic tasks. If a teacher wants and desires to develop lifelong learners,
developing the learners’ self-regulation skills is a key to this success.

References

Azevedo, R. & Cromley, J. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students'
learning with hypermedia?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523-535.

Baker, L., & Zimlin, L. (1989). Instructional effects on children’s use of two levels of standards
for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 340-346.
 39
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41, 586-598.

Blakey, E. & Spencer, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. ERIC Digest, ED327218.

Carver, C. S., 7 Scheier, M. F. (2005). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In M.

Bokaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 42-80).
New York: Academic Press.

Collins, J. L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and
motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88-108.

Corsale, K. & Ornstein, P. A. (1971). Developmental changes in children’s use of semantic

information in recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 231-245.

de la Fuente Arias, J., Justicia, F., & Gracia Berben, A. (2006). An interactive model of regulated
teaching and self-regulated learning. The International Journal of Learning, 12, 217-226.

Dedel, E. (2002). The effect of orientation, planning, action and checking (OPAC) problem-
solving strategy on students' problem-solving skills and conceptual understanding.
Unpublished masters’ thesis, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines.

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of

thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N.
Charnesse, P. J. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman, (Eds.). Handbook of expertise and expert
performance (pp. 223-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fiske, S.T & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.) New York: Mc-Graw Hill.

Fok, A. & Watkins, D. (2007). Does a critical constructivist environment encourage a deeper
approach to learning?. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16, 1-10.

Fuchs, et al. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students'mathematical problem solving with self-
regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 306-315.

Glaser, C. & Brunstein, J. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students' composition skills: Effects of
strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 297–310.
 40
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and execution control: Metacognition. In D. R.

Griffin (ed.). Animal mind – human mind (pp. 201-224). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lopez, D.F., Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Self-regulation and school
performance: Is there optimal level of action-control?. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 70, 54-75.

Magno, C. (2007, May). Constructivism: Becoming self-regulated learners. Seminar conducted

at Dominican School, Manila, Philippines.

Magno, C. (2008). Comparing models for generating a system of activation and inhibition of
self-regulated learning. An unpublished doctoral dissertation, De La Salle University,
Manila, Philippines.

Magno, C., & Lajom, J. (2008). Self-regulation, self-efficacy, metacognition, and achievement
goals in high school and college adolescents. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 41, 1-23.

Paris, S. G. & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning.

Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement,

productivity, and accuracy of students with and without exceptionalities. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 3-18.

Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship:

An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller
(Eds.). Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance, Vol. 1 (pp. 57 – 109). New
York: Academic.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 19, 460-473.

Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's development: A self-

efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 93-105.

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social
comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76-
86.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). The self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational

Psychologist, 19, 199-218.
 41
The Assessment Handbook: Continuing Education Program, Vol. 1, May 2009

Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues
and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Aspects of goal networks: Implications for self-
regulation. In M. Bokaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-regulation
(pp. 86-108). New York: Academic Press.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom context on young children’s motivation for
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 410-441.

Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI user’s manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.

Winne, P. H. (1982). Minimizing the block box problem to enhance the validity of theories about
Instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11, 13-28.

Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30,

173-187.

Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 89, 1-14.

Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2005). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Bokaerts, P.

Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 532-564). New York:
Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. I., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond
achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of

student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,

41, 64-72.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2005). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.

Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-35).
New York: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for

assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 23, 614-628.

View publication stats