Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412

International Conference on Teaching and Learning English as an Additional Language,

GlobELT 2016, 14-17 April 2016, Antalya, Turkey

Analysing University English Preparatory Class Students’ Self-

Regulation Strategies and Motivational Beliefs Using Different
Variables
Hakan Karatasa,*, Bulent Alcia, Mehtap Bademcioglub, Atilla Erginc
a
Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences
b
Yildiz Technical University, Graduate School of Social Sciences
c
Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Abstract

Learning English which is the most widely used foreign language has become a necessity in globalised world. Yet, in Turkey, some
problems exist about it thanks to lack of motivation and knowledge about self-regulation strategies. In this study, it was tried to
explore if the students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs show significant differences in terms of gender, language
level, receiving English preparatory training, and the kind of high school. The research group included 320 male (65.6 %) and 168
female (34.4 %) English preparatory students at Istanbul Technical University. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
developed by Pintrinch and De Groot (1990) and adapted in Turkish by Uredi (2005) was used as the data collection tool. Data
were analysed using independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA and the Scheffe’s test via SPSS 20.0 software program. T-test
findings indicated female students’ cognitive strategies dimension score is higher. Yet, there are no significant differences in the
students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs according to receiving preparatory training. The ANOVA test’s result
demonstrated high school differentiation does not affect self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs. However, the Scheffe’s
test results revealed the students’ self-regulation, cognitive strategies and intrinsic value perception change over depending on
language level.
© 2016 The
© 2016 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GlobELT 2016.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GlobELT 2016
Keywords: Self-Regulation Strategies; Motivational Beliefs; Foreign Language.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-212-383-3145; fax: +90-212-383-3149.

E-mail address: hkaratas@yildiz.edu.tr

1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GlobELT 2016
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.056
404 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412

1. Introduction

The goal of language learning is described by MacIntyre (2002) as an authentic communication between persons
of different languages and cultural backgrounds. Language learners need to set their learning goals, make their learning
plans, choose their learning strategies, and evaluate their learning outcomes in order to achieve this goal. That is to
say, learners are expected to use self-regulation strategies. On the other hand, many researchers such as Gardner
(1972), and Wigfield and Wentzel (2007) suggest that motivational beliefs can influence language learning outcomes
independently from language aptitude. Because of this, the role of motivational beliefs is an interesting question that
deserves to be studied as well as using self-regulation strategies in language learning which is influenced by complex
factors. Therefore, an examination not only of using self-regulation strategies among students, but also of their
motivational beliefs about language learning is certainly relevant in improving language education for all students.

2. Literature review

2.1. Self-regulated learning and foreign language learning

Self-regulation is stated as a vital issue in teaching and learning process by many researchers such as Steffen (2006)
and Zimmerman and Schunk (2001). Since many researches have been conducted on this topic, there are different
definitions of self-regulation. For instance, while it is described as a process for achieving personal goals where
thoughts, feelings and actions of an individual are adjusted into means to the end by Zimmerman (2000), Wolters,
Pintrich and Karabenick (2003) identify it as a process where the individual is in supervision of his or her motivation
and behaviours. In accordance with these, three point arise. First of all, students participate in the learning process
readily. Second point is that they decide their own way of learning. And the last point is that students control their
learning.
There are various self-regulated learning structures such as Oxford (2011), Paris, Byrnes and Paris (2001), Pintrich
and Garcia (1991). The basic items of the different self-regulated learning models are summarised using three groups:
planning which includes goal setting, assessment of internal and external resources, and selection of appropriate
strategies, execution and monitoring which is an implementation of strategies, tracking their success, and altering
strategies as needed and evaluation of the learning outcome (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). In a cycle in Zimmerman’s
(1998) model, similar components are involved. As stated in this, learners first evaluate their learning. Then, they set
learning goals and plan appropriate strategies. After carrying out them, they monitor their performance and finish by
evaluating learning outcomes.
Over the last few decades, besides psychological and other educational studies, self-regulation has been discussed
in the foreign language teaching field. Andrade and Bunker (2009), Andrade and Evans (2013), Gunning and Oxford
(2014), Ma and Oxford (2014), and Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) have studied on this issue. And, these studies
have demonstrated that self-regulated learning’s efficacy at improving foreign language learning. As used effectively
and regularly, self-regulation strategies ease foreign language learning (Andrade & Bunker, 2009; Oxford, 2003).
Moreover, they lead to deeper learning and higher performance in language skills such as speaking (Ma & Oxford,
2014); reading comprehension (Ehrman, 1996); writing (Andrade & Evans, 2013); and vocabulary (Rasekh &
Ranjbary, 2003).

2.2. Motivational beliefs and foreign language learning

Motivational beliefs are student’s thoughts, attitudes or judgements about the environment around him/her. He or
she forms motivational beliefs through exposure to learning experiences first-hand. And, they are required for
academic achievement. Moreover, these beliefs are closely connected with each other (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2012). Self-efficacy and test anxiety are some fundamental elements in motivational beliefs. It is emphasized
that motivational beliefs can be both positive and negative. Yet, it is quite hard to change them when learners have
adopted these beliefs (Boekearts, 2002).
Self-efficacy may differ in various domains. And, it is usually about evaluation by students regarding their future
performance. Because of these, self-efficacy should be evaluated from various aspects (Bandura, 1997). The results
 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412 405

of study which was conducted by Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992) revealed self-efficacy levels in
self-regulated learning was equivalent to their academic self-confidence. According to Pajares (2012), students’
selection of activities, effort and perseverance can be predicted through self-efficacy. Hardworking students are those
who are self-efficient and they usually put extra effort in learning without being exposure to an external push. But,
the other students who don’t have enough confidence in their abilities and skills are extrinsically motivated. And, they
set their goals to complete the activity from the drive outside. Also, Pintrich (1999) has determined students enjoyed
better academic achievement as they had higher intrinsic motivation.
Test anxiety which can be defined as predicting adverse results in exams is another important factor having an
effect on motivation. And, it includes cognitive, emotional, physiological, and behavioural states (Bembenutty, 2008).
The studies of Cassady and Johnson (2002), Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece (2008), and Zeidner and Matthews (2005)
have displayed poor test performance is characteristic which is shared by students with test anxiety. Nevertheless,
Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece (2008) highlighted that motivation, self-regulation, and achievement can be improved
through controlling test anxiety with appropriate interventions. Many researches have shown academic success is
directly proportional with motivational strategies in such a way that high level of motivational strategies lead to great
academic achievement (McWhaw & Abrami, 2001; Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000). In addition to this, the researches
implemented by Hwang and Vrongistinos (2002), Kahraman and Sungur (2011), Pintrich and De Groot (1990), Uredi
and Uredi (2005) have showed self-regulatory strategies increase academic achievement.
Motivation has been broken for language learning into three parts: the desire to learn the language, exerting effort
and having positive attitudes towards the language learning process (Gardner, 1985). And, it is suggested that
integrative motivation and instrumental motivation are two types of motivation for language learning. If a learner
motivates himself/herself, he/she learns for the sake of learning a language. Apart from these, a number of studies
have revealed that motivation has a significant impact on language learning (Dornyei, 1990; Gardner, 2001;
MacIntyre, 2002). Therefore, the current study aims to find out if gender is an influential factor on the students’ self-
regulation strategies and motivational beliefs and identify if the students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational
beliefs demonstrate significant differences with regards to their language level, receiving English preparatory training,
and the kind of high school they graduated from. For these purposes, following research questions are the frame for
this study:
1. Is there a significant difference between female and male students in terms of self-regulation strategies and
motivational beliefs?
2. Is there any significant difference in students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs in terms of
receiving English preparatory training?
3. Does difference exist in students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs in terms of their language
levels?
4. Is there a significant relationship between students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs and the
kind of high school they graduated from?

3. Method

3.1. Participants and setting

The current study was conducted during 2015-2016 academic year with the participation of 320 male (65.6 %) and
168 female (34.4 %) English preparatory students at Istanbul Technical University. All participants took part in the
study voluntarily. The distribution of the sample with respect to their receiving English preparatory training, the kind
of high schools, and language levels are shown in Table 1.
406 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412

Table 1. University students participating in the survey by receiving English preparatory training, the kind of high schools, and language levels

Demographic variables f %
Receiving English preparatory training Yes 80 16.39
No 408 83.61
Total 488 100
The kind of high school Anatolian high school 326 66.8

Science high school 95 19.48

Anatolian teacher training high school 47 9.63
Open high school 9 1.84
Vocational high school 11 2.25
Total 488 100
Proficiency level Upper 55 11.27
Intermediate 259 53.07
Pre-intermediate 174 35.65
Total 488 100

3.2. Data collecting instrument

This study is based on survey design. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire developed by Pintrinch and
De Groot (1990) and adapted in Turkish by Uredi (2005) was used as the data collection tool. Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire consists of 44 items for a total. For each item, respondents were asked to rate themselves
on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). The questionnaire includes two dimensions:
self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs. In self-regulation strategies dimension, there are two scales. The
first one is using cognitive strategies (13 items). And, the second one is self-regulation (9 items). There are also three
scales in the motivational beliefs dimension: self-efficacy (9 items), intrinsic value perception (9 items), and test
anxiety (4 items).

3.3. Analysis of data

Data acquired by means of the applications of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire was analysed using
independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA and the Scheffe’s post-hoc test via SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences) 21.0 software program. The analysis of independent samples t-test was used to specify whether there was a
significant difference in university students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs according to gender
and receiving English preparatory training. Also, the analysis of one-way ANOVA was administered to examine
whether there were differences in university students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs in terms of
their foreign language levels and the high school differentiation.

4. Findings

To explore gender, language level, receiving English preparatory training, and the kinds of high school they
graduated from differences in university students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs, the data was
analysed in this section. In this section, it was given the results of these analyses.
Table 2 summarizes the following findings which include descriptive statistics on university students’ self-
regulation strategies and motivational beliefs.
 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412 407

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and maximum scores

Dimensions Sub-Dimensions N Mean Min. Max. Std. D. Std. Er.

Self-regulation UCS 488 56.60 13.00 87.00 12.12 .54

strategies
SR 488 33.29 9.00 57.00 7.20 .32

Motivational SE 488 36.67 9.00 81.00 8.61 .39

beliefs
IVP 488 41.01 9.00 63.00 9.50 .43

TA 488 12.01 4.00 28.00 5.58 .25

UCS (Using Cognitive Strategy) SR (Self-Regulation) SE (Self-Efficacy) IVP (Intrinsic Value Perception) TA (Test Anxiety)
The mean of using cognitive strategies scores of university students is 56.60, which is the highest one. Also, the
students get the highest score from using cognitive strategies dimension. As it can be seen in Table 2, the mean of
intrinsic value perception scores is 41.01, the mean of self-efficacy scores is 36.67, and the mean of self-regulation
scores is 33.29. The students get the highest score from test anxiety dimension.
Table 3 focuses on the students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs in terms of gender.

Table 3. T-Test analysis about university students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs according to gender

Dimensions Sub-Dimensions Gender N M Std. D. Std. E. t P

Self-regulation UCS Male 320 55.45 12.40 .69 2.90 .00*

strategies Female 168 58.78 11.28 .87
SR Male 320 33.55 7.28 .40 -1.08 .28*
Female 168 32.80 7.05 .54
Motivational beliefs SE Male 320 36.36 8.33 .46 1.10 .27*
Female 168 37.27 9.11 .70
IVP Male 320 40.83 9.70 .54 .57 .56*
Female 168 41.35 9.12 .70
TA Male 320 11.69 5.56 .31 1.71 .08*
Female 168 12.60 5.58 .43
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
UCS (Using Cognitive Strategy) SR (Self-Regulation) SE (Self-Efficacy) IVP (Intrinsic Value Perception) TA (Test Anxiety)
As it is observed in Table 3, for using cognitive strategy dimension, the female students’ arithmetic mean is 58.78;
male students’ arithmetic mean is 55.45, which indicate that there is a difference in favour of female students (t=2.90,
p<.05). Yet, it can be seen that there are no significant differences between self-regulation, self-efficacy, intrinsic
value perception, test anxiety dimensions and gender. And, it can be said that gender is a significant variable on
students’ using cognitive strategy dimension.
Table 4 addresses the students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs according to receiving English
preparatory training.
408 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412

Table 4. T-Test analysis regarding university students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs according to receiving English
preparatory training

Dimensions Receiving
Sub- N M t p
preparatory Std. D. Std. E.
Dimensions
training
Self-regulation UCS Yes 80 54.97 12.19 1.39 -1.22 .22*
strategies
No 408 56.82 12.12 .60
SR Yes 80 33.81 8.19 .94 .64 .52*
No 408 33.23 7.03 .34
Motivational SE Yes 80 35.63 9.45 1.08 -1.14 .25*
beliefs
No 408 36.86 8.49 .42
IVP Yes 80 39.65 9.06 1.04 -1.31 .18*
No 408 41.22 9.58 .47
TA Yes 80 13.02 5.94 .68 1.85 .06*
No 408 11.74 5.46 .27

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

UCS (Using Cognitive Strategy) SR (Self-Regulation) SE (Self-Efficacy) IVP (Intrinsic Value Perception) TA (Test Anxiety)
Table 4 shows that there is no significant difference between students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational
beliefs in terms of receiving English preparatory training (t=-1.31; p>.05; t=-1.14; p>.05; t=1.85; p>.05; t=-1.22;
p>.05; t=.64; p>.05). Regarding these results, it can be said that receiving English preparatory training is not a
significant variable on students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs.
One-way ANOVA test was conducted to find out if there was a significant difference in the students’ self-regulation
strategies and motivational beliefs in terms of the kind of high school they graduated from and their language level.
Table 5 includes the descriptive statistics of the students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs according
to the kind of high school.

Table 5. The descriptive statistics of the university students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs in respect to the kind of high
school they graduated from

Dimensions Sub- Groups Sum of Degrees of Mean f p

dimensions squares freedom

Self-regulation UCS Between groups 893.63 4 223.40 1.52 .19*

strategies

Within groups 70735.25 484 146.45

Total 71628.88 488

SR Between groups 253.51 4 63.37 1.22 .30*

Within groups 24935.82 484 51.84

Total 25189.33 488

Motivational SE Between groups 477.01 4 119.25 1.61 .16*

beliefs
Within groups 35595.02 484 73.84
 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412 409

Total 36072.03 488

IVP Between groups 681.42 4 170.35 1.90 .10*

Within groups 43019.53 484 89.62

Total 43700.95 488

TA Between groups 53.99 4 13.49 .43 .78*

Within groups 15104.96 484 31.33
Total 15158.95 488
UCS (Using Cognitive Strategy) SR (Self-Regulation) SE (Self-Efficacy) IVP (Intrinsic Value Perception) TA (Test Anxiety)

As presented in Table 5, it is noticed that there is no significant difference in the students’ self-regulation strategies
and motivational beliefs in terms of the kind of high school (t=1.52; p>.05; t=1.22; p>.05; t=1.61; p>.05; t=1.90;
p>.05; t=.43; p>.05). The result of the ANOVA test shows that high school differentiation does not influence on their
self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs. It is also confirmed that there were no differences between groups.
Table 6 includes the descriptive statistics of the students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs in view
of their foreign language level.

Table 6. The Descriptive Statistics of the University Students’ Self-Regulation Strategies and Motivational Beliefs according to Their Foreign
Language Level

Dimensions Sub- Groups Sum of Degrees of Mean f p

dimensions squares freedom
Self- UCS Between groups 2195.58 2 1097.79 7.66 .00*
regulation Within groups 69433.28 486 143.16
strategies Total 71628.87 488
SR Between groups 612.36 2 306.18 6.01 .00*
Within groups 24576.96 486 50.88
Total 25189.33 488
Motivational SE Between groups 382.48 2 191.24 2.59 .07*
beliefs Within groups 35595.02 486 73.73
Total 36072.03 488
IVP Between groups 816.26 2 408.13 4.58 .01*
Within groups 42884.68 486 88.97
Total 43700.95 488
TA Between groups 110.95 2 55.47 6.01 .00*
Within groups 15047.99 486 31.09
Total 15158.95 488
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
There are significant differences in the students’ score of using cognitive strategies dimension (F=7.66; p<.05),
self-regulation dimension (F=6.01; p<.05), intrinsic value perception dimension (F=4.58; p<.05), and test anxiety
dimension (F=6.01; p<.05) according to their foreign language level, which is demonstrated in Table 6. It is confirmed
that there were differences between groups. But, it is observed that there are no significant differences in the students’
score of self-efficacy dimension (F=2.59; p>.05). Owing to this result, it was accepted that there were no differences
between groups. That is to say, university students’ foreign language level does not influence on self-efficacy
dimension, while it influences on using cognitive strategies, self-regulation, intrinsic value perception, and test anxiety
dimensions.
Owing to ANOVA test results, it was concluded that there were significant differences in the students’ score of
using cognitive strategies dimension (F=7.66; p<.05), self-regulation dimension (F=6.01; p<.05), intrinsic value
perception dimension (F=4.58; p<.05) and test anxiety dimension (F=6.01; p<.05) according to their foreign language
level. In order to find out the significant differences from which foreign language levels arise, the Scheffe’s post-hoc
test was conducted. The Scheffe’s test results shows there is a significant difference between intermediate and pre-
410 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412

intermediate levels (p=.01, p<.05) within using cognitive strategies dimension. And, it is determined there is a
significant difference between upper and pre-intermediate levels (p=.00, p<.05) in self-regulation dimension. Also,
within intrinsic value perception dimension, there is a significant difference between upper and pre-intermediate levels
(p=.01, p<.05). But, it is approved that there is no differences between groups in the students’ score of test anxiety
dimension.

5. Discussion

The students’ self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs were analysed in terms of gender, language level,
receiving English preparatory training, and the kind of high school in the current study. One of the findings of the
study is that gender is a significant variable on students’ using cognitive strategy, which is consistent with the previous
studies in this area. For example, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) highlighted that gender has a significant effect on the
frequency of self-regulation strategies use. Their research results show women more frequently use cognitive
strategies. Also, Kaylani (1996) has found that female learners use cognitive strategies more frequently than male
students. Yet, it was found out there are no significant differences between self-regulation, self-efficacy, intrinsic
value perception, test anxiety dimensions and gender in the present study, while Mills, Pajares and Heron (2007) found
out girls have higher self-efficacy in French learning process.
Another finding of the study is that there is a significant difference in using cognitive strategies, self-regulation,
intrinsic value perception, and test anxiety dimensions’ scores of the students when their foreign language level is
taken into consideration. Using cognitive strategies dimension scores of intermediate students are higher than pre-
intermediate students. And, self-regulation dimension scores of upper students are higher than pre-intermediate
students. Furthermore, upper students have higher intrinsic value perception dimension scores than pre-intermediate
students. As the literature is reviewed, it is seen that there are similar studies which claim self-regulation strategies
and motivational beliefs differs by students’ foreign language proficiency levels. For instance, Matsumoto (2009)
carried out a study in order to reveal how English learning motivation is influenced by teacher care and help which
are perceived by the student. And, it was concluded that English proficiency level is one of the important factors
affecting motivation. In accordance with this finding, it can be said the level of the motivation increases when the
level of foreign language proficiency increases.
In order to be able to follow the changes in technology, science, communication, and commerce, learning English
in Turkey has become an increasingly important issue especially since the 1950s (Yanar, 2008). Although Anatolian
High Schools became to provide training in 1975 to meet the growing needs of foreign language learning, general
high schools were transformed into Anatolian High School in 2005 (Sahin, 2013). With this change, preparatory
classes are removed from high schools. And also, English teaching hours are reduced. And, teacher high schools,
general and vocational high schools were also subjected to these changes. (Erguder, 2005). These are considered as
negative effects in terms of quantity of foreign language learning (Demirpolat, 2015). Despite these negative changes,
in accordance with the current study’s results, it was seen that there are no significant differences in the students’ self-
regulation strategies and motivational beliefs according to receiving preparatory training and high school
differentiation does not affect self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs.

6. Recommendations

As the findings of the study take into consideration, it can be suggested some ideas for the researchers for further
research. Firstly, this study investigated and evaluated the information of the students by the questionnaire. For this
reason, more qualitative data may be collected through observation or interview techniques. Secondly, this study
conducted with the participation of 488 English preparatory students. Because of this, further studies may be carried
out with a larger sample group. And, lastly, in further studies, the relationship between motivational beliefs and
intrinsic or extrinsic motivation may be examined.
 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412 411

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to the students of the School of Foreign Languages at Istanbul
Technical University, who assisted in data collection. The authors contributed equally to this article.

References

Andrade, M. S., & Bunker, E. L. (2009). A model for self-regulated distance language learning. Distance Education, 30, 47–61.
Andrade, M. S., & Evans, N. W. (2013). Principles and practices for response in second language writing: Developing self-regulated learners.
New York: Taylor and Francis.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bembenutty, H. (2008). Self-regulation of learning and test anxiety. Pyschology Journal, 5(3), 122-139.
Boekearts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: Strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach–EARLI
presidential address, 2001. Learning and Instruction, 12, 589-604.
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology 27, 270-295.
doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
Demirpolat, B. C. (2015). Türkiye’nin yabanci dil ogretimiyle imtihani: Sorunlar ve cozum onerileri. Analiz,131, 7-18.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, 40, 46-78.
Ehrman, M. (1996). An exploration of adult language learner motivation, self-efficacy and anxiety. In: R.L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning
motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 81–103). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Erguder, I. (2005). Anadolu lisesi ve super lise hazirlik sinifi ogrencilerinin Ingilizce ogreniminde karsilastiklari sorunlar. Yayinlanmamis
doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu.
Gardner, R. C. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. In Reynolds, Allan G. (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and
second language learning (pp. 43-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. (2001). Correlation, causation, motivation, and second language acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41, 10-24.
Gunning, P., & Oxford, R.L. (2014). Children’s learning strategy use and the effects of strategy instruction on success in learning ESL in Canada.
System, 43, 82–100.
Hwang, Y., & Vrongistinos, K. (2002). Elementary in-service teachers' self-regulated learning strategies related to their academic achievement.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 147-154.
Kahraman, N., & Sungur, S. (2011). The contribution of motivational beliefs to students metacognitive strategy use. Education and Science,
36(160), 3-10.
Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation of EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In R. Oxford, (ed.) Language Learning
Strategies around the World: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 75-88). Honololu: University of Hawai'i: Second Language Teaching and
Curriculum Centre.
Ma, R., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). A diary study focusing on listening and speaking: The evolving interaction of learning styles and learning
strategies in a motivated, advanced ESL learner. System, 43, 101-113.
MacIntyre, P. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In: P. Robinson, Individual differences in second
language acquisition (s. 45-68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matsumoto, M. (2009). Second language learners’ motivation and their perceptions of teachers’ motivation. International conference on teaching
and learning in higher education: Quality learning in higher education. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
McWhaw, K., & Abrami, P. (2001). Student goal orientation and interest: Effects on students’ use of self-regulated earning strategies.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 311-329.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Oxford: GALA.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal,
75, 292-300.
Pajares, F. (2012). Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. In: D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman, Motivation and self-
regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (s. 111-141). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., Byrnes, J. P., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Constructing theories, identifies, and actions of self-regulated learners. In: B. J. Zimmerman &
D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 253–288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research,
31, 459-470.
Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & Z. M, Handbook of self-regulation (s.
451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the classroom. In: M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
412 Hakan Karatas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232 (2016) 403 – 412

Pintrich, P., & Groot, E. D. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ, 7, 1-17.
Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research and application. Upper Saddle River: NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2012). Motivational; An essential dimension of self-regulated learning. In: D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman,
Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and applications (s. 31-53). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steffen, K. (2006). Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: Lessons of European reviews. European Journal of
Education, (41), 353-379.
Sahin, C. A. (2013). Turkiye’de yabanci dil egitim politikasinin Ingilizce ogretimi baglamÕnda elestirel degerlendirilmesi. YayÕnlanmamis
doktora tezi, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu.
Uredi, I., & Uredi, L. (2005). ølkogretim 8. sinif ogrencilerinin oz-duzenleme stratejileri ve motivasyonel inanclarinin matematik basarisini
yordama gucu. Mersin Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 1(2), 250-260.
Wigfield, A., & Wentzel, K. R. (2007). Introduction to Motivation at School: Interventions that Work. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 191-196.
Wolters, C. A., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between students' motivational beliefs and their use of motivational regulation strategies.
International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 801-820.
Wolters, C. A., Pintrinch, P. R. & Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Assessing academic self-regulated learning. Indicators of Positive Development:
Definitions, Measures, and Prospective Validity. Washington, DC.
Yanar, B. H. (2008). Yabanci dil hazirlik egitimi alan ve almayan Anadolu Lisesi ogrencilerinin yabanci dil oz-yeterlik algilarinin ve Ingilizce
dersine yonelik tutumlarinin incelenmesi. YayÕmlanmis yuksek lisans tezi, Ege Universitesi.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitiveperspective. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22, 73-101.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33,
78–86.
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety: Current theory and research. In: A. Elliott, & C. Dweck, Handbook of competence and
motivation (s. 141-166). New York: Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In: M. Boekarts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner, Handbook of self-
regulation (s. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and
personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag.