ArticlePDF Available

Self-regulated learning in higher education: Identifying key component processes

Abstract

The concept of self-regulated learning is becoming increasingly relevant in the study of learning and academic achievement, especially in higher education, where quite distinctive demands are placed on students. Though several key theoretical perspectives have been advanced for self-regulated learning, there is consensus regarding the central role played by student perceptions of themselves as learners. There are two general aims of this positional article. The first is to emphasise self-regulated learning as a relevant and valuable concept in higher education. The second is to promote the study of those constituent elements considered most likely to develop our understanding beyond a mere description of those processes thought to be involved in self-regulated learning. A case is presented for learning style, academic control beliefs and student self-evaluation as key constructs which contribute to an increased understanding of student self-regulated learning, and which facilitate the application of self-regulated learning in pedagogy by enhancing its tangibility and utility.
This article was downloaded by: [simon cassidy]
On: 15 August 2011, At: 08:12
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Studies in Higher Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20
Selfregulated learning in higher
education: identifying key component
processes
Simon Cassidy a
a Department of Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy,
University of Salford, Allerton Building, Frederick Road, Salford,
Manchester, M6 6PU, UK
Available online: 23 May 2011
To cite this article: Simon Cassidy (2011): Selfregulated learning in higher education: identifying
key component processes, Studies in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/03075079.2010.503269
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.503269
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Studies in Higher Education
2011, 1–12, iFirst Article
ISSN 0307-5079 print/ISSN 1470-174X online
© 2011 Society for Research into Higher Education
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2010.503269
http://www.informaworld.com
Self-regulated learning in higher education: identifying key
component processes
Simon Cassidy*
Department of Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, University of Salford, Allerton
Building, Frederick Road, Salford, Manchester M6 6PU, UK
Taylor and Francis
CSHE_A_503269.sgm10.1080/03075079.2010.503269Studies in Higher Education0307-5079 (print)/1470-174X (online)Article2011Society for Research into Higher Education0000000002011SimonCassidys.cassidy@salford.ac.uk
The concept of self-regulated learning is becoming increasingly relevant in the
study of learning and academic achievement, especially in higher education, where
quite distinctive demands are placed on students. Though several key theoretical
perspectives have been advanced for self-regulated learning, there is consensus
regarding the central role played by student perceptions of themselves as learners.
There are two general aims of this positional article. The first is to emphasise self-
regulated learning as a relevant and valuable concept in higher education. The
second is to promote the study of those constituent elements considered most
likely to develop our understanding beyond a mere description of those processes
thought to be involved in self-regulated learning. A case is presented for learning
style, academic control beliefs and student self-evaluation as key constructs which
contribute to an increased understanding of student self-regulated learning, and
which facilitate the application of self-regulated learning in pedagogy by
enhancing its tangibility and utility.
Keywords: self-regulated learning; self-efficacy; student evaluation; study
strategies; learning styles
Introduction
In their volume, Self-regulated learning and academic achievement, Zimmerman and
Schunk (2001) note how the fascination with self-understanding and self-regulation
has seen a recent shift in focus to learning and academic achievement processes. They
conceptualise self-regulated learning as the way in which learners control their
thoughts, feelings and actions in order to achieve academically, and, in a climate of
rapid change in human context with a particular emphasis on technological advance-
ment, they consider self-regulated learning to have become an essential requirement
for individuals, particularly with regard to maintaining the capacity for employment
and lifelong learning.
Whilst there are a number of key theoretical perspectives offered for self-regulated
learning, all seem to share the common belief that ‘student perceptions of themselves
as learners and their use of various processes to regulate their learning are critical
factors in analyses of academic achievement’ (Zimmerman 2001, 2). Zimmerman and
Schunk (2001) describe self-regulated learning research as seeking to explain how
individuals invoke systematic and regular methods of learning to improve perfor-
mance, and to explain how learners adapt to changing contexts. It is on this basis that
*Email: s.cassidy@salford.ac.uk
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
2 S. Cassidy
the current article provides an account of learning style, academic control beliefs and
student self-evaluation as pivotal constructs underlying key component processes
through which students self-regulate their learning (Figure 1). In this positional article
it is suggested that each of these constructs can be aligned with those themes identified
by Zimmerman as present in the major self-regulated learning theories. These include
motivation, self-awareness, key processes, social and environmental influences and
acquisition of self-regulated learning.
Figure 1. Likely constructs underlying student self-regulated learning.
The article considers the relevance of learning style, academic control beliefs and
student self-evaluation to a general model of student self-regulation proposed by
Boekaerts (1999). In doing so, pertinent issues, such as Coffield et al. (2004) and
Rayner’s (2007) suggestion that the future pedagogical utility of learning styles may
lie in the development of metacognitive knowledge and awareness, are addressed in
the context of student self-regulated learning. The article has two general aims. The
first is to emphasise self-regulated learning as a highly relevant and valuable concept
in higher education. The second is to promote the study of those constituent elements
and processes considered most likely to develop our understanding of self-regulated
learning beyond the mere description of processes thought to be involved in self-
regulated learning (see Baumert et al. 2000).
Self-regulated learning
Self-regulated learning is considered to be separate from mental ability or academic
performance skill. Instead, it refers to a self-directed process through which learners
transform mental abilities into task-related academic skills (Zimmerman 2001).
Woolfolk (2004) states the general influences on student self-regulated learning as
knowledge about themselves, the subject area, the task, strategies for learning and the
context in which they will apply learning; motivation to learn, where students value
learning, not just performance, are intrinsically motivated and learning is self-
determined and not controlled by or dependent on others; and volition or will-power,
Figure 1. Likely constructs underlying student self-regulated learning.
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
Studies in Higher Education 3
where students are able to protect themselves from and know how to deal with and
resist distractions. Zimmerman (2002) suggests three phases of self-regulated learn-
ing: forethought, involving task analysis (goal setting, strategic planning) and self-
motivation beliefs (self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, intrinsic interest/value, learn-
ing goal orientation); performance, involving self-control (imagery, self-instruction,
attention focusing, task strategies) and self-observation (self-recording, self-
experimentation, self-reflection phase); and self-reflection, involving self-judgement
(self-evaluation, causal attribution) and self-reaction (self-satisfaction/affect, adap-
tive/defensive). Figure 2 represents the interactive nature of self-regulatory processes
according to Zimmerman’s (2001) three-phase cyclical model, involving forethought,
performance and self-reflection.
Figure 2. Three phases of self-regulated learning (after Zimmerman 2002).
In line with a social cognitive perspective (Bandura 1986), self-regulated learning
occurs as a result of reciprocal causation between three influence processes: personal
processes such as perceptions of ability (e.g. academic self-efficacy) and self-motivation
(e.g. goals); the learning environment, including task demands and encouragement from
teachers; and individual behaviour, such as performance outcomes (e.g. previous marks/
grades) (Singer and Bashir 1999; Zimmerman 1989). Zimmerman (1989) states that
‘students can be described as self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively,
motivationally, and behaviourally active participants in their own learning process’
(329).
Key component processes in self-regulated learning
Singer and Bashir (1999) have described self-regulated learning as a meta construct,
defined as ‘a set of behaviours that are used flexibly to guide, monitor, and direct the
success of one’s performance’ and ‘to manage and direct interactions within the learn-
ing environment in order to ensure success’ (265). Both the theoretical and empirical
literature related to self-regulated learning (occasionally referred to as academic self-
regulation) presents a number of examples which – directly or indirectly – illustrate
Figure 2. Three phases of self-regulated learning based on Zimmerman 2002.
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
4 S. Cassidy
the relevance of learning style to self-regulated learning (i.e. preferred ways of
responding to learning tasks, including cognitive processes and behaviour [Peterson
et al. 2008]), perceived academic personal control (i.e. ‘beliefs about their capacity to
influence and predict daily life events’ [Perry 2003, 3]) and student peer assessment
and self-assessment (i.e. student evaluation of the academic quality of their peers’ and
their own work). It is these three constructs which provide the focus for this article, in
which it is suggested that – certainly according to a social cognitive perspective
(Schunk 2001) – each plays a key role in the development and practice of student self-
regulated learning.
Self-regulated learning theories also seek to explain why, despite the apparent
capacity to learn in terms of advantages in mental ability, socio-economic status and
quality of education, some learners fail to achieve academically (Zimmerman 2001).
Those authors offering leading theoretical perspectives on self-regulated learning are
in agreement regarding the critical nature of students’ self-perceptions of themselves
as learners, and their use of self-regulatory processes in our understanding of
academic achievement (Zimmerman 2001). This reflects a general consensus that
students’ ability to learn can be improved through metacognitive and motivational
strategies. Zimmerman also refers to feedback, including peer assessment and self-
assessment, as a form of social learning relevant to self-regulated learning.
Three common criteria are highlighted by Zimmerman, which he considers to
apply across most self-regulated learning theoretical perspectives: (1) purposive use
of specific processes, strategies or responses by students to improve their academic
achievement; (2) the use of a self-oriented feedback loop, involving students monitor-
ing the effectiveness of their learning strategies and responding to feedback with
changes in self-perceptions or learning strategies; (3) a motivational dimension –
involving self-efficacy beliefs – which determines choice of particular self-regulatory
processes, strategies or responses.
On the basis of Zimmerman’s account of the major self-regulated learning theo-
ries, it seems reasonable to assert that learning style, academic control beliefs and
student self-evaluation are constructs central to the advancement of self-regulated
learning research and practice. Support for such an assertion is provided by Schunk’s
(2001) social cognitive perspective, which implicates self-efficacy and outcome
expectancies in the motivational (i.e. providing learners with representations of future
consequences and enabling goal setting) and self-awareness (i.e. as a self-perceptive
state emerging from self-observation) aspects of self-regulated learning; learning style
in the self-awareness and key processes aspects of self-regulated learning, whereby
there is self-observation and self-judgement (i.e. metacognition) comparing existing
performance with learning goals and subsequent self-reaction effects affecting the
performance phase, and involving adopting learning strategies or approaches most
likely to help achieve goals; and peer assessment and self-assessment in self-aware-
ness (metacognition), key processes (i.e. self-observation and self-evaluation), social
and environmental influence (i.e. nature of the task, enactive mastery experience
influencing self-efficacy) and acquisition (i.e. capacity to make social comparisons
and ability attributions) aspects.
Boekaerts’ conceptual model of self-regulated learning
Boekaerts’ (1999) conceptual model of self-regulated learning provides a clear illus-
tration of the relevance of learning style, perceived academic personal control and
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
Studies in Higher Education 5
peer and self-assessment constructs. Boekaerts recognises the significance of each of
the constructs in more emphatic and explicit terms, stating that our understanding of
self-regulated learning has been informed by, and shaped by, three schools of thought:
learning style research; theories of the self; and research on metacognition.
Figure 3. Three-layered conceptual model of self-regulated learning (Boekaerts 1999, 449).
Boekaerts proposes a three-layered conceptual model of self-regulated learning
(Figure 3 and Table 1). The inner layer (i.e. learning or processing styles) represents
regulation of cognitive strategies or learning styles (i.e. the typical way students
learn), and is considered crucial for describing the quality of students’ self-regulation
process. By ‘quality’ Boekaerts is referring to the association which some learning
style theorists have drawn between certain styles or approaches and regulation style.
An example is Vermetten, Vermunt, and Lodewijks (1995), who present evidence of
associations between a deep approach to learning and a preference for opportunities
for internal regulation of learning, and between a surface approach to learning and a
preference for external regulation. The second of Boekaerts’ layers represents the use
of metacognitive knowledge and skills to direct learning. The development and utili-
sation of metacognition is presented as a regulatory process and includes monitoring,
evaluating and correcting skills (Table 1). These skills clearly reflect elements of
student peer assessment and self-assessment skill and – according to Coffield et al.
(2004) and Rayner (2007) – may represent the future pedagogical utility of learning
style approaches, i.e. to develop metacognitive knowledge and awareness.
The third and final layer of Boekaerts’ model is concerned with regulation of
the self and motivation (i.e. ‘motivation control system’). Information about the
self-perceptions of learners is presented as an essential element for understanding
F
igure 3. Three-layered conceptual model of self-regulated learning (Boekaerts 1999, 449).
C
opyright 1999 Elsevier, reproduced with permission.
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
6 S. Cassidy
self-regulation, i.e. why students are prepared to do what they do and don’t do what
they may be expected to do. Work examining academic self-efficacy and academic
locus of control is clearly situated within this motivational control system, within
which Boekaerts (1999) refers to the students’ ability to ‘activate positive scenar-
ios’ and to ‘value the task and to consider oneself competent to perform it’ (453).
Pintrich and De Groot (1990) have conducted empirical work which relates to the
motivational, cognitive and metacognitive aspects of Boekaerts’ model. Their work
focused on the three components of self-regulated learning, which conform to those
proposed by Boekaerts, namely cognitive strategies used to learn, remember and
understand material, metacognitive strategies for monitoring and modifying cognition
and effort management strategies, and motivation involving control beliefs and self-
efficacy, intrinsic value and goals, and test anxiety. Pintrich and De Groot examined
the nature of any intra- and inter-component associations. Self-efficacy and intrinsic
value were positively correlated with both cognitive and metacognitve strategy use,
with students who exhibited positive self-efficacy and high intrinsic value being more
likely to use cognitive and self-regulatory metacognitive strategies. Self-efficacy,
intrinsic value, use of cognitive strategy and use of self-regulatory metacognitive
strategy were all positively correlated with academic achievement. Regression analy-
sis identified self-efficacy and self-regulatory metacognitive strategy as significant
predictors of average grade. As Pintrich and De Groot point out, their findings provide
an empirical base linking the components of a general model of student self-regulated
learning and, it is suggested here, underline the significance of learning style,
perceived academic control and student peer assessment and self-assessment skill
(metacognitive skill) in any such model.
Self-regulated learning: pedagogical utility
Achieving a greater understanding of self-regulated learning as a rapidly emerging
concept in education remains a high-priority endeavour for research and practice-
based educationalists (Baumert et al. 2000; Zimmerman and Schunk 2001). The
relevance of the constructs of learning style, perceived academic control and student
self-evaluation skill in this endeavour is illustrated clearly and consistently in the
Table 1. Boekaerts’ model of self-regulated learning (adapted from Baumert et al. 2000, 5).
Copyright 2000 Max Planck Institute for Human Development, reproduced with permission.
Cognitive/metacognitive regulation Motivational self-regulation
Domain-specific knowledge
Cognitive learning strategies
Memorisation strategies
Deep processing
• Transformation
Metacognitive learning strategies
Planning and goal setting
• Monitoring
Corrective strategies
Motivational orientations
Self-directed cognitions (self-concept of
abilities, self-efficacy, control beliefs)
Motivational preferences (interest, task
orientation, ego orientation, intrinsic
motivation)
Test anxiety
Subjective theories of ability
Situational motivational state
Attention, effort, persistence
Volitional features of action control
Protection from competing intentions
Coping with success and failure
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
Studies in Higher Education 7
recent relevant literature on self-regulated learning. Chong (2007), for example,
examines the role of personal agency beliefs (including self-efficacy and self-concept)
in self-regulated learning, noting how the development of self-regulatory skill is crit-
ical, particularly when the cognitive demands of the learning situation are increased
and effective learning is required. In a further example, Kirby and Downs (2007)
attempt to exploit student self-assessment practices to cultivate a deep approach to
learning, self-regulated learning and metacognitive skill development in foundation
programme students who currently display a surface approach, and who show
evidence of adopting performance rather than learning goals.
Self-regulated learning: implications for policy and practice in higher education
Whilst work aimed at developing further our understanding of self-regulated learning
is set to continue, there are already several key messages for higher education regard-
ing students’ individual differences and self-regulated learning, which have immedi-
ate implications for institutional policy and practice. Perhaps the most far reaching of
these is the extent and range of students’ individual differences existing in any given
cohort, and the need to accommodate such diversity within ‘normal practice’. This
renewed focus on individual differences in learners can be explained in terms of two
significant emerging factors affecting – particularly higher – education. These are
increased student diversity; and increased diversity in modes of delivery, with a
particular emphasis on information communication technologies. This is a trend
which is set to continue to increase, given government initiatives to significantly
increase both the student population in higher education and the diversity within that
population. Government policies relating to widening participation in higher educa-
tion, and presenting a framework for the future of higher education in the UK
(Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2009; Department for Education and
Skills 2003a, 2003b), along with legislative equality, diversity and inclusion policy
governing legal rights for equal access to education, are set to continue to change the
typical student profile in higher education in terms of both numbers and diversity.
Constraints on future public financing of higher education (Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills 2009) will also dictate changes in the manner in which courses
are delivered.
Higher education as a whole is facing greatly increased student numbers as
compared with previous years (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2010; Universities
and Colleges Admissions Service 2010), with the student profile in many institutions
now dominated by non-traditional students (National Centre for Education Statistics
2000). This has created a student population which has been described by Coomes and
DeBard (2004) as one of the most diverse ever, and by Sax (2003) as the most educa-
tionally ambitious.
This emphasis on diversity, together with evidence that the level of support
provided by educational institutions in identifying and addressing diversity in student
populations is a significant factor in student adjustment and development in higher
education (Noldon and Sedlacek 1998), underlines the relevance of individual differ-
ences research to higher education pedagogy. Self-regulated learning seems to offer a
mechanism capable of both representing student individual differences in learning and
implementing changes in normal practice which reflect the individual needs of
students. The relevance of self-regulation has already been recognised in other sectors
of education. Both Duckworth et al. (2009) and Meyer et al. (2008) have authored
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
8 S. Cassidy
extensive government-funded reports examining, and promoting, self-regulated
learning – and independent learning as a related concept – in school education. Each
of these reports provides guidance on the implementation of self-regulated learning
which applies equally to higher education.
The guidance points include:
not all students are equally predisposed to self-regulate, but aspects of self-
regulation improve as a result of effective teaching and learning practices;
self-regulated learning requires the development and deployment of learning
strategies, positive self-efficacy and pursuance of meaningful goals;
introducing curriculum strategies which focus on the development and enhance-
ment of cognitive skills, metacognitive skills and affective skills to improve
self-regulated learning;
student self-monitoring and self-evaluation are important factors in the develop-
ment of self-regulated learning;
self-regulated learning improves with practice;
self-regulated learning can be improved through guidance, modelling and effec-
tive strategies;
self-regulated learning requires an ‘enabling environment’, including the phys-
ical setting, material resources and social interaction and positive support from
teachers and peers;
there is a particular emphasis on information and communication technologies
as a tool to support self-regulated learning;
self-regulated learning involves a new role for teachers which focuses on
process-orientated teaching, with students actively involved in the learning
process, i.e. ‘learn how to learn’;
any interventions to promote self-regulated learning are likely to be long-term;
implementation requires a ‘whole-school’ approach involving the support of
both senior management and teachers.
To this list should be added an emphasis on practitioner-led initiatives, which are
recognised and valued by institutional management; and consensus among manage-
ment and teaching staff, so that there is consensus clarity for students and conflict is
avoided.
Overall, higher education institutional policy and practice should be enabling, in
that they should reflect the need for opportunities to model and practice self-regulated
learning for both students and teaching staff, in order to address misconceptions and
misunderstanding, demonstrate value and allow the development of appropriate skill
sets for self-regulation.
Conclusion
It was not the intention of the article to provide an extensive explanation, or examina-
tion, of self-regulated learning theory. Rather, it was to emphasise the development of
self-regulatory learning skills in students as a priority for higher education (Baumert
et al. 2000), and to drawn attention to those psychological constructs identified as
instrumental in the development of self-regulated learning.
Noting an inevitable uncertainty surrounding what individuals will need to know
in the future, Baumert et al. (2000) suggests assuming a ‘dynamic model of continuous
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
Studies in Higher Education 9
acquisition of new knowledge and skills’ (2) – with self-regulated learning being viewed
as a central element in such a model. Self-regulated learning is thus considered a vital
prerequisite of successful acquisition of knowledge, and of particular importance in
sustaining lifelong learning (Baumert et al. 2000). In conceptualising self-regulated
learning, Boekaerts (1999) proposes a layered model, involving three regulatory
processes: regulation of the self (goals); regulation of the learning process (metacog-
nitive knowledge and skills); and regulation of information processing modes (cognitive
strategies). These processes are directed or determined through the mutual dependency
of the individual constituent cognitive, metacognitive and motivational components of
the model. So, it is the aggregated effect of these components which determines the
efficacy of the self-regulation process, with deficiencies in any component adversely
affecting the degree to which the student self-regulates their learning. Figure 4 repre-
sents how the composite influence of learning style, academic control beliefs and
student self-evaluation on student self-regulated learning might be conceptualised.
Figure 4. Conceptualisation of the composite influence of key component processes of self-regulated learning.
It is suggested, then, that focusing on those constituent constructs identified within
the underlying conceptual architecture of self-regulated learning will offer a manifesto
for the development of skills in students, and, thus, provide a rationale for the peda-
gogical utility of the concept. Such an argument is stronger in the case of those
constructs where understanding is more advanced, and for which valid and reliable
methods of measurement have already been developed.
Although describing self-regulated learning as a complex construct existing at
the ‘junction of many different research fields’ (Boekaerts 1999, 447), Boekaerts
Figure 4. Conceptualisation of the composite influence of key component processes of self-
regulated learning.
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
10 S. Cassidy
(1997, 1999) does refer to learning style, academic personal control and metacogni-
tive skill development as major influences in the development of self-regulated
learning theory. The relevance of these constructs is also noted by other authors in
their accounts of self-regulated learning (e.g. Schunk 2001; Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons 1990), and it would seem reasonable to pursue a programme of work
which examines and models the influence of learning style, academic control beliefs
and student self-evaluation. This might involve exploring learning style as a meta-
gognitive process (Coffield et al. 2004; Rayner 2007), examining motivational
processes through academic self-efficacy interventions (Schunk 1989), and evaluat-
ing student peer assessment and self-assessment as valuable forms of monitoring
and corrective strategies (i.e. metacognitive regulation [Baumert et al. 2000; Cassidy
2006]).
Boekaerts (1999) goes on to describe self-regulated learning as a powerful
construct which allows the various components of successful learning to be described.
Empirical studies centred on measurable constructs such as learning style (Entwistle
and Tait 1996), academic self-efficacy (Cassidy and Eachus 2002a) and student self-
assessment (Cassidy 2006) are likely to provide a major contribution towards the
advancement of self-regulated learning research and practice. Such work would also
reflect the sentiments of Zimmerman (1990), who strongly advocates the need for the
study of component processes to contribute to a growing understanding of the distinc-
tive features of students’ self-regulated learning.
As a final point for this article, it should not be overlooked that each of the constructs
suggested for advancing the conceptualisation and application of self-regulated learn-
ing present their own particular thorny issues and limitations, which remain to be fully
resolved. Some of the major issues include the conceptual fragility of learning style
approaches highlighted – most notably – by Coffield et al. (2004), the precise nature
and subtle conceptual distinctions within personal control beliefs described by Bandura
(2006), and how these might be captured by psychometric measures which reflect
contemporary educational contexts (Cassidy and Eachus 2002a, 2002b; Eachus and
Cassidy 1997, 2006), and an imperative for student peer assessment and self-assessment
emphasised by Boud (2008) and Cassidy (2006, 2007). Nevertheless, these constructs
remain prevalent in conceptual accounts of self-regulated learning, and are considered
critical factors in our understanding of student academic achievement.
References
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundation of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Self-efficacy in adolescents,
ed. T. Urdan and F. Pajares. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Baumert, J., E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, K.-J. Tillmann,
and M. Weib. 2000. Self-regulated learning as a cross-curricular competence. Berlin:
Max-Planck Institut fur Bildungsforschung.
Boekaerts, M. 1997. Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy
makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction 7, no. 2: 161–86.
Boekaerts, M. 1999. Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of
Education Research 31: 445–57.
Boud, D. 2008. Rethinking assessment for learning after the course. Proceedings of the
Psychology Learning and Teaching Annual Conference, in Bath, UK. http://
www.psychology.heacademy.ac.uk/plat2008/assets/ppts/David_Boud.ppt.
Cassidy, S. 2006. Developing employability skills: Peer assessment in higher education.
Education & Training 48, no. 7: 508–17.
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
Studies in Higher Education 11
Cassidy. S. 2007. Assessing ‘inexperienced’ students’ ability to self-assess: Exploring links
with learning style and academic personal control. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 32, no. 3: 1–18.
Cassidy, S., and P. Eachus. 2002a. The development of the General Academic Self- Efficacy
(GASE) scale. British Psychological Society Annual Conference, March 13–16, in Black-
pool, UK.
Cassidy, S., and P. Eachus. 2002b. Development of the Computer Self-Efficacy (CUSE) scale:
Investigating the relationship between CSE, gender and experience with computers.
Journal of Educational Computing Research 26, no. 2: 133–53.
Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Should we be using learning
styles? What research has to say to practice. London: Learning Skills Research
Centre.
Chong, W.H. 2007. The role of personal agency beliefs in academic self-regulation: An Asian
perspective. School Psychology International 28, no. 1: 63–76.
Coomes, M.D., and R. DeBard. 2004. A generational approach to understanding students.
New Directions for Student Services 106: 5–16.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2009. Higher ambitions: The future of
universities in a knowledge economy. London: Department for Business, Innovation &
Skills.
Department for Education and Skills. 2003a. The future of higher education. White Paper cm.
5735. Norwich: Department for Education and Skills.
Department for Education and Skills. 2003b. Widening participation in higher education.
Norwich: Department for Education and Skills.
Duckworth, K., R. Ackerman, A. MacGregor, E. Salter, and J. Vorhaus. 2009. Self-regulated
learning: A literature review. Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning,
Institute of Education, University of London. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/
uploadfiles/WBL33.pdf.
Eachus, P., and S. Cassidy. 1997. Development of the Health Student Academic Locus of
Control scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills 85: 994.
Eachus, P., and S. Cassidy. 2006. Development of the Web User Self-Efficacy (WUSE) scale.
Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology 3: 199–211.
Entwistle, N., and H. Tait, H. 1996. Approaches and study skills inventory for students. Centre
for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.
Higher Education Statistics Agency. 2010. Press release 144 – Students in higher education
2008/9. http://www.hesa.ac.uk.
Kirby, N.F., and C.T. Downs. 2007. Self-assessment and the disadvantaged student: Potential
for encouraging self-regulated learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
32, no. 4: 475–94.
Meyer, B., N. Haywood, D. Sachdev, and S. Faraday. 2008. Independent learning: A literature
review. Learning and Skills Network. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/
DCSF-RR051.pdf.
National Centre for Education Statistics. 2000. Digest of education statistics, 1999. National
Center for Education Statistics Report 2000-031. Washington, DC: US Department of
Education.
Noldon, D., and W.E. Sedlacek. 1998. Gender differences in attitudes, skills, and behaviors
among academically talented university freshmen. Roeper Review 21, no. 2: 106–10.
Perry, R.P. 2003. Perceived (academic) control and causal thinking in achievement settings.
Canadian Psychology 44, no. 4: 312–31.
Peterson, E.R., S. Rayner, S.J. Armstrong, and K. Deane. 2008. Researchers’ perspectives of
cognitive and learning styles. Technical Report 1, 1–16. Auckland: University of Auckland.
Pintrich, P.R., and E.V. de Groot. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 33–40.
Rayner, S. 2007. A teaching elixir or best fit pedagogy? Do learning styles matter? Support
for Learning 22, no. 1: 24–30.
Sax, L.J. 2003. Our incoming students: What are they like? About Campus 8, no. 30: 15–20.
Schunk, D.H. 1989. Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice, ed. B.J. Zimmerman
and D.H. Schunk. New York: Springer Verlag.
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
12 S. Cassidy
Schunk, D.H. 2001. Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, ed. B.J. Zimmerman and
D.H. Schunk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Singer, B.D., and A.S. Bashir. 1999. What are executive functions and self-regulation and
what do they have to do with language-learning disorders? Language, Speech, and Hear-
ing Services in Schools 30: 265–73.
Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. 2010. Data summary – Total UCAS applica-
tions, applicants and accepted applicants over six years. http://www.ucas.ac.uk.
Vermetten, Y.J.M., J.D.H.M. Vermunt, and J.G.L.C. Lodewijks. 1995. Changes in learning
styles as a result of student oriented education. Paper presented at the Biannual Meeting of
the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. August, in Nijmegen.
Woolfolk, A. 2004. Educational psychology. 9th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Zimmerman, B.J. 1989. Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In Self-
regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice, ed. B.J.
Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zimmerman, B.J. 1990. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist 25: 3–17.
Zimmerman, B.J. 2001. Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview and analysis. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives, ed. B.J. Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Zimmerman, B.J. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice
41, no. 2: 64–71.
Zimmerman, B.J., and M. Martinez-Pons. 1990. Student differences in self-regulated learning:
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology 82: 51–59.
Zimmerman, B.J., and D.H. Schunk, eds. 2001. Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Downloaded by [simon cassidy] at 08:12 15 August 2011
... Specific metacognitive, meta-motivational and meta-emotional behavioral training is an example of the power of this model. 2) While the model can be considered to fall within the sphere of the psychology of learning, in the university context (Cassidy, 2011), it does not address in sufficient depth the role played by instructional processes, or by teaching in formal contexts. This approach would be characteristic of the domain of instructional psychology. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (1986) influenced the development of several complementary models of the construct of Self-Regulation. Building on the foundation of Self-Determination Theory, SDT (2000), and Zimmerman's Self-Regulation Theory, SR (2001), with their assumptions, contributions, goddesses, and limitations, we come to the Self- vs. External Regulatory Theory, SR-ER (2021). Finally, we integrate recent evidence demonstrating the explanatory adequacy of the SR vs. ER model for different psychological constructions in different settings related to education, health, clinical practice and social work. Complementary, a new theoretical and empirical research agenda is presented, to continue testing the adequacy of SR vs. ER assumptions, and to better understand the behavioral variability of the different constructs studied.
... The importance of self-regulation in education can be summarized on the following points (Boekaerts, 1999;Cassidy, 2011;Matric, 2018): ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of online learning and blended learning on developing students' self-regulation at Umm Al-Qura University, using gender and specialization variables. The research sample consisted of 376 students at Umm Al-Qura University in the academic year 2021-2022. According to the instructional type, the research sample was divided into the following main branches: Blended learning: 233 students dealt with blended courses, and online learning: 143 students dealt with online courses. A self-regulation questionnaire was developed to collect the required data from the study sample. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were ensured. The findings of the study revealed that blended learning is more effective in developing students' self-regulation than online learning. Blended learning is more effective in developing male students' self-regulation compared to online learning. The effectiveness of blended and online learning on female students' self-regulation is equal. Blended learning is more effective in developing practical major students' self-regulation compared with online learning. It was observed that the effect of blended and online learning on theoretical major students' self-regulation is equal. The study findings enrich the understanding of the effect of both blended learning and online learning in developing learning outcomes. In addition, these findings may help decision-makers and stakeholders at higher education institutions to provide all available means for embedding blended courses in instructional systems.
... En cambio, el feedback sobre el proceso se dirige a las estrategias que el estudiante ha desarrollado para acometer aquella tarea y el feedback autorregulador deposita en el estudiante el protagonismo de recoger y revisar dichos procesos, de modo que le sirva para orquestar futuros procesos de aprendizaje. Por lo tanto, el papel activo del estudiante se encuentra asociado a un feedback de mayor calidad, redundando en la idea expuesta en el punto a. Sin embargo, este feedback autorregulador es mucho menos frecuente según documenta Stobart (2010) quizás debido tanto a la dificultad de preparar a los estudiantes para que lo desarrollen (Cassidy, 2011, por ejemplo, muestra la estrecha relación que posee la autorregulación con la autoeficacia y cómo se debería de incidir en ella), como a la propia dificultad de evaluarlo (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005). ...
Article
Se presenta una experiencia de evaluación entre iguales en la que participan 173 estudiantes y 12 profesores de 4 asignaturas desarrolladas en 3 universidades. Se analiza el tipo de feedback dado por los pares, la percepción de su utilidad por parte de los estudiantes, la motivación que genera y su grado de aplicación a ulteriores tareas. Los resultados muestran que el feedback que se provee está básicamente centrado en la tarea y tiende a focalizarse en los errores, patrón del que ya había dado cuenta la literatura previa. Pese a ello, los estudiantes tienden a percibir que la experiencia de evaluación entre iguales les ha permitido mejorar tanto la tarea como su proceso de aprendizaje. Por lo que respecta a la motivación de los estudiantes, los resultados son menos claros puesto que difieren de una experiencia a otra y en algunas de ellas se hallan vinculados de forma inversa al volumen de trabajo que la experiencia supone. Respecto a la aplicación a futuras versiones de una tarea, ésta es especialmente relevante en la experiencia del Trabajo de Fin de Grado. Todo ello ofrece pautas para orientar futuros procesos de feedback que favorezcan el aprendizaje en la educación superior y a lo largo de la vida.
... Therefore, self-regulation can be considered a self-oriented feedback loop in learning. Learners can use self-regulation to strengthen their learning achievements, enhance their motivation for learning, and reflect on their learning process (Cassidy, 2011). If the results after SRL are sufficiently positive, students may be motivated to further self-regulate their learning. ...
Article
Full-text available
Fostering students’ abilities to deal with practical problems is an important objective of professional training. To enable students to have more practicing time under the supervision of trainers in class, flipped learning has been adopted to shift the lecture time to the before-class stage, and hence more time is available for in-class practicing. Although flipped learning has been recognized by scholars as an effective teaching mode, researchers have also indicated the challenges of implementing it; in particular, many students have difficulty learning before the class on their own. In this research, a self-regulated flipped learning (SRFL) approach was proposed to cope with this problem by guiding students to set their learning goals, and supporting them in monitoring their learning status in five stages, namely, goal setting, flipped learning (including pre-class video-based instruction and in-class discussion), task sharing, self-evaluation, and self-regulation feedback. In addition, an experiment was conducted in a professional training program to examine the effectiveness of the proposed approach. From the experimental results, it was found that the approach significantly improved the students’ learning achievement, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and critical thinking, which could be a good reference for future research related to flipped professional training.
Article
The Indian engineering faculty members need to be exposed to self-regulated learning strategies and adult learning methods to plan effective competency development programs for the engineering graduates. The engineering students need to be informed on the industry needs and the performance desired in the workplaces. Without a focus on improving skills analysis, planning, design concepts, and high-order cognitive skills, problemsolving abilities and critical thinking skills, many engineering students performed poorly in the basic and core engineering courses. Some of the students displayed a negative response for a few applied science courses. These are due to their self-regulated learning system. In this research, six batches of engineering faculties have been trained to focus on the students' self-regulated thinking, acting, behaving, and engaging in purposeful activities. The impact is that the engineering students actively manage their metacognition, motivation, and behavior after passing through the self-regulatory process. The trained faculties prepared their instructional design on the needs of the contextual knowledge and their utility onprofessional development. The increase in pass percentage after redesign improved to 16.17% in the basic courses, 17.37% in the core courses, and 5.99% in the advanced courses. When the faculty members are trained in the appropriate instructional design to meet the demands of the fast-growing and knowledgebased economy, this resulted in unprecedented students' success not only in their examinations but also in their performances in the workplace. Further, the executive and employee development programs are to be carefully planned and implemented to get maximum return on the investment (ROI) in the fastchanging manufacturing technology. Keywords: Self-Regulated Learners (SRL), Performance Management, Faculty Development Programs (FDP), Planning Executive Development Programs (EDP), Metacognition, & Intrinsic Motivation.
Article
Full-text available
Grounded in social-cognitive theory, the study reported here explored undergraduate business students' perceptions of their employability and the impact of year of study and gender on these perceptions. 6,004 undergraduate business students enrolled with multiple Australian universities self-assessed their study and career-related confidence using an online, validated measure of perceived employability. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and five predicted factors were obtained. Multivariate analysis of variance then identified gender and year-of-study differences across five employability factors. The findings highlight gender and year of study differences in students' understanding of how well their programs related to their future careers. The same differences were noted in students’ confidence that their learning tasks were career-relevant and also their confidence that they could apply their learning in a workplace setting. Student confidence that their degree programs were preparing them for graduate life and work lessened as they progressed through their programs. Implications include the need for business educators to be clear about the relevance of each learning and assessment task, and to take a data-driven approach to informing career development learning activities in higher education.
Article
Online instruction through a flipped classroom approach has continued to gain popularity in recent years. Engaging learners’ attention in achieving learning outcomes while they embrace the flexibility of online learning via flipped classroom remains an important topic among educators, educational institutions, and society. Studies have found that students who are equipped with self-regulated learning strategies thrive in such learning environments. The present study describes and analyses the state of research in self-regulated learning strategies and their association with the flipped classroom based on the review of articles published in Q1 and Q2 journals from 2016 to the middle of 2021. The systematic review is guided by instructions in PRISMA, where 32 scientific texts from four search databases, which are Science Direct, Scopus, ERIC, and ProQuest, were reviewed. The key findings present the effects of self-regulation on both academic and non-academic outcomes, as well as factors that influenced the outcomes. The findings also revealed six preferred methods to measure self-regulated learning in a flipped classroom, specifically through self-report questionnaires, being the most preferred approach followed by learning analytics, interviews, think-aloud protocols, reflective documents, and observation. Furthermore, the potential future areas of study as proposed by the review articles were detailed as prospect references. In conclusion, it is highly recommended for educators and future studies to integrate the essential characteristics of flipped learning as pointed out by the four pillars (F-L-I-P), which are: flexible environment, learning culture, intentional content, and professional educator. Ultimately, this warrants the successful integration of the flipped classroom into learning and facilitates the development of self-regulated learning strategies.
Article
El objetivo fue analizar si la calidad del servicio bibliotecario afecta el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes a través de cuatro constructos. Se desarrolló una investigación cuantitativa, explicativa, transversal y un muestreo por conveniencia a 701 estudiantes universitarios mexicanos. Se analizaron los datos con un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales. Se encontró efecto significativo de la calidad del servicio bibliotecario en las creencias de autoeficacia de los estudiantes, lo que impacta en su participación en la biblioteca y en sus estrategias de aprendizaje. Esto incide en los procesos de autorregulación del aprendizaje, lo que a su vez afecta el rendimiento académico. Se muestran efectos directos e indirectos de la calidad del servicio bibliotecario en aspectos del proceso académico, impactando finalmente en el rendimiento académico.
Thesis
Learner autonomy is today considered an important pedagogical concept in the planning of educational processes and teacher autonomy seems to be the most important factor in promoting the lifelong learning paradigm. In the field of foreign languages, it is also supported by CEFR and MEB and is seen as an important educational objective. In order to promote learner autonomy in FLT, many researchers stress the need for particularly valid and reliable measuring instruments. In order to fulfill this requirement, the present study first aimed to develop a scale measuring the readiness of BA students in the Department of German Language Teacher Training for autonomous learning. Secondly, the developed scale was used to analyze and evaluate various socio-demographic characteristics of the samples. In light of the research questions, this work is based on quantitative research methods. Yet, qualitative data was also used for the creation of the item pool. Item and factor analyses (EFA, CFA) were carried out with the different data collected from various universities. As a result, the final version of the scale contains 19 items and four factors, namely “tactics”, “strategies”, “sense of responsibility”, “attitude and motivation”. The total value of Cronbach Alpha of the scale based on the CFA was 0.850. The results showed that the mean values of the participants were above the neutral value (M > 3) in all dimensions of the scale (SMBLD). However, considerable differences between the sub-dimensions of the scale were observed and significant differences based on socio-demographic characteristics were found. Keywords: Scale development, Learner autonomy, German teacher training, Foreign language didactics, Promotion of learner autonomy.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this research was to develop a scale that could evaluate an individual’s confidence in using the Internet. Web-based resources are becoming increasingly important within higher education and it is therefore vital that students and staff feel confident and competent in the access, provision, and utilisation of these resources. The scale developed here represents an extension of previous research (Cassidy and Eachus, 2002) which developed a measure of self-efficacy in the context of computer use. An iterative approach was used in the development of the WUSE and the participants were recruited via a web site set up for this purpose. Initial findings suggest that the scale has acceptable standards of reliability and validity though work is continuing to improve the psychometric properties of the scale.
Article
Full-text available
In this article, executive functions and self-regulation are defined and the reciprocal influence of these factors on the performance of students with language-learning disorders (LLD) is explored. A case study demonstrates the integration of executive functions, self-regulation, and language processes within speech and language assessment and intervention. Clinicians are urged to consider the interactive effects of executive function, self-regulatory, and language processes when addressing the needs of students with LLD.
Article
Full-text available
Book's abstract : Self-regulated learning is a new approach to studying student academic achievement. In contrast to previous ability or environmental formulations that address the "why" of achievement, self-regulation models focus on "how" students activate, alter, and sustain their learning practices using a variety of self-related processes. This book brings together a number of internationally known researchers representing different theoretical perspectives on students' self-regulated learning. In each chapter, the authors first describe a particular view of self-regulated learning to show how key subprocesses are defined and measured. Second, evidence that these key subprocesses affect student motivation and achievement is reviewed. Third, the authors describe and discuss how student self-regulated learning can be developed or taught based on their theoretical perspective. This book focuses on the influences of student self-regulated learning practices on academic achievement and motivation.
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the role of self beliefs in the self-regulatory engagement of 1,304 middle school students in Singapore. Developing academic self-regulatory skills is particularly critical for these students when the syllabi are more cognitively demanding and regulation of one’s behaviour towards effective learning is increasingly called upon at the middle school level. However, such skills alone will not contribute much if students do not apply them persistently in the face of difficulties. Self-regulatory processes should be considered within the context of personal agency processes, such as self-efficacy and self-concept, which are conceptualized and grounded in Western individualistic frameworks. However, some research suggests that East Asian students in collectivistic yet achievement-oriented societies may be motivated more by the fear of failure. The relationships between the self beliefs of self-efficacy, self-concept and fear of failure and their respective role in academic self-regulation are evaluated in a country which is extensively exposed to Western individualistic ideologies but is at the same time rooted in Asian values.
Article
A correlational study examined relationships between motivational orientation, self-regulated learning, and classroom academic performance for 173 seventh graders from eight science and seven English classes. A self-report measure of student self-efficacy, intrinsic value, test anxiety, self-regulation, and use of learning strategies was administered, and performance data were obtained from work on classroom assignments. Self-efficacy and intrinsic value were positively related to cognitive engagement and performance. Regression analyses revealed that, depending on the outcome measure, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and test anxiety emerged as the best predictors of performance. Intrinsic value did not have a direct influence on performance but was strongly related to self-regulation and cognitive strategy use, regardless of prior achievement level. The implications of individual differences in motivational orientation for cognitive engagement and self-regulation in the classroom are discussed.
Article
Gender differences among 172 male and 153 female academically talented college freshman students admitted into a university honors program was assessed on a series of attitudinal, behavioral, and demographic survey items using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Differences found were greatest in the extracurricular and personal/social areas. That men and women significantly differ on these types of items have implications for the nature and types of programs and services offered to academically talented students in order to enhance their academic and social integration in college.