Methods and instruments for measuring self-regulated learning

Abstract

Te aim of this chapter is to revise and analyse the principal methods and instruments that have been used by researchers to assess and measure SRL and the different components that are included within this process.

Full text

In: Handbook of Instructional Resources & Applications ISBN 978-1-60456-104-3
Editors: A. Valle & J. C. Nunez © 2008 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 12
METHODS AND INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING
SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
University of Navarra, Spain
INTRODUCTION
In the last few years self-regulated learning (SRL) has become a central topic of research
in the field of educational psychology and a key concept in educational practice (see
Reynolds and Miller, 2003). From this point of view, it is postulated that one of the aims of
education should be aimed at helping students to be aware of their thoughts, to be
autonomous and strategic and direct their motivation towards valuable goals. In this context,
there is talk of the need to move from teaching to self-reflective practice (Schunk and
Zimmerman, 1998).
The term self-regulation learning (SRL) was made popular in the 1980s. It refers to a
general construct under which research on metacognition, cognitive strategies, motivation and
volition and the relations between all these elements is gathered. Since the publication by
Zimmerman and Schunk in 1989 of the book Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice a large number of research are being conducted
and relevant publications have been appearing that cover the principal progress made in this
field (Boekaerts, Pintrich and Zeidner, 2000; Schunk and Zimmerman, 1994; Schunk and
Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001).
Based on these references and others, the aim of this chapter is to revise and analyse the
principal methods and instruments that have been used by researchers to assess and measure
SRL and the different components that are included within this process.

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
2
CHARACTERISTICS, PROCESSES AND PHASES IN
SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
Regarding the evaluation and intervention, one of the points of interest in current research
is delimiting the characteristics that define self-regulating students (strategic students) and the
processes that they use with this aim.
In general, studies highlight the following characteristics that differentiate students that
self-regulate their learning from those that do not do so (Corno, 2001; Weinstein, Husman
and Dierking, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002):
a) They know how to use various cognitive strategies (rehearsal, elaboration and
organization) that help them to process, elaborate and retain information.
b) They know how to plan, control and direct their mental processes towards achieving
their personal goals (metacognition).
c) They present adaptive motivational beliefs and emotions such as: high sense of
academic efficacy, adoption of learning goals, development of positive emotions to
tasks (enjoyment, satisfaction, enthusiasm, etc.) as well as capacity to control and
modify them.
d) They plan and control the time and efforts to be used in the tasks. They know how to
create and structure a favourable learning environment (appropriate place to study
and help seeking from teachers and colleagues when they have difficulties).
e) If the context so permits, they participate in the choice, control and regulation of
aspects related to academic tasks, climate and structure of the class.
f) They set up different volitional strategies, aimed at avoiding external and internal
distractions to maintain their concentration, effort and motivation during the
implementation of academic tasks.
To summarise, if there is something that characterises these students it is that they feel
agents of their own conduct, they believe that learning is a proactive process, they sustain
their motivation, they are aware of their thought processes and they know how to use a broad
repertoire of strategies to achieve the desired academic results. In this sense, there is talk that
SRL is a fusion of skill and will that is necessary to develop in all students.
Despite the existing agreement on the description of characteristics of strategic or
regulated students, the identification and definition of key processes that they use is a task
that is far from easy. In this regard, numerous SRL theories and models have been proposed
in the last 15 years (see Zimmerman, 1989; Torrano and González-Torres, 2004, for a
review). One of the most well-known is that developed by Pintrich.
The Pintrich Model
Pintrich (2000; 2004), has proposed a theoretical framework, based on the socio-
cognitive perspective (see Zimmerman model, 1998, 2000) with the aim of classifying and
analysing different processes which, according to scientific literature, are involved in SRL
and the personal, contextual and social conditions that sustain it (see table 1):

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 3
Table 1: Phases y Areas for Self-Regulated Learning (Pintrich, 2000, p. 454)
AREAS FOR REGULATION
Phases
C
ognition Motivation/Affect
B
ehavior Context
1.
FORETHOUGHT
PLANNING, AND
ACTIVATION
Target goal
setting
Prior content
knowledge
activation
Metacognitive
knowledge
activation
Goal orientation
adoption
Efficacy judgments
Ease of Learning
judgements
Perceptions of task
difficulty
Task value
activation
Interest activation
(Time and effort
planning)
(Planning for self-
observations of
behavior)
(Perceptions of
task)
(Perceptions of
context)
2. MONITORING
Metacognitive
awareness and
monitoring of
cognition
Awareness and
monitoring of
motivation and
affect
Awareness and
monitoring of
effort, time use,
need for help
Self-observation of
behavior
Monitoring
changing task and
context conditions
3. CONTROL
Selection and
adaptation of
cognitive
strategies for
Learning,
thinking
Selection and
adaptation of
strategies for
managing
motivation and
affect
Increase/decrease
effort
Persist, give up
Help-seeking
behavior
Change or
renegotiate task
Change or leave
context
4. REACTION
AND
REFLECTION
Cognitive
judgments
Attributions
Affective reactions
Attributions Choice behavior Evaluation of task
Evaluation of
context
In this model, as can be seen in table 1, the regulator processes are organised into four
phases: a) planning; b) monitoring; c) control; and d) reaction/reflection. In turn, within each
one of these, self-regulation activities are carried out in four areas: cognitive,
motivational/emotional, behavioural and contextual.
This model analyses in detail the different processes involved in SRL. One of its
novelties, compared to other models is that it includes, as an area subject to self-regulation,
the contextual area. In student-centered classrooms based on a socioconstructivist and
sociocultural point of view (McCaslin and Hickey, 2001; Paris, Byrnes and Paris, 2001),
students have more freedom to design and modify the academic task or classroom climate.
For which reason this aspect should be considered as an important matter in SRL.

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
4
THE ASSESSMENT OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
Once the characteristics and processes used by self-regulating students have been
identified researchers have develop instruments to measure them (Núñez, González-Pienda
and Roces, 2002; Schraw and Impara, 2000; Winne, Jamieson-Noel and Muis, 2002; Winne
and Perry, 2000).
Boekaerts and Corno (2005) has pointed out that changes in definitions of self-regulation
produce changes in assessment tools. In an attempt to clarify and classify methods and
instruments used in this field research, Winne and Perry (2000) make the distinction between:
a) Instruments that measure SRL as an aptitude and b) instruments that measure SRL as an
event.
Instruments that Measure Self-Regulated Learning as an Aptitude.
They constitute a simple type of measurement as they describe some of the relatively
stable qualities, characteristics or attributes of the student that self-regulates their learning
(cognition and motivation) and that predict future behaviour. They measure general aptitude
or propensity to use different self-regulation processes. This category includes tools such as
self-report questionnaires, structured interviews and the teachers judgements.
Self-Report Questionnaires
Despite their problems, these are the procedures most used due to their facility for design,
administration and interpretation of results. These measures are based on the self-report that
the subject offers themselves. In close end cases the subject is presented with a questionnaire
or scale with a series of phrases or objectives that are self-descriptive, specified in advance by
the designer of the test and they are asked to examine and affirm whether such questions are
valid for them and to what extent.
Some of the questionnaires most cited, principally in Anglo-Saxon countries, are:
1) The Learning and Strategies Study Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Schulte and
Palmer, 1987)
This is a self-report questionnaire, designed with the aim of assessing learning
strategies used by university students. Items from the 1987 version are grouped into 10
scales around three subjects: motivational scales (attitude, motivation and anxiety), self-
direction scales (time management, self testing, study aids and concentration) and
cognitive scales (information processing, selecting main ideas and test strategies). Thus,
in a 5 point Likert type scale LASSI assess:
i. Attitude: students´attitudes and interest in college and academic success.
ii. Motivation: students´diligence, self-discipline and willingness to hard work.
iii. Time management: setting and compliance with time schedules.
iv. Anxiety: concern/worry regarding study and performance.
v. Concentration: ability to maintain attention on academic tasks.

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 5
vi. Test strategies: use of text preparation and test taking strategies.
vii. Information processing: to phrase, summarise, create analogies, draw up
outlines, use of verbal or imaginary elaboration.
viii. Selecting main ideas: skills at identifying important information from classes,
books and notes.
ix. Study aids: use of supports or resources to learn or retain information: headers,
graphs, type of letter, etc.
x. Self-testing: use of reviewing and comprehension monitoring techniques.
In our field this was one of the scales most frequently used to measure learning
strategies (Durán, 1999; González Pienda, Núñez, Rodríguez and González Cabanach,
1994; Prieto and Castejón, 1993). However, the lack of appropriate validity of
construction of this scale and the need to carry out an examination and review of this
before using it in future researchs has been noted. This does not prevent, as highlighted
by Núñez et al. (2002), this instrument being used for evaluation of learning strategies as
long as general, quick information is sought for exploratory purposes.
2) The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith,
García and McKeachie, 1991, 1993).
This was developed by a group of investigators from the National Centre for
Research to Improve Post secondary Teaching and Learning of the University of
Michigan. Pintrich et al. (1991, 1993) created this self-report of 81 items based on the
SRL model developed by McKeachie, Pintrich and their collaborators in the 1980s and
1990s (Pintrich, 1989; Pintrich and DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich and Schrauben, 1992). It is a
useful tool that measures learning strategies and motivational variables. Among its
advantages is that it has been applied and validated at different educational levels, both
university (McKeachie, Pintrich and Lin, 1985; Pintrich, 1989; VanderStoep and Pintrich,
2003; Pintrich, 2004; Roces, 1996) and non-university (Pintrich and DeGroot, 1990;
Torrano, 2005), it has been translated into multiple languages and it has been used by
hundreds of researchers and instructors throughout the world (García, 2005).
The 81 items from MSLQ are grouped into six motivational subscales (31 items) and
into nine learning strategies scales (50 items) (see table 2). The motivational scales are
based on socio-cognitive theories of motivation that include three components: values,
expectations and affects. On the other hand, this instrument organises its scales of
learning strategies around the classical classification into cognitive, metacognitive
strategies and resources management strategies (see González-Torres, 1997).

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
6
Table 2: Scales and subscales from the MSLQ
SCALES DIMENSIONS SUBSCALES
MOTIVATION
Expectancy component Control beliefs
Self-efficacy
Value component
Intrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation
Task value
Affective component Test anxiety
SCALES DIMENSIONS SUBSCALES
LEARNING
STRATEGIES
Cognitive and metacognitive
strategies
Rehearsal
Elaboration
Organization
Critical Thinking
Metacognitive self-regulation
Resources management
strategies
Time/study environment
Effort regulation
Peer learning
Help-seeking
In the context of our university environment (Roces, 1996; Roces, Tourón and
González-Torres,1995) reliability and construct validity studies were carried applied to a
translation into Spanish of this scale (CEAM II in spanish version), showing that the
dimensional nature of the motivation construct is replicated quite precisely whilst more
studies are necessary with the aim of better delimiting the factorial structure relating to
"learning strategies" and components that they represent. In any case, and just as with the
case of LASSI, their use increases when research aims are subjected to very general
exploratory and evaluation type aspects.
3) The Components of Self-Regulated Learning (CSRL) (Niemivirta, 1998)
Niemivirta has evaluated this questionnaire for secondary students with the aim of
estimating some other motivational and cognitive components involved in self-regulated
learning.
Regarding academic motivation, the CSRL evaluates:

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 7
a) Goals. This includes three scales that evaluate: learning orientation (e.g., "I feel
satisfied when I learn new things at school"), performance orientation (e.g., "I
feel satisfied when I do the task better than others") and avoidance orientation
(e.g., "I feel satisfied when I don't have to work hard at school").
b) Control beliefs. To operate this construct, Niemivirta used the work of Skinner
and collaborators as a basis (e.g., Skinner, 1995), in which three categories are
established to classify such beliefs: a) control beliefs that refer to expectations
that students have on obtaining good academic results and predicting the failures
(e.g., "if I want to I can be successful at school"); b) means-ends beliefs defined
as beliefs that students have on factors (luck, effort, capability, etc.) that may
influence their performance at school (e.g., "if I try hard I will learn"); and c)
agency beliefs that include expectations that one has the means or capability to
achieve such results (e.g., "I have sufficient capability to learn at school").
c) Self-esteem operated as a general acceptance students have of themselves (e.g.,
"In general I like how I am").
d) Regarding cognition, the following is evaluated:
e) The use made by students of learning strategies. This includes different
strategies associated with different levels of information processing: from a
superficial level that includes memorizing strategies (e.g., "when I study for an
examination, I try to learn the material based on repeating it time and time
again"), up to a deeper level that includes elaboration strategies (e.g., "when I
study, I try to make the material more significant and transfer it into my own
words"), planning of goals (e.g., "when I prepare for an exam, I propose to
myself what goals to follow") and self-monitoring of comprehension (e.g.,
"When I study for an exam, I often stop reading and ask myself questions to see
if I am understanding").
Other interesting scales or questionnaires concentrate more on evaluating the classic
motivational components of SRL or the use of motivational regulation strategies which
have been less studied in classical work on SRL and that are being dealt with more
currently. Among the scales the following are notable:
4) The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Study (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000)
This is a battery of scales developed by Midgley et al. at the School of Education of
the University of Michigan to examine relations between learning environment,
motivation, emotion and behaviour of students. It is based on a framework of reference of
achievement goal theory and specifically studies carried out by these investigators in the
last few decades (Midgley, 2002; Midgley et al, 1998, 2000).
It consists of scales directed at students who evaluate their academic orientation,
their perceptions of teacher goals, their perceptions of classroom goals, their self-efficacy
expectations, strategies such as self-handicapping and their perceptions of the family
context. Those directed at the teacher evaluate their perceptions of school goals, their
goals regarding instruction and perceptions of self-efficacy as educators.
This set of scales has been applied to primary (Anderman and Midgley, 1997) and
secondary education (Midgley and Urdan, 2001; Torrano, 2005). The first versions of
PALS go back to 1993. There have been improvements since the publication of the 1997

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
8
version. In agreement with most current literature, approximation and avoidance elements
have been differentiated from performance goals.
5) Volitional control strategy scales
In the field of the study of self-regulation of learning, the majority of research is
concentrated on examining the role of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and
motivational variables derived from expectancy-value theory (goals, control beliefs and
efficacy) in detriment of the study of so-called volitional strategies. They refer to
regulator activities that protect the intention to learn and help to maintain attention and
efforts towards personal goals. Current models of self-regulation attracted by the research
of Corno (1989) and Kuhl (2000) on volitional control strategies aim to be "less cold and
rational" and are more interested in self-regulated academic motivation strategies (see
González-Torres, 2003; Valle, Cabanach, Núñez, González-Pienda, Rodríguez and
Piñeiro, 2003).
 Self-Regulated Academic Motivation (SRAM) (Wolters, 1999)
In agreement with Wolters, the regulation of motivation encompasses those thoughts,
actions or behaviors through which students act to influence their choice, effort or
persistence in tasks and help them to control discouragement or to avoid procrastination
(Wolters, Pintrich and Karabenick, 2003). This author (Wolters, 2001; 2003; Wolters et
al., 2003; Wolters and Rosenthal, 2000) has developed a set of scales that evaluate seven
motivational regulation strategies (although reducible to five general scales) that students
use to maintain or increase desire, effort or persistence in an academic task.
These strategies are:
1) Self-consequating, which consist of establishing and providing extrinsic
consequences to oneself to increase engagement in learning activities. Students
may use both specific rewards and punishments and verbal statements as
consequences. This scale evaluates strategies such as "I promise myself some
sort of reward if I manage to read and study what has been programmed".
2) Environmental structuring. This refers to students´efforts to concentrate their
attention, reduce environmental distractions and organize the context of
learning. It also includes efforts to order certain aspects related to the task
(when, where, how to carry it out) or use other resources to prepare themselves
physically or mentally to study (have a coffee, eat, do some exercise, take a nap).
3) and 4) Situational/personal interest enhancement, this refers to attempts to make
the task intrinsically more interesting, less repetitive or boring to increase the
desire to work (establish challenges, think how to make it more enjoyable, treat
it as if it were a game). In recent studies Wolters has differentiated two types of
these strategies based on whether students carry out activities to increase their
intrinsic motivation towards the task by activating situational interest or
personal interest. In the first case a student concentrates on making the task
more challenging or fun ("I make studying more enjoyable by turning it into a
game"). In the second case the student strives to increase the relevance or
meaningfulness of a task by linking it to their own life or own personal interests
("I try to connect the new material with something that I like doing or find
interesting").

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 9
5) Mastery self-talk. Students may regulate their motivation, giving themselves
reasons to encourage them to complete the task in which they are involved.
Specifically, in this case they say or remind themselves of reasons related to
learning or mastery goals (desire to be more competent, desire to overcome
challenges, learn as much as they can, etc.).
6) Performance self-talk. In this case, students think about reasons related to
performance (desire to obtain good marks) to encourage them to work.
7) Relative ability self-talk. Students in this case direct messages to themselves that
are centred on a specific dimension (approximation) of performance goals:
showing that one is better than others or that one has the necessary capacity to
perform.
This set of scales was developed by Wolters in 1998 from responses provided by
students to an open-ended questionnaire in which they were presented with a series of
tasks to carry out (e.g. read a text or carry out an examination) for which they could find
different motivational problems (e.g. boring or very difficult material). Students had to
indicate which strategies they would use to overcome these problems and carry out the
task. Wolters coded his responses into categories and from these and the study of
motivational theory developed a Likert type scale that we have mentioned. The scale was
refined in subsequent studies and was used in secondary students (Wolters and Rosenthal,
2000), high school students (Wolters, 1999) and university students (Wolters, 2001).
Information on the validity studies for the scale may be found in Wolters et al., (2003).
For their part, Gonzales, Dowson, Brickman and McInerney from the Self Research
Centre of the University of Western Sydney also examined the structure of this instrument
proposed by Wolters that they called self-regulated academic motivation (SRAM). With
a sample of 400 university students, the results of the confirmation factorial analysis
carried out indicate that it is a valid measurement, that the theoretical structure of factors
(7) is supported by data and that they are invariable in relation to gender.
 Academic Volitional Strategy Inventory (AVSI) (McCann and García, 1999:
McCann and Turner, 2004)
The AVSI is based on the taxonomy of volitional strategies proposed by Kuhl, Corno
and Kanfer. Their aim is to ascertain the strategic methods used by students to regulate
their emotion and motivation when they come up against difficulties, lack of interest or
distractions that endanger achieving a proposed goal. This scale consists of 20 items that
covers various strategies referring to: 1) encouraging thoughts to increase the sense of
self-efficacy (Self-efficacy enhancement); 2) actions to reduce stress and stay calm
(Stress-reducing actions); and 3) thoughts on the negative consequences of poor
performance (Negative based incentives).
The McCann and Garcia´s study from 1999 with this scale showed that some of the
strategies seldom used by students were: counting up to ten to relax, breathing deeply
several times, thinking of different ways to make study fun, exercising before starting to
study, using some form of relaxation, studying with a friend, looking for spiritual guide
or comfort. Those most frequently used were: thinking of the possible negative
consequences of not finishing work well, thinking of economic goals that have been set,
telling oneself that the task is important and that therefore one has to do get down to it

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
10
and concentrate, thinking of the reasons for studying, promising oneself rewards once the
task is completed.
Regarding instruments developed by Spanish investigators related to the philosophy
of self-regulated learning we can highlight the following:
6) The Scale of Learning Strategies ACRA (Román and Gallego, 1994)
Román and Gallego have constructed this scale with the aim of evaluating learning
strategies in secondary education students. This is based on the information processing
theory and measures the degree to which the student knows and applies acquisition
strategies (attention and rehearsal strategies), coding (mnemotecnic technique,
organizational and elaboration strategies), recovery (strategies for searching and
generation of response) and support for processing (socioemotional strategies or support
and metacognitive strategies).
This scale may be considered as one of the most complete and most frequently used
instruments for the evaluation of strategies in our field both on the level of research and
in the field of school orientation (Núñez et al. 2002, p. 45).
7) Escalas para la Evaluación Interactiva del Proceso de Enseñanza-Aprendizaje
((EIPEA) (Scales for Interactive Evaluation of the Teaching-Learning Process) (De
la Fuente and Martínez Vicente, 2004)
De la Fuente and Martínez Vicente present two scales that evaluate different phases
of teaching and learning process both from the point of view of the teacher and student.
These scales are based on current conceptions and models of regulation of teaching and
learning. Therefore, it is highlighted that teaching and learning processes may be
subdivided into three phases or moments: before (planning), during (control) and after
(evaluation/reflection). We know these processes can be regulated and modified.
Scales for teachers help them to be aware of how to regulate the three phases of
teaching regarding favouring student SRL. For their part, the aim of scales for students,
unlike instruments commented up to now, is for them to be aware of how to regulate their
learning process in these three moments. Since they are designed to evaluate different
aspects of the teaching/learning process they constitute an independent set of instruments.
The scales for the student are:
 EDPA-A: scale for evaluation of the learning process. This consists of 22 items
subdivided into two subscales: a) evaluation of awareness of the teaching-
learning process (students´conceptions about teaching, learning and strategies
that the teacher should favour to improve the learning process); b) evaluation of
their learning process planning.
 EDPE-A: Scale for the evaluation of the development of the teaching process. It
contains 42 items divided into three subscales in which the student evaluates the
activity of the teacher: a) general behaviour of the teacher (students´ perception
about of degree to which the teacher uses specific teaching strategies, explains
why, for what, how, when to teach-learn and how to evaluate this); b) use of
evaluation strategies (students´ perception on the evaluation of learning made by
the teacher); c) specific strategies and activities for the regulation of learning
(students´ perception on how the teacher mediates their regulation of learning).

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 11
 EDPA-A: Scale for the evaluation of the development of the learning process.
This has 58 items and may be very useful for those interested in SRL
assessment. It consists of 2 subscales: a) evaluates the SRL behaviour in the
classroom, in other words the development carried out by students of elements
that constitute the learning process (why learn; what to learn; when and how;
evaluation of the learning process; b) evaluate the use of learning and self-
regulation strategies (general, metacognitive and motivational regulation
strategies).
 EPEA-A: Scale for the evaluation of the teaching-learning product. The scale
(17 intems) consists of 2 subscales that inform upon the degree of satisfaction of
the student: a) with the teaching process carried out by the teacher; b) with their
own learning process and outcomes (e.g., "I achieve the aims proposed", "I've
learnt to learn the contents better").
 The EIPEA manual offers relevant information for their use, application and
correction together with data referring to their validity.
8) Escala de Evaluación de la Autorregulación del aprendizaje a partir de Textos
(ARATEX) (Assessment Self-regulation Learning from Texts Scale) (Solano,
González-Pienda, González-Pumariega and Núñez Pérez, 2004; Núñez, Solano,
González-Pienda, Rosário, 2006).
This self-report scale, just as EIPEA, is aimed at analysing the self-regulation process
but in a specific field, reading comprehension. It consists of 103 items. It is based on the
Pintrich SRL model and for which reason it evaluates the strategies involved in
comprehension dealing with self-regulation of different areas (cognition, motivation,
behaviour and context) in the three phases of this process (before, during, after). For
researchers and professionals interested in the diagnosis and improvement of reading
comprehension processes from the point of view of SRL it is of indubitable use as there
are few tools of this type in Spain.
Structured Interviews
One of the interview procedures most frequently used to assess SRL has been the Self-
Regulated Learning Interview Schedule (SRLIS) (Zimmerman and Martínez-Pons, 1986,
1988). Zimmerman et al. developed this structured interview procedure to assess 14 types of
strategy that secondary students used inside and outside the classroom to self-regulate their
learning.
Students are asked to describe which methods they use in a series of learning contexts:
when they prepare for an exam, when they study at home, when they completed their learning
tasks, etc. From their responses, measurements were derived on the use made of strategies
identified, specifically whether any of them were used, number of tasks in which they were
used and frequency of their use (seldom, occasionally, frequently or the majority of the time).
Subsequent studies have confirmed the validity of SRLIS to measure the use of self-
regulation strategies and to discriminate their use in students with high and low performance.
The fourteen strategies measured are: organizing and transforming information, goal-setting

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
12
and planning, seeking information, keeping records and monitoring, environmental
structuring, self-evaluation, self-consequences, rehearsing and memorizing, seeking peer,
teachers or adults assistance and reviewing text, notes and textbooks.
Teacher Judgements
In this case teachers are those that evaluate and measure the student SRL quality in daily
academic activities. Zimmerman and Martínez-Pons (1988) have developed a scale called
Rating Student Self-Regulated Learning Outcomes: A Teacher Scale, with the aim of teachers
estimating the use made by their students of SRL strategies. With this questionnaire of 12
items, teachers mark on a 5 point Likert type scale whether the student uses some of the
fourteen strategies identified in the SRLIS.
Instruments that Measure Self-Regulated Learning as an Event
These are more complex, process oriented measures that collect information on the states
and processes that the students deploys over time whilst self-regulating. They include on-line
instruments such as think-aloud protocols, methods of error detection in tasks, trace
methodologies and measures for observation of implementation of students in different tasks.
Now have been developed off-line instruments that also measure SRL as an event. Theses last
instruments measure self-regulation from or directly after a concrete learning task (Endedijk,
M.; Vermunt, J., Brekelmans, M.; Brok, P. (2006).
Think-Aloud Measures
The think-aloud is a protocol in which the student gives information on their thoughts and
cognitive processes that they implement while engaged in the task (Boekaerts, 2002; Pintrich
et al., 2000). Frequently this kind of tool has been used in reading (Pressley, 2000; Pressley
and Afflerbach, 1995). Boekaerts (2002) has applied and validated an instrument of this
nature in which, based on some predetermined questions, the student is asked to give
information on the cognitive and motivational processes they use when carrying out a task
and once completed.
Methods ahat Detect Errors in Tasks
These instruments are usually used to assess the comprehension monitoring process in
reading. Therefore, investigators introduce some errors within the materials that students use
for study (e.g. in texts) with the aim of observing whether they are detected and what they do
when they discover them (Baker and Cerro, 2000; Garner, 1987).

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 13
Trace Methodologies
These instruments are based on signals or indicators that can be observed on cognitive
processes that students deploy whilst they carry out academic tasks and activities. For
example, one of the indicators that has been used to evaluate the cognitive control process
refers to whether the student writes more information than necessary in the margins of their
exercise book such as footnotes, summaries, personal comments, diagrams, comparison of
information with other sources, etc. (Howard-Rose and Winne, 1993; Winne and Jamieson-
Noel, 2003).
Measures for Observation of Implementation in the Task
These measures are based on observation by arbiters of what students do whilst they
carry out their tasks (see for example Perry, 1998). They are usually complemented with
interviews. Recently and influenced by socio-cognitive and socio-cultural learning models
more researchers apply this qualitative technique for studying SRL in real learning contexts
(Perry, VandekKamp, Mercer and Nordby, 2002). Their advantages in the SRL evaluation are
various (see Turner, 1995): they are objective measures of what students do instead of what
they remember or believe they do; they enable relating the conduct of students to the
conditions required by the task; and they may reduce the difficulties associated with the
measurement of this process in children such as for example the bias of response to
questionnaires (they tend to answer very optimistically) and their limitations to describe the
cognitive processes they use during implementation of the tasks.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
As we have seen, a large number of methods and instruments have been developed to
assess SRL. When using one method over another, researchers and educators should
determine in the first case what their objectives are. In other words what aspects of SRL they
want to measure (phases, cognitive, metacognitive, motivational aspects, etc.) and once this is
decided, using the measures that are most appropriate for their interests and goals. A
combination of instruments will be essencial to tap the various aspects of SRL.
Following Boekaerts (1999), Boekaerts and Corno (2005); Endedijk et al. (2006);
Pintrich et al. (2000), Perry et al. (2002) and Wolters et al., (2003), we highlight some
matters that have to be considered in this area:
a) The complexity of SRL construct makes it very difficult to measure. Logically, there
is no perfect unique measure to evaluate this. Different tools can be used to study
cognitive, motivational, behavioural or contextual aspects of this process although
the evaluation of individual components does not do justice to the regulator character
of this learning. On the other hand, certain critical aspects of the self-regulation
process are difficult to capture by the majority of instruments specially if self-report

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
14
questionnaires are used. In this sense, we need to use measures more process-
oriented, that analyse the strategies that students use as they study or learn in situ.
Therefore, our comprehension of how students perceive a particular learning context
and how these perceptions influence their competence beliefs, goals and expectations
and the decisions they take to regulate their conduct will be enriched (Perry at al.,
2002). In this way there will be progress on the knowledge of the best instructional
practices to support the students SRL.
b) Assess SRL by means of the use of self-report questionnaires presupposes that
students are capable of understanding the content of items formulated generally in
quite an abstract manner. This requires the existence of an elaborated declarative and
procedural knowledge whose existence is not completely guaranteed even in
adulthood. Researchs with children have found little correspondence between self-
reports on their use of determined strategies and their real conduct in learning
situations. Therefore it is important to increase the ecological validity of instruments
by training the students to be aware of their learning processes and to use learning
strategies so that they can be familiar with what SRL represent in such a way that
they can answer with more precision when confornted with different instruments in
this field (Núñez et al., 2006). Also is important using measures centrated on the
student performance in "authentic and meaningfulness tasks" (in other words that the
actions or strategies that are assess in the items are related to the student daily life).
c) SRL is a specific instead of a general process that may present differences according
to contexts, domains or situations. Therefore, students may self-regulate their
learning very well in some contexts, courses or materials and fail in others.
Therefore, we ought to modify the scale items slightly to adapt them to different
contexts (e.g., mathematics, history, sciences), making sure that there are no
substantial changes to their reliability and examining how the responses from
students to different subjects, tasks and contexts are transferred and generalised.
d) More researchs are required whose aim should be to study the construct validity of
the instruments (e.g. multi-trait-multi-method studies, confirmation factorial
analysis).
e) More longitudinal studies are required that guide the development of instruments and
offer indications about the using of some over others based on the age of students.
f) Students may offer some information on their cognition, motivation and behaviour in
self-report but this type of measurement is not the most appropriate to analyse the
student engagement in fine detail. Therefore, one of the future directions in this area
is related to the development and validation of event-instruments of high quality in
order to measure all areas and phases of SRL: event-instruments on line that measure
self-regulation during the learning task (e.g. those we have described before) and also
new off-line event-instruments (e.g. portfolios and diaries/logs, task-based
questionnaire, stimulated recall interview).

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 15
REFERENCES
Anderman, E. M. & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in Achievement Goal Orientations,
Perceived Academic Competence, and Grades across the Transition to Middle-Level
Schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298.
Baker, L. & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing Metacognition in Children and Adults. En G.
Schraw and J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition (pp. 99-
145). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Motivated Learning: Studying Student Situation Transactional Units.
En M. Boekaerts and P. Nenninger (Eds.), Advances in Motivation from the European
Viewpoint (Special Issue). European Journal of Psychology and Education, 14 (1).
Boekaerts, M. (2002). The On-Line Motivation Questionnaire: A Self-Report Instrument to
Assess Students´ Context Sensitivity. En P. R. Pintrich and M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances
in Motivation and Achievement: New Directions in Measures and Methods (Vol. 12, pp.
70-120). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Boekaerts, M. & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on
assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–
231.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R. & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. En B.J. Zimmerman and
D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. Theory,
Research and Practice (pp. 111-141). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Corno, L. (2001). Volitional Aspects of Self-Regulated Learning. En B. J. Zimmerman and
D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical
Perspectives (pp. 191-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De la Fuente. J. & Martínez Vicente, J. M. (2004). EIPEA. Escalas para la evaluación
interactiva del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Manual técnico y de aplicación.
Madrid: EOS.
Durán, M. L. (1999). Estrategias de aprendizaje y asesoramiento académico en el primer año
de universidad. Tesis doctoral no publicada. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra.
Endedijk, M.; Vermunt, J., Brekelmans, M., et al. (2006). Measuring self-regulation in
complex learning environments. Paper for ICO Toogdag (Interuniversity Center for
Educational Research. Meeting Research), Free University Amsterdam.
http://www.utwente.nl/ico/archief/toogdag/endedijk.pdf
García, T. (2005). The Making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire.
Educational Psychologist, 40 (2), 117-128.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
González Pienda, J. A., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, S., et al. (1994, Sept.). Evaluación de
estrategias de estudio y aprendizaje escolar. Comunicación presentada en el IV Congreso
de Evaluación Psicológica. Santiago de Compostela.
González-Torres, M. C. (1997). La motivación académica: sus determinantes y pautas de
intervención. Pamplona: EUNSA.

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
16
González-Torres, M. C. (2003). De los deseos a la acción: estrategias para favorecer la
automotivación de los alumnos. En Actas V Jornadas de Innovación Pedagógica.
Motivación y esfuerzo ¿quién tiene las claves? Attendis: Algeciras.
González, S., Dowson, M., Brickman, S. et al. Self-Regulation of Academic Motivation:
Advances in Structure and Measurement. SELF Research Centre, University of Western
Sidney, Australia. [versión electrónica]. Disponible en:
http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/gon05371.pdf (Febrero, 2006).
Howard-Rose, D. & Winne, P. H. (1993). Measuring Component and Sets of Cognitive
Processes in Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 591-604.
Kuhl, J. (2000). A Functional-Design Approach to Motivation and Self-Regulation. En M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 111-
169). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McCaan, E. & García, T. (1999). Maintaining Motivation and Regulation Emotion:
Measuring Individual Differences in Academic Volitional Strategies. Learning and
Individual Differences, 11 (3), 259-279.
McCaan, E.J. & Turner, J.E. (2004). Increasing Student Learning Through Volitional Control.
Teacher College Record, 106 (9), 1695-1714.
McCaslin, M. & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Educational Psychology, Social Constructivism, and
Educational Practice: A Case for Emergent Identity. Educational Psychologist, 36, 133-
140.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R. & Lin, Y. G. (1985). Teaching Learning Strategies.
Educational Psychologist, 20, 153-160.
Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, Goal Structure and Pattern of Adaptative Learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., et al. (1998). The Development and Validation of
Scales Assesing Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 23, 113-131.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive
Learning Scales (PALS), Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan [versión electrónica].
Disponible en: http://www.umich.edu/~pals/pals/PALS%202000_V13Word97.pdf (2004,
Marzo).
Midgley, C. & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic Self-Handicapping and Achievement Goals: A
Further Examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61-75.
Niemivirta, M. (1998). Individual Differences in Motivational and Cognitive Factors
Affecting Self-Regulated Learning: A Pattern-Oriented Approach. In P. Nenniger, R. S.
Jager and M. Wosnitza (Eds.), Advances in Motivation (pp. 32-42). Landau: Verlag
Empirische Padagogik.
Núñez, J. C., González Pienda, J. A. & Roces, C. (2002). Evaluación de las estrategias de
aprendizaje. En J. A. González Pienda, J. C. Núñez, L. Álvarez and E. Soler (Eds.),
Estrategias de aprendizaje (pp. 39-51). Madrid: Pirámide/Psicología.
Núñez, J.C., Solano, P., González-Pienda, J.A., et al. (2006). Evaluación de los procesos de
autorregulación mediante autoinforme. Psicothema, 18 (3), 353-358
Paris, S. G., Byrnes, J. P. & Paris, A. H. (2001). Constructing Theories, Identities, and
Actions of Self-Regulated Learners. En B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-
regulated learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 253-287).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 17
Perry, N. E. (1998). Young Children’s Self-Regulated Learning and Contexts that Support it.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715-729.
Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K.O.; Mercer, L., et al. (2002). Investigating Teacher-Student
Interactions that Foster Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5-15.
Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The Dynamic Interplay of Student Motivation and Cognition in the
College Classroom. En C. Ames and M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and
Achievement: Motivation Enhancing Environments (Vol. 6, pp. 117-160). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. En M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451-
502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P.R. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated
Learning in College Students. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4), 385-407.
Pintrich, P. R. & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning
Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ Motivational Beliefs and their Cognitive
Engagement in Classroom Academic Task. En D. H. Schunk y J. Meece (Eds.), Student
Perceptions in the Classroom: Causes and Consequences (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., García, T., et al. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., García, T., et al. (1993). Reliability and Predictive Validity of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing Metacognition and Self-
Regulated Learning. En G. Schraw and J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement of
Metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University
of Nebraska Press.
Pressley, M. (2000). Development of Grounded Theories of Complex Cognitive Processing:
Exhaustive Within-and Between-Study Analyses of Think-Aloud Data. En G. Schraw
and J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition (pp. 261-296).
Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.
Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of
Constructively Responsive Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Prieto, M. D. & Castejón, J. L. (1993, Mayo). El LASSI: una escala para evaluar estrategias
de aprendizaje. Comunicación presentada al III Congreso INFAD. León.
Reynolds, W. M. & Miller, G. E. (2003.). Handbook of Psychology: Educational Psychology
(Vol. 7). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Roces, C. (1996). Estrategias de aprendizaje y motivación en la universidad. Tesis doctoral
no publicada. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra.
Roces, C., Tourón, J. & González-Torres, M. C. (1995). Validación preliminar del CEAM II.
Psicológica, 16, 347-366.
Román, J. M. & Gallego, S. (1994). ACRA. Escalas de estrategias de aprendizaje. Manual.
Madrid: TEA.

María-Carmen González-Torres and Fermín Torrano
18
Schraw, G. & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (2000). Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition.
Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Regulated Learning. En B. J.
Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 125-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance:
Issues and Educational Applications . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-
Reflective Practice. New York: Guilford.
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived Control, Motivation, and Coping. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Solano, P., González-Pienda, J. A., González-Pumariega, S., et al. (2004). Autorregulación
del aprendizaje a partir de textos. Revista Galego-Portuguesa de Psicoloxia E Educación,
nº 9 (Vol. 11), 111-128.
Torrano, F. & González-Torres, M. C. (2004). El aprendizaje autorregulado: presente y futuro
de la investigación. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Psicoeducativa, 2(1), 1-34
[versión electrónica]. Disponible en: http://www.investigacion-
psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/3/espannol/Art_3_27.pdf (2004, Abril).
Torrano, F. (2005). Análisis de las interrelaciones entre la motivación, las estrategias de
aprendizaje y el rendimiento académico en alumnos de educación secundaria. Tesis
doctoral no publicada. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The Influence of Classroom Contexts on Young Children’s Motivation
for Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410-441.
Valle, A., González-Cabanach, R., Núñez, J. C., et al. (2003). Cognitive, Motivational and
Volitional Dimensions of Learning. An Empirical Test of Hypothetical Model. Research
in Higher Education, 44 (5), 557-579).
VanderStoep, S. W. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Learning to Learn: The Skill and Will of
College Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C. & Palmer, D. R. (1987). LASSI: Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H y H Publishing.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J. & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-Regulation Interventions with a
Focus on Learning Strategies. En M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, y M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 728-748). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Winne, P. H. & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2003). Self-Regulating Studying by Objectives for
Learning: Students’ Reports Compared to a Model. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 28, 259-276.
Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D. & Muis, K. R. (2002). Methodological Issues and Advances
in Researching Tactics, Strategies, and Self-Regulated Learning. En P. R. Pintrich and M.
L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: New Directions in Measures
and Methods (Vol. 12, pp. 121-155). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Winne, P. H. & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring Self-Regulated Learning. En M. Boekaerts, P.
R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 531-566). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wolters, C. A. (2001). Motivational Problems Experienced by College Students. Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Methods & Instruments for Measuring Self-Regulated Learning 19
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating and Underemphasized Aspect of
Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189-205.
Wolters, C. & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The Relation between Students´ Motivational Beliefs
and Attitudes and Their Use of Motivational Regulation Strategies. International Journal
of Educational Research, 33, 80 –820.
Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R. & Karabenick, S. (2003). Assessing Academic Self-Regulated
Learning. Paper Presented in the Conference on Indicators of Positive Development:
Definitions, Measures and Prospective Validity. Sponsored by ChildTrends, National
Institutes of Health.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement.
En B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement (pp. 1-26). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. En M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 451-
502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving Self-Regulation: The Trial and Triumph of
Adolescence. En F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Eds), Adolescence and Education: Academic
Motivation of Adolescents (Vol. 2, pp. 1-27). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martínez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a Structured Interview for
Assessing Student Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 23, 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martínez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct Validation of a Strategy Model of
Student Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-190.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (1989). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.