Self-Regulated Learning

The most used SRL construct consists of three dimensions: motivational belief, cognitive strategy, and metacognition (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011). These three dimensions constitute the working definition of SRL in this paper, which was operationalized via self-regulated reading learning and measured with PISA questionnaire. First, although OECD uses a different terminology, the concept of reading enjoyment is actually one of the motivational belief (OECD, 2010a). Hence, motivational belief in this paper is measured by enjoyment of reading. See Table 1 for the details of the items. Students were asked to answer on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). All items that are negatively phrased (items 1, 4, 6, 8, 9) were reverse scored; hence, positive score indicates a higher level enjoyment of reading. Confirmative factor analysis (CFA) was carried out by using Mplus 8.3 (see Figure 1) and affirmed the satisfactory construct validity of the enjoyment of reading (χ2 = 1,365.642, df = 44, RMSEA = 0.079, TLI = 0.910, CFI = 0.887). The Cronbach’s α coefficients for enjoyment of reading subscales (0.84) indicated good reliability.

Items for the variables of self-regulated learning (SRL) measured in this study.

Confirmative factor analysis of enjoyment of reading.

Second, cognitive strategy consists of two scales: memorization and elaboration. Memorization strategy is to store information as it is, without much further processing. Elaboration strategy requires students to use the knowledge acquired to some degree (OECD, 2010a). Students were asked to answer on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). Positive scores on a given learning strategy index indicate greater use of that learning strategy. Confirmative factor analysis (CFA) of the present sample (see Figure 2) affirmed the satisfactory construct validity of the memorization (χ2 = 59.254, df = 2, RMSEA = 0.077, TLI = 0.943, CFI = 0.981) and elaboration strategies scale (χ2 = 59.254, df = 2, RMSEA = 0.077, TLI = 0.943, CFI = 0.981). The Cronbach’s α coefficients for memorization (0.64) and elaboration strategies subscales (0.71) indicated good reliability.

Confirmative factor analysis of cognitive strategy.

Third, high-level cognition was labeled as “metacognition” by Flavell in the mid-1970s, which includes (Baker, 2010): (1) planning, checking, evaluating, remediating, and revising strategies; (2) knowledge about ourselves as learners, about aspects of the task, and about strategy use. As such, metacognition consists of two scales in this paper: (1) control strategy; (2) metacognition in understanding and remembering, and metacognition in summarizing. Control strategy is one component of metacognition that involves planning, monitoring, and regulation, which is essential for SRL (OECD, 2005). See Table 1 for the details of the items. Students were asked to answer on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). Positive score on control strategy index indicates frequent use of control strategy. Confirmative factor analysis (CFA) of the present sample (see Figure 3) affirmed the satisfactory construct validity of the control strategy scale (χ2 = 156.399, df = 5, RMSEA = 0.079, TLI = 0.914, CFI = 0.957). The Cronbach’s α coefficients for control strategy subscales (0.71) indicated good reliability.

Confirmative factor analysis of control strategy.

Metacognition in understanding and remembering and summarizing assesses the extent to which a student is aware of what strategies are appropriate to understand and remember and summarize information (OECD, 2010a). Metacognition reflects a student’s awareness of effective strategies. The indices of metacognition in understanding and remembering and summarizing are computed as follows: To determine ordering for each task such as summarizing information, students were asked to rate the usefulness of each strategy, and then the proportion of the total number of expert pairwise relations that were consistent with the student ordering was computed. The final scores that each student got for each task was a number that ranged from 0 to1 (OECD, 2012).

Note: The content above has been extracted from a research article, so it may not display correctly.



Q&A
Please log in to submit your questions online.
Your question will be posted on the Bio-101 website. We will send your questions to the authors of this protocol and Bio-protocol community members who are experienced with this method. you will be informed using the email address associated with your Bio-protocol account.



We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using our website, you are agreeing to allow the storage of cookies on your computer.