This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 20 May 2015, At: 04:13

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Southern African Linguistics and

Applied Language Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rall20

Development and Validation of

an EFL Self-Regulated Learning
Questionnaire
a a
Mohammad Salehi & Hamid Jafari
a
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Published online: 26 Mar 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Mohammad Salehi & Hamid Jafari (2015) Development and Validation of an
EFL Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language
Studies, 33:1, 63-79, DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2015.1023503

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2015.1023503

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd
Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved SOUTHERN AFRICAN LINGUISTICS
AND APPLIED LANGUAGE STUDIES
ISSN 1607-3614 EISSN 1727-9461
http://dx.doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2015.1023503

Development and Validation of an EFL Self-Regulated Learning

Questionnaire

Mohammad Salehi* and Hamid Jafari

Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding author email: m_salehi@sharif.edu

Abstract: Self-regulated learning, strangely enough, though having swept educational psychol-
ogy’s literature like a tidal wave and also, compared to other constructs such as metacogni-
tion and learning strategies, has remained rather uncharted in language education literature
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

and L2 research. Hence, among the main purposes of the current study was to form a link, even
tenuous, between the two fields by developing a questionnaire in English and Persian to measure
self-regulated language learning capacity and behaviour of Iranian EFL learners. The develop-
ment of the inventory was guided by two pilots (412 participants), content validation by expert
judgment, cognitive interviews, expert review of the items, translation quality checks and factorial
validation by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Drawing on the literature of educational
psychology and the results of EFA (exploratory factor analysis), thirteen sub-scales with 41 items
were yielded in the study: intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, locus of control orientation (attribu-
tion), attitude, organisation, memory strategies, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, planning and goal
setting, concentration and sustained attention, effort regulation, regulation of environment, and help
seeking. In addition, some linguistic criteria were used as benchmark to simplify the items. The
words comprising the items of the English version of the questionnaire are within the 2 000 most
frequent words of the BNC and COCA corpora, which increases the readability of the questionnaire
for lower-level language learners. The results show that the inventory enjoys satisfactory psycho-
metric properties and construct validity.

Introduction
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is one of the most essential skills needed for life-long learning
(Ifenthaler 2012). This decades-old construct, which according to Boekaerts (1999) has even
changed our definition of successful learning, has been exhaustively discussed and researched
in educational psychology literature and has devoted to itself entire handbooks, journal special
issues, measurement instruments, and numerous models and theories. L2 research is a multi-
disciplinary area of research, through which the findings of fields like linguistics, education,
psychology, neuroscience, etc. are reverberated. Strangely enough, this important construct
(self-regulated learning), though having swept educational psychology’s literature like a tidal wave
(Boekaerts 1999) and also, compared to other constructs such as metacognition and learning
strategies, has remained rather uncharted in language education literature and L2 research. It is
an area of research which has not been sufficiently studied and transferred into the L2 research.
Research studies conducted on SRL in L2 research are not many. The concept of self-regulation,
as compared to educational psychology literature and research, has been mysteriously victimised
in L2 research. A possible reason behind this might, in part, be accounted for by L2 researchers’
central preoccupation with ‘language learning strategies’, a concept which was borrowed from
educational psychology and which, according to some scholars, suffers from inherent problems
(Dörnyei 2005, Tseng, Dörnyei and Schmitt 2006, Woodrow 2005). Self-regulated learning, having
been researched in educational psychology since the 1980s, is a broad and multi-faceted concept.
Self-regulation has the following advantages over the concept of language learning strategies, to
which L2 researchers have devoted more than three decades of rigorous and extensive research
without much consensus of opinion on its definition and its underlying constructs: First, it can act

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
 64 Salehi and Jafari

like a portmanteau construct in which the concepts of learning strategies, autonomy, motivation,
attitude and many other constructs can be incorporated. Secondly, and more importantly, one of
the long-standing problems of language learning strategies was the fact that researchers’ focus was
put unhealthily on the product side of the learning strategies, rather than the process side (Dörnyei
2005). This gap is to some extent plugged in self-regulated leaning.
Self-regulation, like many other constructs in L2 and educational psychology literature, is a
multifaceted and complex construct. It is a difficult construct to ‘define theoretically, as well as to
operationalise empirically’ (Boekaerts, Pintrich, and Zeidner 2001: 120). Nonetheless, this difficulty
and diversity in providing theoretical and operational definitions have never thwarted researchers
in their efforts to investigate this construct. Furthermore, with a closer examination and more
careful scrutiny of this construct and a glance at its definitions, some shared and widely agreed-
upon components and features, such as intrinsic motivation, will emerge. This can also be simply
justified by a cursory look at the sub-scales and items of the instruments developed to measure
this construct. An often-quoted definition of self-regulation is given by Schunk and Zimmerman
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

(1994, in Wentzel and Wigfield 2009: 247), ‘self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are
planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals’. More specifically, Zimmerman
(2000: 125) defines self-regulation as ‘self-directive processes and self-beliefs that enable learners
to transform their mental abilities, such as verbal aptitude, into an academic performance skill, such
as writing’.
This study, drawing on the literature of educational psychology, tries to make a connection
between L2 research and educational psychology by developing an EFL questionnaire which
measures SRL capacity and behaviour of language learners. Also, an endeavour is made to
construct simple items through some objective criteria and to give account of the readability of
the items of the questionnaire. For readability and other purposes (as discussed in detail later)
the Persian version of the items was used for validation. As a by-product of questionnaires in
componential models of constructs, this study, by developing an SRL questionnaire, provides
a new componential model of SRL. The related literature, instruments, models, and definitions
of self-regulated learning are explored beforehand to yield a componential model and opinion
questionnaire based on which the experts can express their opinions.

Literature review
Self-regulation is one of the concepts closely related to language learning strategies. Some other
similar concepts are, among others, autonomous language learning, self-management, and
independent language learning (Cohen 2007). After much heated debate over the nature and
definition of strategies, now, ‘it seems that strategies per se have begun to fall out of favour in
SLA research and instead researchers  influenced by trends in educational psychology research
 have turned attention to more general constructs such as “self-regulation” in learning’ (Patten
and Benati 2010: 44). Similarly, Dörnyei (2005) in a chapter on learning strategies states we can
‘conclude that the necessary theoretical clarification about the nature of the learning strategy
concept did not happen’ (170). Of course, this is not to assume that definitional problems do not
exist in self-regulation. In a survey of strategy experts of L2 research, Cohen (2007) found that
these experts define self-regulation quite differently from each other. Some of them took it as
synonymous with ‘learner autonomy’ and some others with ‘self-management’, and still others
would define it within the limits or context of Vygostky’s sociocultural theory. Thus, like for learning
strategies, one should not expect a widely accepted definition for self-regulation. However, one also
should notice that, as Boekaerts, Pintrich and Zeidner (2005) hold about self-regulation, ‘significant
future progress is going to depend on our ability to clearly define the construct theoretically and to
empirically distinguish it from other similar constructs’ (4).
Currently, the number of studies focusing on the link between SRL and language learning/
teaching is increasing and recent conceptualisations of strategic learning are shifting towards the
notion of self-regulation (Rose 2012b). Some recent studies which have theoretically or practi-
cally linked language learning and SRL include: Ayatollahi, Rasekh and Tavakoli (2012), Khezrlou
and Sadeghi (2012), Kondoa, Ishikawaa, Smitha, Sakamotoa, Shimomuraa and Wadaa (2012),
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 65

Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2012), Rose (2012a, 2012b), Wang, Kim, Bong and Ahn (2013), and
Wang, Schwab, Fenn and Chang (2013).
A broad definition of self-regulation could be: learning which is guided by metacognition, strategic
action (self-monitoring, self-evaluation and planning), and motivation to learn (Butler and Winne
1995, Perry, Phillips and Hutchinson 2006, Zimmerman 1990, Boekaerts and Corno 2005).
According to this definition, self-regulatory behaviour or learning has three components: metacogni-
tion, strategy use and motivation. Zimmerman (1990) outlines three key features which can be seen
in most definitions of SRL:
1. Systematic use of metacognitive motivational and/or behavioural strategies
2. A second feature is that learning is a self-oriented feedback loop. This loop is a cyclic process
in which students monitor their learning methods and strategies.
3. The third feature is ‘an indication of how and why students choose to use a particular strategy
or response’.
Zimmerman (2002: 66, cited in Magno 2009: 27) counts the following components for self-regula-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

tion: (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. Winne’s (1995) model of self-regulation views self-regulation as mainly composed
of metacognition, intrinsic motivation and strategy use. A taxonomy of self-regulatory strategies is
given by Dornyei (2001). Based on this taxonomy, a 20-item questionnaire for vocabulary learning
is also developed by Tseng, Dörnyei and Schmitt (2006). It is one of the few studies that approach
the concept of SRL in an L2 environment. Dörnyei’s (2001) taxonomy itself is based on two other
taxonomies: Kuhl (1987) (cited in Tseng et al. 2006: 85) and Corno and Kanfer’s (1993) taxonomy
of action control strategies. It has the following components:
1. commitment control
2. metacognitive control
3. satiation control
4. emotion control
5. environmental control.
In this study, all these and many other componential models of SLR were analysed to obtain the
most important components of SRL. This procedure will be detailed in the next section.

Method
Content analysis and sampling
Following the practice described in Clément, Dörnyei and Noels (1994), the content universe in
educational psychology on self-regulated learning (including models, definitions and instruments
among other sources) was vigorously analysed to find the most important, frequent and relevant,
components of self-regulated learning. Fifteen components/sub-scales were extracted from the
sources:
1. Intrinsic Motivation
2. Self-efficacy (linguistic self-confidence)
3. Self-motivation (Self-encouragement)
4. Locus of Control Orientation (Attributional Style)
5. Attitude
6. Anxiety and Stress
7. Organisation
8. Memory Strategies (Practice/Rehearsal Strategies)
9. Self-monitoring (Self-observation)
10. Self-evaluation (Self-assessment)
11. Planning and Goal Setting
12. Concentration and Sustained Attention
13. Effort Regulation (Task Persistence)
 66 Salehi and Jafari

14. Regulation of Environment (Environmental Control/Structuring)

15. Help Seeking.

Item bank
An item bank, consisting of over 900 items on sub-scales related to SRL, was developed for the
purpose of the current study. To do so, the literature, questionnaires and item databases were
explored to find instruments and items that were related to the sub-scales extracted in the above
step. To help develop better items for the questionnaire used in this study and henceforward called
the SRLLQ, the items of the bank were thoroughly reviewed and contrasted with that of the SRLLQ.
No item of the item pool (explained in the following sections) for the SRLLQ was taken directly from
this item bank. This bank was constantly used to help improve the quality of the items in the pool.
This item bank provided the researchers with samples of good quality items which were already
validated.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

First pilot
The first pilot of the SRLLQ was done on participants from a private language institute (Iran-Europe
institute). The first item pool was tested on 120 male and female (males, n = 73, females, n = 47)
EFL learners. The sample was not randomised. Their ages ranged mostly from 17 to 24. Their
language learning level ranged from elementary to upper-intermediate. ‘Interchange’ and ‘Four
Corners’ series were taught as their coursebooks.

Item pool one

The first version of the items was developed. Since Likert scale self-analysis questionnaires are
additive in nature, the number of the items devoted to each scale is very important. We tried to
allocate an equal number of items to each sub-scale, (except for the anxiety scale (which consisted
of six items and was excluded from the second item pool)). For the purposes of reliability, Dörnyei
(2003) proposes that one allocate four items to each component of the questionnaire. Thus, four
items were allocated to each sub-scale in the first pool. The items were concurrently written both
in English and Persian. The reasons as to why the Persian version was used for validation of the
questionnaire are discussed below. Consulting the items in the item bank, International Personality
Item Pool and the related literature, the first draft of the SRLLQ items was written. The draft was
continuously read, edited and modified.
Originally, the English version of the items was written in natural English without considering
readability of the items and without simplifying them. Then, they were simplified lexically because,
1. The target audience of the SRLLQ is intended to be learners with varied linguistic levels.
Simplifying the items will increase the availability of the questionnaire for lower-level EFL
learners.
2. Simplifying the items will reduce instances of misunderstanding and increase the readability of the
items. Also, readability measures increase the validity of the questionnaire (Radhakrishna 2007).
In simplifying the items, the following considerations were taken into account: the words of the
item pool were checked for simplicity and easiness against two frequency lists which were based
on two different corpora: the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of Contemporary
American English (COCA). More specifically for developing the items of the questionnaire, we
chose only the words which were in the range of the first 2 000 words of these corpora, with the
exception of language classroom jargons (e.g. ‘grammatical’). The description of the two corpora is
as follows:
1. British National Corpus (BNC): Rayson and Wilson’s (2001) word frequency list was used. It is a
rank-ordered frequency list which is based on the BNC.
2. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): Davies’ (2011) frequency word list, which
is based on COCA, was used.
These two corpora were constantly used to simplify the items. Based on the data from these
corpora, or lists, we made sure the words in the construction of items do not exceed the 2 000 word
limit. These two lists are not lemma-based; they are ‘word’ frequency list, and not ‘word family’ lists.
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 67

Expert judgment and sub-scales evaluation checklist

To increase the content validity of the SRLLQ and to make certain that the sub-scales extracted
from educational psychology literature in the content sampling stage, as explained above, were
essential to be included in the item pool, experts’ evaluation of these sub-scales was obtained
through a sub-scales evaluation checklist. We asked a number of published experts in educational
psychology to give their judgments on the necessity of the sub-scales of the SRLLQ through an
evaluation questionnaire. Expert review can be used as a pre-testing method prior to launching
the procedures for psychometric validity. Olson (2010) provides empirical evidence that experts
consulted for a questionnaire review can ‘discern questions that manifest data quality problems’
(295).
In this evaluation questionnaire, an item is devoted to each component (13 components or
sub-scales overall). The questionnaire and other explanations were sent to 63 educational psychol-
ogists via email in Microsoft Word format. The psychologists were of different nationalities. Eleven
experts agreed to fill in the checklist. They were not chosen based on any specific criteria. Their
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

email addresses were found on their articles and personal websites. They were asked to judge
the necessity of each component. For example, for the item which relates to self-efficacy a widely
accepted explanation of self-efficacy (or sometimes the definition used in this study) is first given,
then they are asked to say whether they agree that self-efficacy is an underlying component
for self-regulation or not. If yes, how much. The results showed that the ‘anxiety’ and ‘self-motiva-
tion’ sub-scales received significantly lower appeal in the experts’ view. Accordingly, it was decided
to exclude these sub-scales from pilot two. The Likert type chosen for this checklist was a four-point
Likert scale comprising of the following items:
1. Not Important
2. Somewhat Important
3. Very Important
4. Essential

Follow-up cognitive interview and think-aloud protocol

To track down vague or ambiguous items, a group of the students from the target sample were
interviewed through a verbal report protocol. This was done to ensure the response validity of the
items. They were asked to report on the cases of misunderstanding, ambiguity in the items, clarity
of the instructions, readability of items, etc. Nine EFL elementary and intermediate learners were
chosen to conduct face-to-face interviews with them. The participants went over the items with the
researchers one by one. They were constantly asked to think aloud and express their feelings while
answering. The researchers made sure that the participants understood all the sentences correctly.
The interviews were conducted in Persian, and the Persian version of the items was used for
interviewing. During the course of the interview, if an item sounded defective to the researchers, the
interviewee was asked to stop and the researchers would ask him/her more specific questions to
track down the possibly defective aspect(s) of the item.

Statistical analysis
One the most important aims of the pilot work is to reduce the items of the item pool by means of
statistical procedures such as correlation, internal consistency, variance, etc. In the first pilot of the
study, the items were modified based on Cronbach’s alpha statistic and variances of the items, i.e.
items 12, 33, 49 were revised, because they suffered from low reliability coefficients.

Second pilot
The questionnaire used in the first pilot had 15 sub-scales. In pilot two, according to the experts’
judgments (the results of which are shown in the results section), two of the sub-scales (anxiety and
self-motivation) were omitted from the study. Then a new item was constructed and added to each
sub-scale, making the second item pool reach 65 items in total.
The questionnaire used in the second pilot was tested on 192 male and female (males: n = 124,
females: n = 66) EFL learners learning English in Iranian private and governmental language
 68 Salehi and Jafari

institutes. The sampling of the population for pilot two was also that of a convenience sampling.
They were chosen from language institutes in Tehran and Mazandaran. Their ages ranged from 14
to 47. They had different language competence levels. Their language learning level mostly ranged
from elementary to intermediate, with rare cases of advanced levels. They studied ‘Interchange’,
‘Four Corners’, ‘Passages” and ‘Top Notch’ series as their main coursebooks. They filled in the
Persian version of the questionnaire. In some of the classes, due to time restrictions, the partici-
pants were allowed to fill the SRLLQ at home and return it in their next session.
By means of repeated factor analyses, reliability estimates and variance calculations, 21
defective items – mostly defective due to causing factor pollution and reduction of alpha – were
identified and removed from the second pool. After these deletions, there remained two items in
‘locus of control’, ‘self-evaluation’ and the ‘concentration’ sub-scales each.

Item pool two

In this phase, the items went mainly through the following changes:
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

• The items deleted in the stage described in the statistical analysis section above were rewritten
and replaced by new items.
• Based on the results of the expert judgment checklist, two sub-scales were deleted. Anxiety
sub-scale and the self-motivation sub-scale were deleted. The judgments of the experts on these
two sub-scales seemed less favourable than on the other sub-scales.
• When writing the items in the item pool phase, lexical simplicity of the items was a main focus, as
described above. In line with the purposes of the current study to construct simple items, some
items were further lexically simplified to increase readability.
• In addition to lexical considerations in the first pool/pilot, in the second one grammatical considera-
tions came into focus too. We tried to choose simple tenses, the voice of sentences was changed
at times, and some items were reversed or paraphrased so that they would become simpler.

Expert review (applied linguists)

An expert review method was used with a group of experts in applied linguistics. Following the
suggestion put forward by Dörnyei (2003), a group of applied linguists were consulted, to obtain
their views and judgment on the items. An evaluation questionnaire along with the pilot two items
and their corresponding sub-scales and their definitions were given to four applied linguists. They
all held a PhD degree in Applied Linguistics and were of different nationalities. They were contacted
through email and asked to judge the items based on six criteria. A checklist was built to assess the
items based on these criteria.
1. Double-barrelled
2. Vague
3. Unrepresentative
4. Hard
5. Sensitive
6. Burdensome.

Translation and translation quality check

From the beginning, every item was written both in English and Persian and every change was
done simultaneously on both equivalents. This was done in line with the aims of the current
research to make parallel versions of the SRLLQ. The Persian version of the items was used for
piloting the questionnaire in the first and second pilot. This was done due to the facts that,
1. the proficiency levels of the participants were varied, and in some cases there were beginner
students who had difficulty even understanding the words below the 2 000 criterion discussed
above;
2. the comprehension and readability of the questionnaire items should not affect the results,
especially when psychometric properties are involved. Misunderstanding the items would
jeopardise the reliability and validity of the instrument. Since maximum reliability and validity were
the focus of this study, researcher decided not to risk giving the English version to the students;
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 69

3. filling in a questionnaire in a mother tongue is naturally less anxiety-provoking and the question-
naire would not remind the respondents as much of an ‘exam-like’ condition, which sometimes
is the case with EFL learners, according to the researchers’ considered opinion;
4. filling in the questionnaire in a mother tongue would be less time-consuming for the
respondents.
The corollary of this might be the reduction of the probability of respondents under-reporting their
SRL behaviours and processes due to questionnaire’s lengthiness.
The quality of the translated items was investigated by,
1. students (by asking them to report or indicate the confusing words, phrases or items in the
Persian version to check for the clarity of the translations);
2. translation specialists (by asking them to check the equivalence between the English and
Persian items, and the clarity of translation). The items list was given to three translation
experts, each holding an MA in Translation Studies, to check if the translations were clear
and equivalent. They were asked to suggest new equivalents for defective translations. Their
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

suggestions were used to rewrite the Persian translations.

Results and Discussion

In this study, Cronbach reliability, split-half reliability, variance, exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were employed. EFA and CFA were used in the second
pilot. While EFA can be done through SPSS, CFA must be carried out based on software which
support SEM (structural equation modelling). In this study, the Analysis of Moment Structures
(AMOS) V. 21 program was utilised to run CFA analyses. The reason for using AMOS was that, as
opposed to many other packages, AMOS has a graphical interface and is diagram-based.
The overall internal consistency reliability of the pilot one items was 0.85 and final version of the
SRLLQ (13 sub-scales, 41 items) is 0.74. The split-half reliability for the questionnaire is 0.79. The
pool of the second pilot (i.e. the second pool) had 65 items and 12 sub-scales. Each sub-scale
had five items. After EFA analyses and reliability measures were carried out, the items which
caused factor pollution and those items which had low factor loadings were removed. Ultimately,
the second pool was reduced to 44 items, then further to 41 items. The factor analysis matrix of
these 44 items is displayed below in Table 1. The table shows the results of the exploratory factor
analysis of the final version of SRLLQ. According to Field’s (2005) suggestion, the loadings below
0.4 were removed though a function in SPSS v.20. Items 27, 41 and 43 were further deleted from
the final version, due to the fact that they lacked significant loadings (i.e. they were < 0.4) on any of
the 13 factors.
CFA is model-driven. Here, the proposed model which naturally evolves is to assume that each
sub-scale together with its items is a model. In a structural model (see Figure 1), ovals indicate a
latent variable (i.e. a factor of the questionnaire), rectangles show an observed variable (i.e. an
item of the questionnaire) and small circles are used to indicate measurement error specific to each
of the observed indicators. In the following diagrams, the standardised regression weight (factor
loading) and measurement error associated with each observed variable is displayed.
Item 53 has received the lowest regression weight, although its factor loading in EFA was
satisfactory. On the other hand, item 62 did not load under any factor in EFA, but in CFA it has a
good regression weight. Item 18 also has not received satisfactory weight.
Goodness-of-fit indices compare the hypothesised models with the existing data to see if the
model fits the data and if it is supported by the data. There are numerous fit indices. In this study,
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) were used
as indices to check the model fit. The acceptable figure is different according different sources;
however, an index in the region of 5 for RMSEA and an index around 8 for CFI are usually good. In
Table 2, the summary of the model fit for all of the scales are displayed.
The model fit for all of the analysed sub-scales or models are satisfactory; help-seeking has less
than satisfactory RMSEA index fit, however, its CFI fit is quite acceptable. CFA could not be done
on the following sub-scales: concentration, self-evaluation and locus of control. The reason was
that AMOS software needed at least three observed variables for each separate model. Of course,
 70 Salehi and Jafari

this does not mean that these sub-scales should be rejected; these sub-scales have minimum
possible items. According to the regressions weights and fit indices we can say that all models
(which are sub-scales) are accepted.

Table 1: Factor loadings for the SRLLQ (n = 292, 44 items)

Items & Component

Sub-Scales F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13
03 Intr. Mot. 0.836
04 Intr. Mot. 0.718
02 Intr. Mot. 0.651
05 Intr. Mot. 0.626
01 Intr. Mot. 0.490
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

08 Self-Eff. 0.897
10 Self-Eff. −0.880
09 Self-Eff. −0.673
15 Loc of Con. 0.854
11 Loc of Con. 0.830
19 Attitude 0.923
16 Attitude 0.894
17 Attitude 0.839
24 Organisation −0.921
21 Organisation −0.750
27 Mem. Strat. −0.707
26 Mem. Strat. 0.579
29 Mem. Strat. −0.413
28 Mem. Strat. 0.405
31 Self-Mon. 0.891
34 Self-Mon. 0.792
33 Self-Mon. 0.541
38 Self-Eval. 0.920
40 Self-Eval. 0.893
44 Planning 0.724
43 Planning 0.663
41 Planning 0.566
* 42 Planning
46 Concent. −0.905
47 Concent. −0.898
52 Effort −0.836
54 Effort −0.823
53 Effort −0.450
60 Reg. of Envir. 0.700
59 Reg. of Envir. 0.635
57 Reg. of Envir. 0.549
58 Reg. of Envir. 0.500
56 Reg.of Envir. 0.417
* 64 Help
65 Help 0.889
63 Help 0.873
61 Help 0.414
* 62 Help
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation
a. Rotation converged in 38 iterations
*Item deleted
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 71

Except for memory strategies sub-scale, the Cronbach reliabilities of the SRLLQ’s pilot two
sub-scales range by and large from 70 to 94. With an alpha of 0.37, memory strategies sub-scale
has the poorest reliability. The reason is unknown to the researcher. In rare cases, this might be a
sample-specific problem, that is, on a different sample, this problem might be partially alleviated. It
might possibly be the case that the low reliability is a consequence of a deficiency or deficiencies
in one or more items of this sub-scale. As a matter of course, the items were deleted one by one
from this sub-scale to see if the reliability would improve or not. Yet, no sizeable improvement was
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

Figure 1: The structural model of the SRLLQ showing latent and observed variables and measurement errors
 72 Salehi and Jafari

Table 2: Model fit summary with RMSEA and CFI indices

Sub-scales RMSEA CFI

1. Intrinsic Motivation 0.36 0.99
2. Self-efficacy 0.46 1
4. Attitude 0.51 1
5. Organisation 0.57 1
6. Memory Strategies 0.48 0.64
7. Self-monitoring 0.45 1
9. Planning & Goal Setting 0.43 0.96
11. Effort Regulation 0.73 1
12. Regulation of Environment 0.54 0.87
13. Help Seeking 0.21 0.86
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

observed. All in all, an additional third pilot with new items on memory strategies sub-scale might
rectify the situation.
The SRLLQ has 13 sub-scales. Having more sub-scales increases the content coverage, and
therefore content validity. An advantage of SRLLQ is that it has more scales than many other
self-regulated learning scales. For instance, Kadioğlu, Uzuntiryaki and Capa Aydin’s (2011)
questionnaire had eight sub-scales. Tseng et al.’s (2006) questionnaire had five sub-scales. And
the upshot of this is the decrease in the items of the pool – in this study’s case, four in the first pilot,
five in the second – for each sub-scale.
The feedback obtained on the items from the participants in the pilots and the interviews shows
that the participants were interested in the subject and contents of the items. This interest was
also noticed in some of their teachers. For instance, they asked for a copy of the questionnaire
to evaluate their students on the subjects addressed in the questionnaire, though they were not
cognisant of the sub-scales of the questionnaire.

Conclusions
In this study a questionnaire was developed to measure self-regulated language learning. The
questionnaire has 13 sub-scales. Its construct validity is supported by CFA and EFA and it has an
acceptable reliability coefficient.
The burden of educating students to be self-regulated learners is, to a considerable extent, on the
shoulders of teachers. They can make use of questionnaires to check the self-regulated behaviour
of the students. Questionnaires can be an invaluable asset to measure the amount of self-regula-
tion in their students. With them, teachers can dig up a substantial amount of valuable informa-
tion from their students with very limited resources and little effort. The questionnaire developed in
this study can be used for diagnostic purposes by teachers to measure the level of self-regulation
in EFL/ESL students to see if remedial actions are necessary. Also, the SRLLQ can be used for
research purposes to investigate the inter-correlations between SRL’s sub-components, because
exploring the role each sub-component plays in making up SRL broadens our understanding of
SRL. A by-product of the SRLLQ, is a sub-scales model of SRL, based on which the questionnaire
items were developed. This 13-component model of SRL can be added to the current research
literature as a new model.
It is also worthy of notice that words which are easy or frequent for native speakers must not
necessarily be easy or frequent for L2 speakers. It would also be of benefit, if the difficulty level and
frequency of the words of the items were checked against a learner corpus like that of Cambridge’s
International Learner Corpus. For example, every teacher would admit that most L2 learners learn
the word ‘tired’ before the word ‘task’, and the former is easier for them to understand than the
latter. However, in BNC and COCA ‘tired’ is less frequent than ‘task’.
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 73

One of the best ways to generate an item pool for a questionnaire is to brainstorm the target
group on the scale or sub-scales through interviews, ‘think-alouds’ and other prompts. This
technique, to some extent, relieves the burden of item production from the survey developer.

References
AMOS 21. 2012. SPSS Inc, Meadville, USA.
Ayatollahi MA, Rasekh AE, Tavakoli M. 2012. Learner beliefs, self-regulated learning strategies and
12 academic reading comprehension: A structural equation modelling analysis. World Applied
Sciences Journal 17: 3649.
Bachman LF. 2000. Learner-directed assessment in ESL. In: Ekbatani G, Pierson H. (eds),
Learner-directed assessment in ESL. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp ix-xii.
Bandura A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological
Review 84: 191215.
Boekaerts M, Corno L. 2005. Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review 54: 199231.

Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M. 2001. Handbook of self-regulation. California: Academic
Press.
Butler DL, Winne PH. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review
of Educational Research 65: 245281.
Byram M (ed). 2001. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London New
York: Routledge.
Clément R, Dörnyei Z, Noels KA. 1994. Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the
foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44: 417448.
Cohen AD. 2007. Coming to terms with language learner strategies: surveying the experts. In:
Cohen AD, Macaro E. (eds), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice.
Oxford: OUP. pp 2945.
Cokley KO, Bernard N, Cunningham D, Motoike J. 2001. A psychometric investigation of the
Academic Motivation Scale using a United States sample. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counselling and Development 34: 109119.
Corno L, Kanfer R. 1993. The role of volition in learning and performance. Review of Research in
Education 19: 301341.
Davies M. 2011. Word frequency data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English
(COCA). http://www.wordfrequency.info. [accessed 15 December 2011].
Deci EL, Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Ryan RM. 1991. Motivation and education: The
self-determination perspective. The Educational Psychologist 74: 852859.
Dörnyei Z. 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal 78: 273284
Dörnyei Z. 2001. Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dörnyei Z. 2003. Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration and
processing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Field A. 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.
Gardner RC. 1982. Language attitudes and language learning. In: Ryan EB, Giles H. Attitudes
towards language variation. London: Edward Arnold. pp 132–147.
Goodpasture JE, Lindner RW, Thomas M. 2007. A study of the self-regulated learning inventory on
a HBCU student population in allied health. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and
Practice 5: 1-5.
Griffiths C. 2003. Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31: 367383.
Griffiths C. 2008. Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 74 Salehi and Jafari

Haughton G, Dickinson L. 1988. Collaborative assessment by masters’ candidates in a tutor based

system. Language Testing 5: 233246.
Ifenthaler D. 2012. Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-
solving scenarios. Educational Technology & Society 15: 38–52.
Kadioğlu C, Uzuntiryaki E, Capa Aydin Y. 2011. Development of self-regulatory strategies scale.
Education and Science 36: 11-23.
Khezrlou S, Sadeghi K. 2012. Self-regulated vocabulary strategy use: Implications for CALL and
individual variables. MEXTESOL Journal 36: 117.
Kolb D. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kondo M, Ishikawaa Y, Smith C, Sakamotoa K, Shimomuraa H, Wadaa N. 2012. Mobile assisted
language learning in university EFL courses in Japan: Developing attitudes and skills for
self-regulated learning. ReCALL 24: 169187.
Leech G, Rayson P, Wilson A. 2001. Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

British national corpus. London: Longman.

Leong DJ, Bodrova E. 2006. Developing self-regulation: The Vygotskian view. Academic Exchange
Quarterly 10: 3337.
Linder RW, Bruce RH, Wayne IG. 1996. The design and development of the ‘Self-Regulated
Learning Inventory’: A status report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401321).
Linder RW, Harris B. 1992. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement in college students.
Paper presented at the 1992 American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, 2024 April. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345626).
Linder RW, Harris B. 1994. The development and evaluation of a self-regulated learning
inventory and its implications for instructor-independent instruction. In: Proceedings of Selected
Research and Development Presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348010).
Magno C. 2009. Assessing and developing self-regulated learning. The Assessment Handbook 1:
2642.
Meloy FA. 2009. Managing the maelstrom self-regulated learning, academic outcomes, and the
student learning experience in a second-degree accelerated baccalaureate nursing program.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA.
Messick S. 1989. Validity. In: Linn RJ. (ed), Educational measurement. New York: American
Council on Education/Macmillan. pp 13–103.
Mizumoto A, Takeuchi O. 2012. Adaptation and validation of self-regulating capacity in vocabulary
learning scale. Applied Linguistics 33: 8391.
Mousavi SA. 2009. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Language Testing. (4th edn). Tehran: Rahnama
Press.
Nakata Y. 2010. Toward a framework for self-regulated language learning. TESL Canada Journal/
Revue TESL Du Canada 27: 110.
Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and
seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31: 199218.
Olson K. 2010. An examination of questionnaire evaluation by expert reviewers. Field Methods 22:
295318. doi: 10.1177/1525822X10379795.
O’Malley JM, Chamot AU, Stewner-Manzanares G, Russo RP, Kupper L. 1985. Learning strategy
application with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly 19: 557–584.
Oppenheim AN. 1992. Questionnaire design, interviewing, and attitude measurement (2nd edn).
New York: Pinter Publishers.
Ormrod JE. 2003. Educational psychology: Developing learners (4th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Oxford R. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Oxford R. 1994. Language learning strategies: an update. ERIC document ED 456 670 [available
online. Accessed April 2013].
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 75

Oxford R. 1996. Language learning strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives.
Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Paltridge B, Phakiti A. 2010. Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics. New
York: Continuum.
Patten BP, Benati AG. 2010. Key terms in second language acquisition. NY: MPG Books
Perry NE, Phillips L, Hutchinson LR. 2006. Preparing student teachers to support for self-regulated
learning. Elementary School Journal 106: 237254.
Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, McKeachie WJ. 1991. A manual for the use of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Teeh. Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan, School of Education, USA.
Pintrich PR. 2003. Self-regulated learning. In: Guthrie JW. (ed), Encyclopaedia of Education. New
York, NY: Macmillan. pp 16981701.
Pintrich PR. 2005. The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich
PR, Zeider M. (eds), Handbook of self-regulation (2nd edn). Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

pp 452502.
Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, McKeachie WJ. 1991. A manual for the use of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National
Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, USA.
Politzer RL, McGroarty M. 1985. An exploratory study of learning behaviours and their relationship
to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19: 10323.
Puustinen M, Pulkkinen L. 2001. Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research 45: 269286.
Radhakrishna RB. 2007. Tips for developing and testing questionnaires/instruments. Journal of
Extension 45. Article 1TOT2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/tt2.php. [Accessed
April 2013].
Revelle W, Zinbarg RE. 2009. Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma.
Psychometrika 74: 145154.
Richards JC, Schmidt R. 2010. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics.
Harlow: Longman.
Rose H. 2012a. Language learning strategy research: Where do we go from here? Studies in
Self-Access Learning Journal 3: 137148.
Rose H. 2012b. Reconceptualising strategic learning in the face of self-regulation: Throwing
language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied Linguistics 33: 9298.
Rubin J. 1975. What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9: 4151.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 5467.
Salkind NJ, Rasmussen K. (eds). 2008. Encyclopaedia of Educational Psychology. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963848.
Siniscalco MT, Auriat N. 2005. Questionnaire design. Paris: IIEP
Stern HH. 1975. What can we learn from the good language learner? The Canadian Modern
Language Review 31: 304318.
Tabanlioğlu S. 2003. The relationship between learning styles and language learning strategies of
pre-intermediate EAP students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey.
Takeuchi O, Griffiths C, Coyle D. 2007. Applying strategies to contexts: the role of individual,
situational, and group differences. In: Cohen AD, Macaro E. (eds), Language learner strategies:
Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: OUP. pp 6992.
Tseng W, Dörnyei Z, Schmitt N. 2006. A new approach to assessing strategic learning: the case of
self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics 27: 78102.
Ushioda E. 2003. Motivation as a socially mediated process. In: Little D, Ridley J, Ushioda E.
(eds), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and
assessment. Dublin: Authentik. pp 90102.
 76 Salehi and Jafari

Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C, Vallieres EF. 1992. The Academic
Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 52: 10031017.
VanPatten B, Benati AG. 2010. Key terms in second language acquisition. New York: Continuum.
Wang C, Kim DH, Bong M, Ahn HS. 2013. Korean college students’ self-regulated learning
strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in learning English as a foreign language. Asian EFL Journal
15: 81112.
Wang C, Schwab G, Fenn P, Chang M. 2013. Self-efficacy and self-regulated learning strategies
for English language learners: Comparison between Chinese and German college students.
Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology 3: 173191.
Weinstein CE, Palmer DR, Schulte AC. 1987. LASSI: Learning and study strategies inventory.
Clearwater: H & H Publishing.
Wentzel K, Wigfield A. 2009. Handbook of motivation at school. New York: Routledge.
West M. 1953. A general service list of English words. London: Longman.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

Whipp JL, Chiarelli S. 2004. Self-regulation in a web-based course: a case study. Educational
Technology Research and Development 52: 522.
Winne PH. 1995. Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist 30: 173187.
Winne PH, Hadwin AF. 2010. Self-regulated learning and socio-cognitive theory. In: Peterson P,
Baker E, McGaw B. (eds), International Encyclopaedia of Education (3rd edn). Oxford: Elsevier.
pp 503508.
Woodrow L. 2005. The challenge of measuring language learning strategies. Foreign Language
Annals 38: 9098. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02456.x.
Yang Y, Green BS. 2011. Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment 29: 377392.
Zimmerman BJ. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice 41:
6472.
Zimmerman BJ. 1990. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist 25 317.
Zimmerman BJ. 2001. Self-regulated learning. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB. (eds), International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences. New York: Elsevier. pp 1385513859.
Zimmerman BJ. 2005. Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts M,
Pintrich PR, Zeidner M. (eds), Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Academic Press. pp 13-35.
Zimmerman BJ, Bonner S, Kovach R. 1996. Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond
achievement to self-efficacy. Washington: APA.
Zimmerman BJ. 2000. Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts
M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M. (eds), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press. pp
1339.
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 77

Appendix 1: The SRLLQ, English and Persian Version Items

1. Intrinsic Motivation
1. For me, successful learning of English is more important than my grades or opinion of my
teachers, family or friends.
.‫ ﺧﺎﻧﻮﺍﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺎﻧﻢ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‬،‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﺮﻩ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻌﻠﻢ‬
2. When learning English, I like difficult exercises more than the easy ones.
.‫ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻦﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﺷﻮﺍﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻦﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﺗﺮﺟﻴﺢ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻢ‬
3. I learn English because I enjoy it.
.‫ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻡ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻟﺬﺕ ﻣﻲﺑﺮﻡ‬
4. I learn English because I want my friends, family or others to have a better opinion about me.
[Reversed]
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

.‫ ﺧﺎﻧﻮﺍﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬،‫ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺎﻥ‬
5. Learning English often gives me a good feeling.
.‫ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺣﺲ ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‬

2. Self-efficacy
8. I think, I will not be able to reach my goals in learning English. [Reversed]
.‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻡ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺎﻳﻲ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻡ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻓﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ‬
9. I am sure that one day I can speak English easily.
.‫ﺍﻃﻤﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ ﻛﻪ ﺭﻭﺯﻱ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻢ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﺣﺘﻲ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﻛﻨﻢ‬
10. Nothing can stop me from learning English.
.‫ﻫﻴﭻ ﭼﻴﺰ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﺮﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺯ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‬

3. Locus of Control Orientation (Attributional Style)

11. If I have not learned English well in the past, it has been because of my teachers. [Reversed]
.‫ ﻋﻠﺘﺶ ﻣﻌﻠﻢﻫﺎﻳﻢ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬،‫ﺍﮔﺮ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﺍﻡ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﻳﺎﺩ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻡ‬
15. Usually, when I do poorly in English tests, I consider only myself responsible for it.
.‫ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺧﻮﺩﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻢ‬،‫ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺯﻣﻮﻥﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﺑﺪﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ‬

4. Attitude
16. I believe, learning English is necessary for everyone.
.‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻡ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
17. In my opinion, learning English is not worth spending the time. [Reversed]
.‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻡ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﺶ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻛﺮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‬
19. I like English more than other foreign languages.
.‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ‬

5. Organisation
21. When I study I try to take notes of the new points and make a summary of them.
.‫ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﻢ ﻧﻜﺎﺕ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻨﻮﻳﺴﻢ ﻭ ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﻛﻨﻢ‬
23. Usually, I draw charts or tables for easier learning of new things.
.‫ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﻭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﻣﻲﻛﺸﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺁﺳﺎﻥﺗﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺭﺍ ﻳﺎﺩ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻡ‬
 78 Salehi and Jafari

24. Usually, I try to put similar English words or structures in one group to learn them better.
.‫ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺳﺘﻪﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‬،‫ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ‬

6. Memory Strategies (Practice/Rehearsal Strategies)

26. To make my listening better, I repeat listening exercises several times.
.‫ ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺷﻨﻴﺪﺍﺭﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﮔﻮﺵ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻢ‬،‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﺷﻨﻴﺪﺍﺭﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
27. To improve my speaking, I take every chance to practice my speaking skill with other
learners.
‫ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﻓﺮﺻﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻢ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬،‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‬
.‫ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻦ ﻛﻨﻢ‬
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

29. Usually, I don’t get the chance to practice my English notes. [Reversed]
.‫ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﻓﺮﺻﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺗﺎ ﻳﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﻛﻨﻢ‬

7. Self-Monitoring (Self-Observation)
31. When I am speaking English I try to watch myself to see if I am speaking correctly or not.
.‫ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻪ‬
33. When I am doing a language learning exercise, sometimes I stop and ask myself if I am using
the best method to solve it or not.
.‫ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻨﺎﺕ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻲﭘﺮﺳﻢ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‬
34. When I am writing in English, I try to watch myself not to make grammatical or spelling
mistakes.
.‫ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﻣﺮﺍﻗﺐ ﺍﺷﺘﺒﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﻱ ﻳﺎ ﺍﻣﻼﻳﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﺷﻢ‬،‫ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﻣﻲﻧﻮﻳﺴﻢ‬

8. Self-Evaluation (Self-Assessment)
38. After doing an exercise, I go back to it to see if I used the best strategy to do it or not.
.‫ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻳﻚ ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻢ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺣﻞ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻡ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻪ‬
40. After finishing an English test, I give myself a grade based on my performance.
.‫ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩﻡ ﻧﻤﺮﻩﺍﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﻡ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻢ‬،‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻣﺘﺤﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬

9. Planning & Goal Setting

41. Usually I don’t make a plan for learning English; I can learn English without plans.
[Reversed]
.‫ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪﺭﻳﺰﻱ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﻢ؛ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻢ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻳﺎﺩ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻡ‬
42. I have some clear plans for learning English and try to follow them.
.‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ ﻭ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﭘﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﻛﻨﻢ‬
44. I had a lot of goals for learning English in the past but I wasn't able to reach most of them.
[Reversed]
.‫ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﺮﺳﻴﺪﻩﺍﻡ‬،‫ﺩﺭ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻡ‬

10. Concentration & Sustained Attention

46. It is difficult for me to stop my thoughts when I am learning or studying English. [Reversed]
.‫ ﻛﻨﺘﺮﻝ ﺍﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺰﺍﺣﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﻢ ﺳﺨﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‬،‫ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2015, 33(1): 63–79 79

47. I often cannot pay full attention to what my language teacher says in the class. [Reversed]
.‫ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻢ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻢ ﻛﺎﻣﻼً ﺭﻭﻱ ﺣﺮﻑﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﻢ ﺗﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﻛﻨﻢ‬

11. Effort Regulation (Task Persistence)

52. When I don’t understand an exercise or when an exercise is difficult for me, I often stop
doing it soon. [Reversed]
.‫ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺕ ﻛﻮﺗﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺁﻥ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‬،‫ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺸﻮﻡ ﻳﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﻢ ﺳﺨﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‬
53. I repeat difficult listening exercises several times until I understand them.
.‫ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻦﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻨﻴﺪﺍﺭﻱ ﺳﺨﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺁﻧﻘﺪﺭ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺷﻮﻡ‬
54. When a reading text in my language learning book is not interesting, I try to continue reading
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:13 20 May 2015

it although I don’t enjoy it.

.‫ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺩﻫﻢ ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﻟﺬﺕ ﻧﻤﻲﺑﺮﻡ‬،‫ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺘﻨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻢ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‬

12. Regulation of Environment (Environmental Control/Structuring)

56. When I study English, if the environment is not appropriate I try to change it (for example by
asking people to be quiet) or I leave it.
‫ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻢ )ﻣﺜﻼ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺍﻫﻢ ﺳﻜﻮﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺖ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ( ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬،‫ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
.‫ﺭﺍ ﺗﺮﻙ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‬
57. I believe that language learning environment is important and it has an effect on learning.
.‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻡ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‬
58. I have some special places for studying English (for example the library or my room).
.‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺤﻴﻂﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﻲ )ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﺎ ﺍﺗﺎﻕ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﻢ( ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‬
59. I can study English better in quiet places rather than noisy places.
.‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﻴﻂﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﺭﺍﻡ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺤﻴﻂﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻠﻮﻍ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻢ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻧﻢ‬
60. Before I start studying English, I set the temperature and the light of my room.
.‫ ﺩﻣﺎ ﻭ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﺗﺎﻗﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‬،‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬

13. Help Seeking

61. If I find someone who knows English better than me, I would like to get help from him/her.
.‫ ﻣﺎﻳﻞ ﺍﻡ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭ ﻛﻤﻚ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻡ‬،‫ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻛﺴﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩ ﻛﻨﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺴﻠﻄﺶ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
63. When I have a problem in English, I usually think and see if I should solve it myself or get
help from others.
.‫ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻤﻚ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ ﻳﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺧﻮﺩﻡ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﻢ‬،‫ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻢ‬
65. When I don’t understand the meaning of an English sentence, it is usually difficult for me to
ask it from others. [Reversed]
.‫ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً ﺑﺮﺍﻳﻢ ﺳﺨﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺴﻲ ﺑﭙﺮﺳﻢ‬،‫ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﻳﻚ ﺟﻤﻠﻪﻱ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻲﻓﻬﻤﻢ‬