Content uploaded by Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh on Apr 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh on Apr 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh on Apr 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh
University of Malaya, Malaysia
Mohd Rashid Mohd Saad
University of Malaya, Malaysia
Reza Boroomand
University of Malaya, Malaysia
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies (SRLS) and academic achievement
in pre-university EFL learners
Abstract- The present study tried to investigate and find the relationship between the
two variables of the research that is, the use of SRL strategies and students’ academic
achievement. The subjects under study were a group of male (40) and female (42) pre-
university students randomly selected from two schools in Tehran, Iran. The instruments
used to gather data were a translated version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) translated by Navidi (2003) and an academic achievement test. In
order to describe data collected from administering the above- mentioned instruments
statistical procedures such as mean, standard deviation, correlation coefficient, as well as
an independent t-test were used. The findings of the present study revealed that there is a
strong relationship (r = .80) between the use of SRL strategies and students’ academic
achievement which is consistent with the findings of studies conducted before. However,
considering the difference between male and females concerning the use of different
components of SRL strategies, the findings of this study showed that there is a difference
between male and females as to the use of SRL strategies. Females outperformed males
in both academic achievement and the use of SRL strategies.
1. Introduction
Throughout the history of learning and teaching in general, and second and foreign language
teaching and learning in particular, different roles have been ascribed to the learners in the
process of learning based on the dominant theory or approach. Once, at the very beginning of
the scientific era of educational psychology (i.e., behaviorism), learners were considered as
2
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
passive and dependent individuals. It was the teacher who assumed the sole responsibility in
the teaching and learning process. He or she could choose long and short term goals,
determine the type of activities to be done in the classroom, provide teaching materials, and
even set the time and the context for learning. However, since the 1960s, due to the
emergence of cognitivism in the field of educational psychology an increasing burden of
responsibility has been placed on the shoulders of learners for their own learning. Learners
are no longer considered as passive individuals equipped just with knowledge and information.
They are, as Perkins (1992) states, actively involved in organizing and reconstructing their
already existing knowledge with the newly received information.
Therefore, learners can set goals for their learning, and then attempt to monitor,
regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, behavior (Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick,
2003) and even the context of learning (Pintrich, 2000). This “active, constructive process"
(Pintrich , 2003, p. 2) is called self-regulated learning (SRL). Zimmerman and Risemberg
(1997) define SRL as self initiated actions which include goal setting and regulating effort to
reach the goal, self monitoring, time management, and physical and social regulation. SRL
can be conceptualized as the learner’s ability to use metacognitive strategies or to control
cognition.
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991) refer to the metacognitive strategies of
planning, monitoring and regulating. A second approach views SRL as the learner’s ability to
use both metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies (Schoenfeld, 1992). Rehearsal,
elaboration, and organizational strategies are seen as key cognitive strategies (Pintrich, 1999).
Finally, a third view highlights the importance of incorporating motivation, cognitive, and
metacognitive components of learning (Tanner & Jones, 2003). Research based on the latter
view suggests SRL is related to motivation and, more specifically, that the motivation
promotes and sustains SRL (Rheinberg et al., 2000). Accepting the above mentioned ideas,
3
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
this study is intentionally limited to the relationship between the use of SRL (cognitive, and
metacognitive) strategies and academic performance of learners.
Most self regulation models assume a direct link between self regulatory activities and
outcomes such as achievement and performance (Wolters et al., 2003). A huge number of
studies in education have demonstrated how SRL can promote student achievement and
facilitate learning motivation (Wang & Lindvall, 1984; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986).
However, there are few studies, particularly in the Iranian context, conducted on senior high
school students to show the relationship between the use of self-regulated learning strategies
and student performance and achievement in EFL.
1.1. Theoretical Grounding
In the last few decades, numerous theories and models have tried to identify the processes
intervening in the SR of learning and also to establish relations between SR and academic
performance. These theories and models include those suggested by Butler and Winne (1995),
Zimmerman (1998, 2000), Pintrich, Wolters, and Baxter (2000), Pintrich and De Groot (1991)
and also Sternberg (1998). Among these models, Pintrich’s (2000) model is considered as the
most comprehensive model because it includes all cognitive and metacognitive aspects of
learning as well as other social, contextual features of the learning environment. Pintrich’s
(2000) model proposed a theoretical framework based on Bandura’s (1986) socio-cognitive
perspective. It was aimed at classifying and analyzing the different processes which play a
role in SRL. In this model, regulatory processes are organized according to four phases of: 1)
planning, 2) monitoring, 3) control, and 4) evaluation. Within each of these phases, self
regulation activities are structured into four areas: cognitive, motivational/affective,
behavioral, and contextual. One of the innovations of this model is that for the first time the
controversial “context” area is included as an area subject to regulation. In the present study
following the Pintrich (2000) model of SR the relationship between the use of SRL strategies
4
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
and academic achievement was tested through the Farsi version the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) translated by Navidi (2003).
1.2. Self -Regulated Learning
During recent years, success and achievement through the use of SRL strategies applied by
learners has attracted the attention of many educators and researchers (Zimmerman, 1998).
New definitions of self- regulation (SR) embody all environmental, motivational, and meta-
cognitive processes which result in quick academic success and achievement. Learning
through regulation refers to the fact that students think about themselves, their own abilities,
and also how they deal with the assignment expected from them (Zimmerman, 1998). SRL
theory concerns “How and Why learners involve themselves in the learning process”; and in
order for the learners to be independent, what they should know about themselves and their
academic affairs. In other words, based on this theory, students learn how to direct their own
learning process, and how to choose appropriate cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral
strategies which cause sufficient effort to achieve their already set goals.
To be self regulated learners, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) hold that they should
acquire the necessary knowledge and skill to choose and apply cognitive, metacognitive, and
behavioral strategies. According to Zimmerman (1989), self-regulated learners are “meta-
cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning
process” (p. 4). One feature of this definition is how and why students choose to use a
particular process or strategy. A main feature of self-regulated learning is metacognition.
Metacognition refers to the awareness, knowledge, and control of cognition; the three
processes that make up metacognitive self-regulatory activities are planning, monitoring, and
regulating (Pintrich et al., 1991).
A considerable number of definitions have been proposed for self regulatory learning;
however, in terms of students' academic achievement three components seem very important.
5
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
The first and the utmost important component is that SRL encompasses those meta-cognitive
strategies which students use to plan, monitor, and re-organize their cognition. The second
important component is the students’ management and controlling of their attempts to do
curricular and academic assignments. The third component of SRL includes those cognitive
strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, and organization) which students use to learn, remember,
and fully comprehend curricular concepts. These three components form the basis of self-
regulated learning (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Zimmerman (1986) considers SRL as a kind
of learning in which individuals, without any dependence on teachers or others, start and
direct their attempts to acquire knowledge and skills.
SRL consists of a series of cyclical stages in which its starting point can be the learners’
information and primary beliefs. When SR learners take part in educational activities, they
first use their information, beliefs, and knowledge so that they can have an assessment of the
qualifications and tools required for those activities. Then, based on their evaluation, they
determine their “goals”. Finally through using strategies which result in cognitive, affective,
and behavioral outcomes, they approach their pre set goals (Zimmerman, 1995).Through the
monitoring process of their learning activities and controlling their progress, students come up
with an internal feedback which provides them with new information to reassess those
activities and the approach they should take while participating in the activities.
1.3. Characteristics of Self- Regulated Learners
Pintrich (1995) believes that self-regulation is not an enduring measure of mental intelligence
after a certain point in life, nor is it a personal characteristic that is genetically based or
formed early in life. Students learn self-regulation through experience and self-reflection
(Zimmerman, 1998). Because self-regulation is not a personality trait, students can control
their behaviors and affect to improve their academic learning and performance (Pintrich,
1995). Zimmerman (2001, 2002) characterizes self regulated students as those who take an
6
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
active part in their learning process from the metacognitive to motivational and behavioral
viewpoint. Characteristics attributed to self-regulated persons are similar with those attributed
to high performance, high capacity students, as opposed to those with low performance who
show a lack in these variables (Reyero & Touron, 2003; Zimmerman, 1998). However, with
adequate training in these dimensions, all students can improve their degree of control over
learning and performance and many learning disabilities found particularly in low
performance students can be alleviated.
In general, studies show that the following characteristics differentiate between self
regulating and non self-regulating students:
1) Self regulated learners are familiar and know how to apply a series of cognitive strategies
(rehearsal, elaboration, organization) which help them to attend to, transform, organize,
elaborate, and recover information (Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 2001).
2) They know how to plan, control, and direct their mental process toward achievement of
personal goals, i.e., metacognition (Corno, 2001).
3) Self regulated students show motivational beliefs and adaptive emotions such as a sense of
academic self efficacy, the adoption learning goals, the development of positive emotion
towards tasks (e.g. joy, satisfaction, enthusiasm) and the capability to control and modify
them to the requirements of the pre set task and the specific learning situation (Weinstein,
Husman & Deirking, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002).
4) They plan and control the time and effort to be spent on tasks, and they know how to
create and structure favorable environments, such as finding a suitable place to study and
seeking help from teachers and classmates when they encounter problems (Corno, 2001;
Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 2001).
7
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
5) To the extent allowed by the context, self regulated learners show greater efforts to
participate in controlling and regulating academic tasks, classroom climate, and structure
(Corno, 2001; Weinstein, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002).
6) Self-regulated learners are able to effect a series of volitional strategies aimed at avoiding
external and internal distractions so that they maintain their concentration, effort and
motivation in performing tasks (Weinstein, Husman, & Deirking, 2000; Zimmerman,
2001, 2002).
To sum up, self regulated students take responsibility for their own learning, consider learning
as a proactive process, are self motivated and use strategies enabling them achieve the desired
academic results.
1.4. Learners’ Role in the Regulation Process
In order to determine the roles ascribed to “learners” in the regulation process, it is important
to have an overview of characteristics, features, and general assumptions shared by almost all
models of regulation. After reviewing all models of self regulation, Wolters et al. (2003)
consider learners as “active, constructive, and having the potential for control of their
environment” (p. 3) as participants in the learning process. Learners are assumed to actively
construct their own meanings, goals, and strategies from information available in the
“external” environment as well as in their own minds (the “internal” environment). Instead of
being mere passive recipients of information from teachers, parents, or other adults, learners
are active, constructive meaning-makers as they go about learning (Pintrich, 2000). The
second, but related, assumption is the potential for control assumption. All the models assume
that learners can potentially monitor, control, and regulate certain aspects of their own
cognition, motivation, and behavior as well as some environmental features (Karabenick,
2001). This assumption does not imply that individuals will or can monitor and control their
cognition, motivation, or behavior at all times or in all contexts, rather just that some
8
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
monitoring, control, and regulation is possible. All of the models concede that certain
biological, developmental, contextual, and individual differences and constraints can interfere
with individual efforts at regulation (Butler & Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989, 1998, 2000).
2. Research Questions and Hypotheses
An overview of the studies conducted in both academic and non academic learning contexts
show a strong relationship between the use of SRL strategies and learners’ achievement in
various contexts and academic courses. However, most of these studies show that younger
students are unable to distinguish among different components of SR because of some
developmental considerations (Wolters et al., 2003). Pintrich (2000) believes that children’s
SR is limited to just cognitive strategies specifically “rehearsal” ones. Considering the results
of the studies conducted in both universities and high schools the present study aims at
answering the following questions:
1- Is there any relationship between academic achievement of senior high school students in
English and the use of SRL strategies?
2- Is there any meaningful difference between male and female senior high school students
concerning the use of SRL strategies and academic achievement?
In view of these questions, the following hypotheses are proposed:
1- Students with higher academic achievement compared with those with average and lower
achievement apply more self- regulated strategies.
2- There is no meaningful difference between male and female senior high school students
concerning the use of self- regulated learning strategies and academic achievement.
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
The participants of this study were 40 senior high school (pre-university) male students
randomly selected from a whole population of 123 from Shahed pre-university center in
9
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Tehran, Iran and 42 female students also randomly selected from a population of 148 from
Alzahra pre-university center in Tehran, Iran. Their ages range from 17 to 20 years. Based on
the grades received from their final examination in English course each group was divided
into three smaller groups (high, mid, and low achievers).The low achiever group, those who
scored between 7 and 15 numbered 24 students, the mid achiever group who scored between
15 and 17 numbered 31, and finally the high achievers those who scored from 18 to 20 in
their final exam numbered 27.
3.2. Instruments
As mentioned before, there are two variables in this research, students’ academic achievement
and SRL strategy use. Therefore, two instruments were required to gather the necessary data
on these two variables, a Farsi version of MSLQ, and a teacher made pre-university test.
3.2. 1. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
To gain information on the type and the degree of application of SRL strategies used by the
subjects the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich
and De Groot (1990) was used. The MSLQ (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) is a self reporting
tool with 81 items: 50 items for motivational beliefs scales and subscales and 31 items for self
regulated learning strategies which is based on the motivational model of expectancy times
values with the objective of measuring different motivational components and the use of
learning strategies in a given course or subject matter. It uses a seven point Likert scale
ranging from 1(“not at all true of me”) to 7(“very true of me”) with no specific labels for the
other response categories. One advantage of this instrument is that it has been applied and
validated at different educational levels, both university and non university (Wolters et al.,
2003) .The MSLQ instrument has been used widely in investigating students’ motivation and
learning strategies in many countries, such as Australia (Fuller, 1999), Arabia (Almegta,
1997), Canada (d’Apollonia, Galley, & Simpson, 2001), China (Rao, Moely, & Sachs, 2000),
10
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Japan (Yamauchi, Kumagai, & Kawasaki, 1999), and Taiwan (Lee, 1997). In the present
study the Farsi version of this questionnaire translated by Navidi (2003) is used. In the present
study, in order to determine the reliability of the Farsi version of MSLQ test re-test method
was used on group of 22 pre-university students from Shahed center in Tehran in a time
interval of two weeks. The correlation coefficient after the two administrations was (r = .94).
3.2.2. Academic Achievement Test
The second instrument used for gathering information on the second variable of the research,
that is, students’ academic achievement, was a teacher- made test. Before elaborating on
different components of this test it is vital to give some information about the main objective
of English teaching in Iran, as well as different components of the course books at the pre
university level.
Although Talebinezhad and Aliakbari (2001) believe that ELT in Iran is experiencing a
conversion from EFL towards EIL, the main objective of English teaching in the country, as
written on the paper cover of the course book, is limited to teaching reading. Therefore, the
focus of course books is on teaching reading strategies and skills. Reading activities are
divided into three main parts: pre-reading, while reading, and finally, post-reading activities.
In the pre reading phase activities some questions are raised to activate or provide the
students with background knowledge about what they will have in the text. In the while
reading phase there is a text which may be an excerpt with different genres taken from
different sources. During post reading activities, students’ comprehension will be checked
through different types of questions. Moreover, a small portion of each lesson deals with
different functions of a sentence such as explaining, exemplifying, or defining, as well as
grammatical explanation. Based on the above mentioned components of the course book, the
instrument used to determine the level of the students’ academic achievement consists of
these scales: vocabulary, reading comprehension, sentence function, and grammatical points.
11
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Vocabulary is tested in many different ways such as putting the unfamiliar word in a context,
or giving a definition to be matched with a word or phrase in the opposite column. Students’
sentence or reading comprehension is tested through short and long texts with multiple
choices, true false, and open ended items related to the text, as well as cloze passages.
Sentence function items may be in the form of fill in the blanks, or completion type. In order
to check students’ grammatical knowledge, multiple choice items, rewriting the sentences
using the cues in brackets, and matching items are used (see Appendix).
3.3. Procedures
In order to conduct the study and collect the required data related to the research questions
and hypotheses the following procedure was followed. Forty male and forty- two female
students were randomly selected from a population of 271 from two senior high schools (pre-
university) in Tehran called Shahed and Al- Zahra. Before questionnaire administration,
subjects were asked to undergo a briefing session lasting about 20 minutes. This session was
to provide them with some information on the objective of the study and how to answer the
questionnaire items. Since the subjects were not required to write their names on the
questionnaire, both chairs and questionnaires were numbered. After collecting the
questionnaires and checking for any invalid ones, they were scored twice by two scorers. And
then based on the grades the subjects had received in their English course final examination in
2010 they were divided into three groups: high, average, and low scorers. Finally, in order to
analyze the data received from the questionnaires and compare them with the subjects'
performance in the final examination (in order to answer the research questions and approve
or reject the hypotheses), the SPSS computer program was run.
3.4. Data Analysis
In order to describe the data received from administering the MSLQ, descriptive statistics
(mean, medium, mode, and standard deviation) were used. To answer the first question and
12
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
approve or reject the first hypothesis, that is, the relationship between the uses of self
regulated learning strategies and academic achievement, Pearson’s correlation coefficient
formula was applied. And finally in order to answer the second research question and
hypothesis, that is, if there is any meaningful difference between male and female senior high
school students concerning the use of different components self-regulated learning strategies
and academic achievement, an independent T test (comparing the mean of male and female
scores) was used .
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Information as to the Subjects
For the purpose of this study, as mentioned earlier, a total number of 82 pre-university
students (40 male and 42 female students) were randomly selected. Table 4.1 clearly shows:
the number, percentage, and cumulative percentage of each group.
Table (4.1). The frequency of subjects' gender
Gender Frequency Percentage Cumulative percentage
Male 40 48.8 48.8
Female 42 51.2 100
Total 82 100 ------
4.2. Academic Achievement Scores
A comprehensive survey of scores collected from correcting the achievement test papers and
standardizing the subjects' raw scores to determine the standing and frequency of each score
in relation to other scores shows that they fluctuate between 7 and 20. Among all scores the
most frequent one is 16, surprisingly with a frequency of 16, which amounts nearly to 19.5
percent of all scores.
13
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Table 4.2 Academic achievement scores in English.
score frequency Percentage Valid percentage Cumulative percentage
7.00
11.00
12.00
12.50
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
18.50
19.00
20.00
total
1
1
2
1
5
5
9
16
15
15
1
6
5
82
1.2
1.2
2.4
1.2
6.1
6.1
11.0
19.5
18.3
18.3
1.2
7.3
6.1
100.0
1.2
1.2
2.4
1.2
6.1
6.1
11.0
19.5
18.3
18.3
1.2
7.3
6.1
100.0
1.2
2.4
4.9
6.1
12.2
18.3
29.3
48.8
67.1
85.4
86.6
93.9
100.0
Using the collected and organized academic achievement scores (Table 4-2), the measures of
central tendency (mean ,median, mode) and measures of variability (range, standard
deviation ,maximum, minimum scores) are computed. Table 4.3 shows that the mean is 16.3,
median 17, mode 16, standard deviation 2.30, range 13, the minimum score 7, and the
maximum score is 20.
Table 4.3. Statistical measures of academic achievement scores
Measures Mean Median Mode Std. deviation Range Minimum Max
Scores 16.3 17.00 16.00 2.30 13 7 20
In order to answer the first research question, if there is any difference between high, mid, and
low scorers as to the use of different components of SRL strategies, as well as, the first
hypothesis, high scorer subjects use more SRL strategies in comparison with mid and low
scorers, it was necessary to divide the subjects into three main groups. This classification is
based upon the computation of the mean and standard deviation of the scores collected from
administering the academic achievement test. As can be seen in Table 4.5, 24 of the students
(29.3 per cent) who have scored between 7-15 fall in the low scorers group, 31 students (37.8
14
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
percent) who have scored between 16-17 belong to the mid scorers group, and 27 students
(32.9 per cent) who have scored between 18-20 fall into the high scorers group.
Table 4.4.Grouping of students based on academic achievement scores
Group Range Frequency Percentage Cumulative percentage
Low 7-15 24 29.3 29.3
Mid 16-17 31 37.8 67.1
High 18-20 27 32.9 100
Total
--------
100 100
------------
In order to answer the second research question, that is, if there is any significant difference
between male and female students in the use of SRL strategies and academic achievement, as
well as, the second null hypothesis, there is no significant difference between male and female
students concerning the use of different components of SRL strategies, it was necessary to
calculate the mean and other statistical measures of both male and female students’ academic
achievement scores. Table 4.4 shows that the mean of female's scores is nearly 2 points
greater than that of males', which shows that males scores in English is more variable than
those of females'.
Table 4.5. A comparison of males' and females' mean and Std. deviation of academic
achievement scores
Gender Mean Std. deviation Frequency
Male 15.30 2.27 40
Female 17.28 1.90 42
4.3. SRL Strategies Scores
In order to determine the degree of the application of SRL strategies by the students, a Farsi
version of MSLQ (Navidi, 2003) was given to the subjects. The scores collected from
administering MSLQ show that the minimum score is 68, the maximum 186, the mode is 161,
median 153.50, mean 149.98, and standard deviation is 17.79.
Table 4.6. Statistical measures of SRL strategies scores collected from administering MSLQ
Mean Mode Median Std.deviation Minimum Maximum
149.98 161 153.50 17.79 68 180
15
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Based on the data illustrated in Table 4.6, students’ scores in applying SRL strategies
fluctuate between 68-180. Grouping the students according to the levels of SRL strategies use
shows that most students fall in the high scorer group. According to the data presented in
Table 4.7, around 4.9 percent of the students fall in the low scorer group, 40.9 percent of them
are in the mid achiever group, and about 54.9 percent fall in the high achiever group.
Table 4.7. Grouping students based on SRL scores.
Group scorers Range Frequency Percentage Cumulative percentage
Low 68-120 4 4.9 4.9
Mid 121-150 33 40.2 45.1
High 151-180 45 54.9 100
Total ---------- 82 100 -----------
4.4. The Subjects' Performance in MSLQ Subscales
The MSLQ consists of five subscales: 1) Meta-cognitive self regulation, 2) Time and Study
area management, 3) Effort Regulation, 4) Peer Learning 5) Help Seeking.
A close study of the scores collected from running MSLQ shows that of the total scores of
217 for all subscales the students have scored 154 which is approximately 70.96 percent of
the whole scores. This shows an optimal use of SRL strategies in learning English by the
students.
Table 4.8. A comparison of the subjects' scores in the subscales of SRL strategies
Scale No. of items Maximum score Mean Percentage
Metacognitive self
regulation
12 84 59 70.23
Time &study area
management
8 56 45 80.35
Effort regulation 4 28 17 60.71
Peer learning 3 21 12 57.14
Help seeking 4 28 21 75
Total 31 217 154 70.96
Based on the data illustrated in Table 4.8. the highest level of application of SRL subscales
belongs to time and study area management scale with an 80.35 percent; and the lowest level
of application of SRL subscales belongs to peer learning subscale with 57.14 percent.
16
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
4.5. Research Questions
1-Is there any relationship between the use of SRL strategies and pre university academic
achievement in English?
An overall analysis of scores related to the research variables: a) the use of SRL
strategies, and b) the subjects' academic achievement show that there is a correlation
coefficient of .80 between the two variables (r = .80). In other words, there is a positive
relationship between the two variables. This level of correlation is meaningful with a
probability of p < .000. Statistically speaking this level of correlation is highly significant and
meaningful. Considering internal correlation between five subscales of SRL strategies and
students achievement, the highest correlation belongs to meta-cognitive self regulation (r
= .63), and the lowest level of correlation belongs to Effort regulation (r = .36) which is
meaningful at the level of p < .000. Table 4.9 clearly shows the degree of correlation between
SRL strategies and academic achievement in general, as well as, the level correlation of five
sub scales of SRL strategies.
Table.4.9. Correlation coefficient between the use of SRL strategies and students' academic
achievement in English
Scales Co. coefficient meaningfulness No.
Meta-cognitive SR .65 .000 82
Time & study area management .54 .000 82
Effort regulation .36 .000 82
Peer learning .52 .000 82
Help seeking .49 .000 82
SRL scales .80 .000 82
Therefore, based on the above figures, it can be said that there is a significant correlation
between the use of SRL strategies and student academic achievement.
2- Is there a meaningful difference between male and female students concerning the use of
different components of SRL strategies?
17
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
In order to answer the above mentioned question, using an independent t-test, a comparison is
made between males' and females' English academic scores means. As presented in Table
4.10, the mean score for males is 144.27, while the mean for females is 155.42. Considering
the calculated F (3.18), it can be concluded that there is no significant difference between
males and females in the use of SRL strategies; at the probability level of 90 percent the
difference is not meaningful; however, it is meaningful at the level of 99 percent.
Table (4-10). Comparison of males and females means in using SRL strategies
Gender Frequency Mean Std. deviation
Std. Error of
measurement
Calculated
F
Sig.
Males 40 144.27 20.08 3.17 3.18 .07
Females 42 155.42 13.40 2.06
4.6. Research Hypotheses
Consistent with the two already posed questions, there are two research hypotheses in this
study; both of them will be discussed in this section.
Hypothesis (1): High scorer students in comparison with mid and low scorer students use
more SRL strategies.
A comparison of the level of SRL strategies application among three groups of students
(high, mid, and low scorers) show that those with low academic achievement have a mean of
(133.83), students with mid academic achievement have a mean of (152.23), and those with
high academic achievement have a mean of (162.66) in using SRL strategies. Based on the
data illustrated in Table 4.11, there is a considerable difference between the mean of low and
mid achievers in comparison with that of high achievers group. Therefore, as can easily be
discerned from Table 4.11, there is a positive relationship between the use of SRL strategies
by the students and the improvement of their academic performance. In other words, as the
students’ academic scores ascend the degree of application of SRL strategies by the students
increase. So, the first research hypothesis is definitely confirmed.
18
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Table 4.11. A comparison of level of application of SRL strategies among three different
groups of students with different academic achievement
Academic
achievement
SRL strategies
Mean
No. of students in each
group
Std. deviation
Low. 133.83 24 20.46
Mid. 152.32 31 11.12
High. 161.66 27 9.16
Total. 149.98 82 17.79
Hypothesis (2): There is no meaningful difference between female and male students (high,
mid, and low scorers) as to the use of different components of SRL strategies.
In order to investigate this hypothesis the statistical test, a one way analysis of variances
(ANOVA) is used .Using this technique, the level of difference between two variables of
research, that is, the use of SRL strategies (independent variable), and the academic
achievement of female and male students (dependent variable) is analyzed and determined
(Table 4.12). As illustrated in Table 4.12 the observed F (25.73) is greater than the critical
table F. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a meaningful difference between male and
female students as to the use of SRL strategies at the significant level of 99 percent.
Table (4.12) analysis of variances between, the use of SRL strategies and the academic
achievement of female and male students
Sources of variability Sum of Square df Mean square
F
Sig.
Between groups 10114.880 2 5057.440
25.73
.000
Within groups 15526.108 79 196.532
Total 25640.988 81 --------
4.8. Peripheral Findings
As shown in Table 4.13 a comparison is made between males and females concerning their
academic achievement scores .This comparison shows that although females' mean is 17.28
and males' mean is 15.30, there is no significant difference between them. Females' scores
standard deviation is 1.9 while males' standard deviation is 2.27. This difference shows that
males' scores are more scattered than females'. In other words, male students are more
heterogeneous than females.
19
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Table (4-13).a comparison of the performance of males' and females' academic achievement
in English
Sex Frequency Mean Std. deviation Std. Error mean
F
Sig.
Males 40 15.30 2.27 .360 .64 .42
Females 42 17.28 1.90 .290
5. Discussion
A brief survey of the results of this study shows that they are, as earlier mentioned, in the case
of the relationship between the use of SRL strategies and academic achievement consistent
with the findings of previous studies. However, considering the second research question and
hypothesis, the findings are inconsistent with those of previous studies. Taking the two
variables of research into consideration as mentioned earlier and illustrated in Table 4.9.,
there is a positive relationship between the use of SRL strategies and students' academic
achievement .The degree of correlation coefficient is .80 which is statistically acceptable and
consistent with the results of previous studies. However, taking the second research question
that is if there is any meaningful difference between male and female students in using SRL
strategies, and the second research null hypothesis, “there is no significant difference between
male and female students as to the use of SRL strategies” into consideration, it can easily be
seen that the result of this research are not consistent with those conducted before.
6. Conclusions
The findings of the present study show that there is a close and positive relationship between
the use of different components of SRL strategies and pre-university students’ academic
achievement in English. In other words, those students who were more successful and scored
better in their English final examination used more SRL strategies .Therefore, it can be
inferred that there is a positive relationship between the two variables. This study also shows
that there is no significant difference between male and female students concerning the use
of different components of SRL strategies, which is inconsistent with the findings of the
studies carried out before. This discrepancy may be due to different factors including: 1) male
20
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
and female students are different considering personal traits. 2) They may have had different
educational and social backgrounds. 3) Although they are at the same level of education, they
may have different incentives. 2) Since they are at different educational centers, they may
enjoy different instruction and training. 4) They (females) may have received some kind of
training or instruction as to the use of SRL strategies.
7. Pedagogical Implication
Nowadays methodologists, teachers, experts, and anyone who has got knowledge or
experience in teaching in general and language teaching in particular, believes that it is not
just personal factors such as learners' intelligence, background knowledge, motivation, or
external factors including teachers' mastery, teaching or learning environment , and course
books which streamline the process of learning or acquiring a skill. Moreover, psychologists
believe there are differences among learners; and this diversity of needs, personality traits,
and incentives makes it difficult for teachers to come up with methods or approaches to
satisfy these diverse needs and requirements. Therefore, methodologists have come to the
conclusion to shift this burden of responsibility from teachers only to learners. Learners
should assume responsibility for their own learning. But how? To address this, educational
experts and methodologists believe that teachers should train their learners so that they by
themselves, using different techniques or strategies, manage, control, monitor, and evaluate
their learning processes. In fact, they should learn “how to learn.”
Considering the findings of the present study and those of the previous ones, self
regulation and different kinds of cognitive and metacognitive strategies seem to be
indispensable .The significant difference between high achiever students in comparison with
those with low and mid academic achievement emphasizes the importance of SRL strategies
in the process of learning in general and second or foreign language in particular. Therefore, it
is incumbent upon both educational experts and authorities to do the following:
21
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
1) Familiarize their teachers and instructors with the importance of and knowledge of
learning strategies in general and SRL strategies in particular.
2) Provide those who are directly involved in teaching and training with some kind of pre-
service or in-service training so that they teach the students to become independent
learners through using different types of strategies.
3) Help the students become independent learners by using different kinds of cognitive,
meta-cognitive, and SRL strategies.
8. Suggestions for Further Research
Because of the novelty of this research in the Iranian context and also the importance of SRL
strategies in the process of learning a foreign language such as English, the following is
suggested:
1) The present study can be conducted on other levels of general or higher education.
2) The relationship between the use of SRL strategies and other academic courses be studied.
3) Instead of using an achievement test to represent student academic achievement, a standard
achievement test can be used.
4) This study can be carried out at different schools with different educational conditions.
22
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Appendices
Appendix A
MSLQ Scales and Items (Pintrich, P. R.; Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J.
(1991).
(Note: Item numbers are the original numbers in the questionnaire)
Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies:
Metacognitive Self-Regulation
33. During class time I often miss important points because I’m thinking of other things.
36. When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading.
41. When I become confused about something I’m reading for this class, I go back and try to
figure it out.
44. If course readings are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material.
54. Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often skim it to see how it is organized.
55. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying in this
class.
56. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and the instructor’s
teaching style.
57. I often find that I have been reading for this class but don’t know what it was all about.
61. I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather than
just reading it over when studying.
76. When studying for this course I try to determine which concepts I don’t understand well.
78. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in each
study period.
79. If I get confused taking notes in class, I make sure I sort it out afterwards.
23
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Resource Management Strategies:
Time and Study Environment
35. I usually study in a place where I can concentrate on my course work.
43. I make good use of my study time for this course.
52. I find it hard to stick to a study schedule. (REVERSED)
65. I have a regular place set aside for studying.
70. I make sure that I keep up with the weekly readings and assignments for this course.
73. I attend this class regularly.
77. I often find that I don’t spend very much time on this course because of other activities.
(REVERSED)
80. I rarely find time to review my notes or readings before an exam. (REVERSED)
Resource Management Strategies:
Effort Regulation
37. I often feel so lazy or bored when I study for this class that I quit before I finish what I
planned to do.
48. I work hard to do well in this class even if I don’t like what we are doing.
60. When course work is difficult, I either give up or only study the easy parts. (REVERSED)
74. Even when course materials are dull and uninteresting, I manage to keep working until I
finish.
Resource Management Strategies:
Peer Learning
34. When studying for this course, I often try to explain the material to a classmate or friend.
45. I try to work with other students from this class to complete the course assignments.
50. When studying for this course, I often set aside time to discuss course material with a
group of students from the class.
24
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Resource Management:
Help Seeking
40. Even if I have trouble learning the material in this class, I try to do the work on my own,
without help from anyone.
58. I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don’t understand well.
68. When I can’t understand the material in this course, I ask another student in this class for
help.
75. I try to identify students in this class whom I can ask for help if necessary.
25
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Appendix B (The Farsi version of MSLQ)
ﻩﺪﺷ ﻩداد ﻢﻈﻧ دﻮﺧ يﺮﻴﮔدﺎﻳ يﺎهدﺮﺒهار ﻪﻣﺎﻨﺸﺳﺮﭘ
ﻲﻣاﺮﮔ زﻮﻣﺁ ﺶﻧاد
ﻣ
و يﺮﻴﮔدﺎﻳ و ي يﺎهدﺮﺒهار ياﺮﺑ ﻪﻣﺎﻨﺸﺳ ﺮﭘ ﻦﻳا ﺪﻧﺎﺳر ﻲﻣ عﻼﻃا ﻪﺑ ﺎﻤﺷ ﻪﻧﺎﻤﻴﻤﺻ يرﺎﻜﻤه زا ﺮﻜﺸﺗ ﻦﻤ
ﺿ
ﺖﺳا ﻩﺪﺷ ﻢﻴﻈﻨﺗ نازﻮﻣا ﺶﻧاد ﻪﻌﻟ.دراﺪﻧ دﻮﺟو ﻂﻠﻏ ﺎﻳ ﺖﺳرد ﺦﺳﺎﭘ ﭻﻴه ﻪآ ﺪﻴﺷﺎﺑ ﻪﺘﺷاد ﻪﺟﻮﺗ. ﻪﻜﻴﻳﺎﺟ ﺎﺗ
ﺪﻴهد ﺦﺳﺎﭘ ﻪﻧﺎﻗ دﺎﺻ لاﻮﺳ ﺮه ﻪﺑ ﺪﻴﻨآ ﻲﻌﺳ ﺖﺳا ﻦﻜﻤﻣ . درﻮﻣ رد ﺰﮔﺮه ﻪﻠﻤﺟ ﻚﻳ مﻮﻬﻔﻣ ﺪﻴﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﺮﻜﻓ ﺮﮔا
دﺪﻋ ﺪﻨآ ﻲﻤﻧ قﺪﺻ ﺎﻤﺷ1 ﺪﻴﻨآ بﺎﺨﺘﻧا ار .ﺎﻤﺷ رﺎﺘﻓر ﺎﺑ ﻼﻣﺎآ ﻪﻠﻤﺟ مﻮﻬﻔﻣ ﺮﮔا دﺪﻋ ﺖﺳا ﮓﻨهﺎﻤه7 ار
ﺪﻴﻨآ ﺺﺨﺸﻣ. ﺎﺑ ﺮﺘﺸﻴﺑ ﻪﻠﻤﺟ نا ﻪآ ﺖﺳا ﻦﻳا ﯽﻨﻌﻣ ﻪﺑ ﺪﻴﻨآ بﺎﺨﺘﻧا ار ﯼﺮﺘﮔرﺰﺑ د دﺪﻋ ﻪﭼ ﺮه ﻪآ ﺪﻴﻨآ ﻪﺟﻮﺗ
ﺖﺳا ﮓﻨهﺎﻤه ﺎﻤﺷ رﺎﺘﻓر .
ﻒﻳدر تارﺎﻬﻇا ﺖﺳرد ﻼﻣﺎآ ﻂﻠﻏ ﻼﻣﺎآ
1
تﺎﻜﻧ ﻪﺑ ﻢﻧاﻮﺗ ﻲﻤﻧ و ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﺮﻜﻓ ﺮﮕﻳد يﺎهﺰﻴﭼ ﻪﺑ سرد سﻼآ رد
ﻢﻨآ ﻪﺟﻮﺗ سرد ﻢﻬﻣ.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2
ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ مﺎﮕﻨه ﻪﺑ ﻲﻳﺎه لاﻮﺳ دﻮﺧ زا،نﺪﻧاﻮﺧ رد ﺰﮐﺮﻤﺗ ﻪﺑ ﻚﻤآ ياﺮﺑ ،
ﻢﺳﺮﭘ ﻲﻣ.
3
شﻼﺗ و مدﺮﮔ ﻲﻣ ﺮﺑ ﺐﻘﻋ ﻪﺑ ، ﻢﻤﻬﻔﻧ لر ﯽﺒﻠﻄﻣ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ مﺎﮕﻨه ﻪﺑ ﺮﮔا
ﻢﻬﻔﺑ ﻲﺑﻮﺧ ﻪﺑ ار نﺁ ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ.
4
ار دﻮﺧ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ شور ،ﺪﺷﺎﺑ راﻮﺷد ﻢﻳاﺮﺑ ﺎه سرد ﺐﻠﻄﻣ نﺪﻴﻤﻬﻓ ﺮﮔا
ﻢهد ﻲﻣ ﺮﻴﻴﻐﺗ
5
ﻚﻳ ﺎﺑ ﺐﻠﻏا ، ﻢﻨآ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻞﻣﺎآ رﻮﻃ ﻪﺑ ار ﺪﻳﺪﺟ ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻪﻜﻨﻳا زا ﻞﺒﻗ
نﺁ يﺪﻨﺑ نﺎﻣزﺎﺳ ي ﻩﻮﺤﻧ ﺎﺑ ﺎﺗ ﻢﻨﻜﻴﻣ ﻲﺳرﺮﺑ ار نﺁ ﻲﻟﺎﻤﺟا ﻩﺎﮕﻧ
مﻮﺷ ﺎﻨﺷﺁ.
6
دﻮﺧ زا ﻩﺪﺷ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ تﺎﻋﻮﺿﻮﻣ ﻢﻬﻓ و كرد زا نﺎﻨﻴﻤﻃا ﺐﺴآ ياﺮﺑ
ﻢﺳﺮﭘ ﻲﻣ يﺎه لاﻮﺳ
26
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
7
ﻲﻣ ﻲﻌﺳ و ﻩرود ﯼﺎهزﺎﻴﻧ ﺎﺑ ﺎﺗ ﻢهﺪﺑ ﺮﻴﻴﻐﺗ ار دﻮﺧ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ شور ﻢﻨآ
ﺪﺷﺎﺑ ﮓﻨهﺎﻤه ﺎه ﻢﻠﻌﻣ ﺲﻳرﺪﺗ ﻩﻮﻴﺷ.
8
ﻩرﺎﺑرد ﻢﻧاد ﻲﻤﻧ ﺎﻣا ، ما ﻩﺪﻧاﻮﺧ سﻼآ رد ار ﯽﺒﻠﻄﻣ ﻪآ ﻢﻧاد ﻲﻣ ﺐﻠﻏا
ﺖﺳا ﻩدﻮﺑ ﻪﭼ.
9
، ﻢﻨآ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ فﺪه نوﺪﺑ ﻪﻜﻨﻳا يﺎﺟ ﻪﺑ عﻮﺿﻮﻣ ﻚﻳ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ مﺎﮕﻨه ﻪﺑ
ﻴﭼ ﻪﺑ ﻩراﻮﻤه ﻢﺸﻳﺪﻧا ﻲﻣ مﺮﻴﮕﺑ دﺎﻳ ﻢﺘﺳاﻮﺧ ﻲﻣ ﻪآ يﺰ.
10
ﻲﺑﻮﺧ ﻪﺑ ﻪآ ار ﻲﺒﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻪآ ﻢﻨﻜﻴﻣ ﻲﻌﺳ عﻮﺿﻮﻣ ﻚﻳ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ مﺎﮕﻨه ﻪﺑ
ﻢﻨآ ﺺﺨﺸﻣ ما ﻩﺪﻴﻤﻬﻔﻧ
11
يﺮﻴﮔدﺎﻳ يﺎه ﺖﻴﻟﺎﻌﻓ ﺖﻳاﺪه ياﺮﺑ ار دﻮﺧ فاﺪها ، ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ مﺎﻜﻨه ﻪﺑ
ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻢﻴﻈﻨﺗ.
12
ﻬﺒﻣ سﻼآ رد ﻦﻣ يﺎه ﺖﺷاددﺎﻳ ﺮﮔا مﺎﻬﺑا ًا ﺪ ﻌ ﺑ ﻪآ مراد نﺎﻨﻴﻤﻃا، ﺪﺷﺎﺑ ﻢ
ﺖﺧﺎﺳ ﻢهاﻮﺧ فﺮﻃ ﺮﺑ ار ﺎه نﺁ.
ﻒﻳدر تارﺎﻬﻇا ﺖﺳرد ﻼﻣﺎآ ﻂﻠﻏ ﻼﻣﺎآ
13
ﺰآ ﺮﻤﺗ ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ يور ﺮﺑ ﻢﻧاﻮﺘﺑ ﻪآ ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻲﻧﺎﻜﻣ رد ﻻﻮﻤﻌﻣ
ﻢﺷﺎﺑ ﻪﺘﺷاد.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
14
زا))ﺖﻗو((ﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻩدﺎﻔﺘﺳا ﻲﺑﻮﺧ ﻪﺑ ﺎه سرد ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ ياﺮﺑ دﻮﺧﻢ.
15
ﻢﻨآ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻩﺪﺷ يﺪﻨﺑ نﺎﻣز ﻪﻣﺎﻧﺮﺑ ﻚﻳ ﻖﺒﻃﺮﺑ ﻪآ ﺖﺳا ﺖﺨﺳ ﻦﻣ ياﺮﺑ
16
ﻲﻳﺎﺟ ﻦﻣ)نﺎﻜﻣ (ما ﻩدﺮآ ﻩدﺎﻣﺁ و ﺐﺗﺮﻣ مدﻮﺧ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ ياﺮﺑ ار.
17
ﻲﻧﺪﻧاﻮﺧ ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ و ﻲﮕﺘﻔه ﻒﻴﻟﺎﻜﺗ ﻩﺪﻬﻋ زا ﻢﻧاﻮﺗ ﻲﻣ ﻪآ مراد نﺎﻨﻴﻤﻃا
ﻢﻳﺁﺮﺑ ﻲﺷزﻮﻣﺁ ﻩرود ﻦﻳا.
18
ﻃ ﻪﺑ ﻦﻣﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﺖآﺮﺷ سرد يﺎه سﻼآ رد ﺐﺗﺮﻣ رﻮ.
19
ﻦﺘﺧﻮﻣﺁ ياﺮﺑ يدﺎﻳز ﺖﻗو ، ﺮﮕﻳد يﺎه ﺖﻴﻟﺎﻌﻓ ﺮﺗا رد ﻪآ ﻢﻧاد ﻲﻣ
27
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻤﻧ فﺮﺻ ﺎه سرد.
20
ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ و ﺎه ﻪﺘﺷﻮﻧ روﺮﻣ ياﺮﺑ نﺎﺤﺘﻣا ﻞﺒﻗ ﻢﻧاﻮﺗ ﻲﻣ ترﺪﻧ ﻪﺑ
))ﻲﺘﻗو ((ﻢهﺪﺑ صﺎﺼﺘﺧا ار.
21
ﺣا سرد ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ مﺎﮕﻨه ﻪﺑ ﺐﻠﻏا ﻞﺒﻗ و ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻲﮕﺘﺴﺧ ﺎﻳ ﻲﻠﺒﻨﺗ سﺎﺴ
مدﻮﺧ ﻒﻴﻟﺎﻜﺗ ﻪﻜﻧﺁ زا.
22
ﺮﮔا ﻲﺘﺣ ، ﺪﺷﺎﺑ بﻮﺧ سﻼآ رد ﻦﻣ دﺮﻜﻠﻤﻋ ﺎﺗ ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ شﻼﺗ ﻲﺘﺨﺳ ﻪﺑ
ﻢﺷﺎﺑ ﻪﺘﺷاﺪﻧ ﻪﻗﻼﻋ ، ﻢهد ﻲﻣ مﺎﺠﻧا ﻪﭽﻧﺁ ﻪﺑ.
23
ﺎﻬﻨﺗ ﺎﻳ ، ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﺎهر ار نﺁ ، ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ درﻮﺧﺮﺑ يراﻮﺷد ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻪﺑ ﻲﺘﻗو
ار نﺎﺳﺁ يﺎه ﺶﺨﺑ ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻪﻌﻟ ﺎﻄﻣ.
24
ﻪﺑ ، ﺪﺷﺎﺑ ﻩﺪﻨﻨآ ﻪﺘﺴﺧ و ﻩدﻮﺒﻧ ﺐﻟﺎﺟ ﻲﻨﺘﺧﻮﻣﺁ ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻪآ ﻲﻧﺎﻣز ﻲﺘﺣ
ﻢهد ﻲﻣ ﻪﻣادا ﺮﺧﺁ ﺎﺗ دﻮﺧ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ.
25
زا ﻪﺑ ار ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻲﻌﺳ ﺐﻠﻏا ، ﺎه سرد ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ مﺎﮕﻨه ﻪﺑ
ﻢهد ﺢﻴﺿﻮﺗ نﺎﺘﺳود ﺎﻳ نﺎﺳﻼﮑﻤه.
26
ﻌﺳ ، ﻩرود ﻒﻴﻠﻜﺗ مﺎﺠﻧا ياﺮﺑ يرﺎﻜﻤه نازﻮﻣﺁ ﺶﻧاد ﺮﻳﺎﺳ ﺎﺑ ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻲ
ﻢﻨآ.
27
ﺐﻠﻏا ، ﻲﺷزﻮﻣﺁ ﻩرود لﻮﻃ رد))ﻲﺘﻗو(( زا ﻲهوﺮﮔ ﺎﺑ ﺖﺤﺑ ياﺮﺑ ار
ﻢهد ﻲﻣ صﺎﺼﺘﺧا ﺎه سرد سﻼآ نازﻮﻣﺁ ﺶﻧاد.
28
ﺪﺷﺎﺑ ﻪﺘﺷاد يدﺎﻳز ﺖﻤﺣز ﻦﻣ ياﺮﺑ ﺎه سرد ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻦﺘﺧﻮﻣﺁ ﺮﮔا ﻲﺘﺣ
ا ﻦﺘﻓﺮﮔ ﻚﻤآ نوﺪﺑ ار ﻢﻳﺎهرﺎآ ﻢﻨﻜﻴﻣ ﻲﻌﺳ،ﻢهد مﺎﺠﻧا ﻲﺴآ ز.
29
ياﺮﺑ ما ﻩﺪﻴﻤﻬﻔﻧ ﻲﺑﻮﺧ ﻪﺑ ﻪآ ار ﻲﻤﻴهﺎﻔﻣ ﻢهاﻮﺧ ﻲﻣ ﺎه ﻢﻠﻌﻣ زا ﻻﻮﻤﻌﻣ
ﺪﻨهﺪﺑ ﺢﻴﺿﻮﺗ ﻦﻣ.
30
زﻮﻣﺁ ﺶﻧاد ﻚﻳ زا ﻢﻤﻬﻔﺑ ار ﺎه سرد ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﻢﻧاﻮﺗ ﻲﻤﻧ ﻪآ ﻲﺘﻗو
ﻢهاﻮﺧ ﻲﻣ ﻚﻤآ ﻲﺳﻼﻜﻤه.
31
ﻲﻳﺎﺳﺎﻨﺷ ار ﻲﻧﺎﺴآ سﻼآ نازﻮﻣﺁ ﺶﻧاد زا ﻢﻨآ ﻲﻣ ﻲﻌﺳ رد ﻪآ ﻢﻨآ
ﻢهاﻮﺨﺑ ﺎه نﺁ زﺎﻴﻧ ترﻮﺻ
28
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Appendix C. Pre-university Academic achievement test
A)VOCABULARY
A-Fill in the blanks with the given words. There is one extra word.
(observe-private-poverty-compose-agriculture-signs-access)
1-in many parts of the world, some people live below the ……line.
2-at an early age, Edison showed ……..of a serious hearing problem.
3-a large number of people don't have …….to the Internet.
4-this was the first ……..research laboratory in the USA.
5-Newton used a better telescope to …….other objects in space.
6-most working children in rural areas are found in ……..
B-match the following words in column A with their definitions in column B.
A B
7-document( ) a-not public
8-mission ( ) b-a person who is learning a job.
9-launch ( ) c-a piece of paper with information on it.
10-private ( ) d-join one thing to another
11-apprentice( ) e-a flight into space
12-attach ( ) f-a small amount of sth. To test.
g-sending sb. Or sth. Into space
c-choose the correct answer.
13-my grand father ………..from a strange disease.
a-supports b-offers c-suffers d-operates
14-some schools in Iran are built by …….organizations.
a-duty b-convents c-capital d-charity
29
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
15-a computer is a useful device, but it can be ……………
a-positive b-anxious c-irrelevant d-addictive
16-please tell me if these flowers are natural or ………………
D- Circle the different word.
17-a-impression b-influence c-effect d-promotion
18-a-church b-devote c-slum d-Covent
B.GRAMMAR
A-Choose the best answer.
19-in some are very rich ….others are quite poor.
a-when b-while c-whether d-since
20-"I can't find my bag."
"You ………….have left it home .I am not sure, of course."
a-might b-could c-would d-should
21-she can speak three languages ………she is only seven.
a-since b-whether c-because d-although
22-Ali goes to the library ……….he can study carefully.
a-but b-whether c-whereas d-so that
B-using the words given in brackets combine the following sentences.
23-she cleaned the house .she had a terrible headache.(even though)
……………………………………………………………………
24-i went to Tehran .I wanted to see my friend.(so as to)
…………………………………………………………………….
C-put the following words into a correct order.
25-but-studied –mina-she –carefully –have-didn't-should.
………………………………………………………………
30
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
26-work-sick-although-went-he-to-he-was.
D-write the correct form of the words to fill in the blanks.
27-she is saving her money so as to-------a new house in the city.(buy)
28-they were late for school this morning .they should ……….earlier.(get up)
C-SENTENCE FUNCTION
A-match the items in column A with those in column B.
A
29-A computer is a useful device………..
30-mother Teresa had charity projects ………..
31-the internet is ……………..
B
A-a system that lets computers all over the world talk to each other.
b-because it speeds up problem solving.
c-such as work among people living in slums.
d-such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
D-COMPREHENSION
A-sentence comprehension. Read the following sentences and choose the best
answer.
32-Most child laborers around the world are busy doing extreme forms of work
that are dangerous for their health.
The above sentence means that …………….
A-extreme forms of work are dangerous for children.
B-working around the world is dangerous for children.
c-every work that children do is dangerous for them.
D-work done around the world is dangerous for children.
31
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
33-It is hard to attach a fax into another document or to pass it on to someone
else, but e-mail stays readable no matter how many times it is forwarded.
According to the above sentence …………..
A-it is easy to attach a fax into another document.
B-nowadays faxes are not needed any more.
C-it is difficult to send an e-mail to some one else.
d-we can forward an e-mail many times and it will remain readable.
B-cloze passage. Fill in the blanks with the words from the list below.
(education-robbed-develop-smokes-dangerous-hire-childhood)
Most children around the world are forced to do different types of work which
are really dangerous for their health. they are also being ………… of their
rights, including not only the right to ……….to the highest level
through ………….but also the right to ……………..they often work as
many as 12 hours a day ,work under …………..conditions such as factories
with harmful …………in the air, handle dangerous materials,which are not
made for them.
C-Reading comprehension.
Read the passage carefully and then answer the questions.
Whether a language is learnt quickly or slowly, it is hard. Laboratories, good
books, and tapes will help, but nothing can be as helpful as a good teacher.
Speaking a foreign language is what most people want. Every year many
people start learning a language. Many people try at home with books and
tapes. Some use radio and TV programs, thousands go to evening classes. If
they use the language only 2 or 3 times a week, it will take a long time to
learn it, like language learning at school. Some try to learn a language fast
32
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
by studying for 6 hours or more a day. Some travel to the foreign country
where the language is spoken, to learn it. However, most people don't have
enough money to travel to a foreign country .some people need language to
do their work better. For example, students, doctors, and scientists need to
read foreign books and reports .others need it for some other purposes.
34-From this passage we understand that learning a language by…………is the
best way.
a-using tapes and television programs
b-reading good books and reports
c-traveling to other countries
d-the help of a good teacher
35-According to the passage learning a foreign language ……………
A-does not prepare a person for life.
b-is difficult
c. is of no use
d-is useful only for doctors and scientists.
36. According to the passage people learn a language for different purposes.
a-true b-false c-not mentioned
Good luck.
33
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
References
Almegta, N. R. (1997). Relationship of self-efficacy, causal attribution, and emotions to
female college students’ academic self-evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 58(01), 78A. (UMI No. 9720596)
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
Chen, C. S. (2000). Self-regulated Learning Strategies and Achievement in an Introduction
to Information Systems Course. Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, 20(1), Spring 2002.
Corno, L. (2001). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research,
and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 111-142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
D’Apollonia, S., Galley, D., & Simpson, M. (2001).Formal reasoning and conceptual
development. Retrieved from
http://www.place.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/~sdapoll/PAREA96.htm
Fuller, R. (1999). Do university students’ conceptions of learning really influence their
learning? Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/vic//cornerstones/pdf/fuller.pdf
Karabenick, S. A. (2001). Help seeking in large college classes: Who, why, and from whom.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA.
Lee, L. H. (1997). Goal orientation, goal setting, and academic performance in college
students: An integrated model of achievement motivation in school settings.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(06), 1905A. (UMI 9835095)
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. M.
Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A
conversation (pp. 45-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. (1995). Understanding Self-Regulated Learning. In P. Pintrich (Ed.),
Understanding Self-Regulated Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated
learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459-470.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in
learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 54-555.
34
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(1), 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use
of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National center for
research to improve postsecondary teaching and learning, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated
learning. In G. Schraw (Ed.), Metacognitive assessment. Lincoln, NE: The University
of Nebraska Press.
Rao, N., Moely, B., & Sachs, J. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies, and
mathematics attainment in high and low-achieving Chinese secondary school
students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 287-316.
Reyero, M., & Tourón, J. (2003). El desarrollo del talento: La aceleración como estrategia
educativa [The development of talent: Acceleration as an educational strategy]. A
Coruña: Netbiblo.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated
learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self -
Regulation (pp. 503-529). Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,
metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook
of research on Mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-368). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2003). Self-efficacy in mathematics and students’ use of self-
regulated learning strategies during assessment events. In N. A. Pateman, B. J.
Doherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 275-282). Honolulu,
USA: PME.
Wang, M. C., & Lindvall, C. M. (1984). Individual differences and school learning
environments. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 11).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R., (2000). Interventions with a focus on
learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook
of self-regulation (pp. 727-747). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. (Cited: GS 46)
35
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXVII No. 1 Winter 2012
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,
30, 173-187.
Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R. & Karabenick.(2003). Assessing academic self-regulated
learning. Prepared for the conference on indicators of positive development:
Definition, measures, and prospective validity.
Yamauchi, J., Kumagai, Y., & Kawasaki, Y. (1999). Perceived control, autonomy, and self-
regulated learning among Japanese high school students. Psychological Reports,
85(3), 779-798.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key sub
processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In
B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-25). New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura, Self -
efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An
analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1-37).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(2), 64-72.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for
assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg R. (1997). Self regulatory dimensions of academic learning
and motivation. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction
of knowledge (pp.105-125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
