An investigation into the self regulated learning of english majored students at the faculty of english linguistics and literature university of social sciences and humanities in ho chi minh city

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This study reports the survey which aimed to investigate the self-regulated learning strategies of 321 students when they prepared for the subject of English to ta

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SELF-REGULATED LEARNING OF ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE – UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

AND HUMANITIES IN HO CHI MINH CITY

Submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By

M AI THỊ THÙY VÂN

Supervised by

NGUYỄN THỊ KIỀU THU, Ph D

HO CHI MINH CITY - JANUARY 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, who read my manuscript with great care, and gave insightful comments and provided valuable support in the preparation and completion of this thesis

I am also grateful to the Post graduate staff members, who organize this master programme, and the teachers who have dedicated to the courses, and, again,

Dr Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, Dean of the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature (EF), National University of Social Sciences and Humanities

Additionally, I would like to send my special thanks to all teachers who gave

me remarks and advice, which are invaluable for the thesis Particularly, I wish to thank Dr Nguyen Thu Huong, whose talks provoked me to start thinking of this thesis a year ago so that I was better prepared in terms of references and ideas, and

Mr Vo Duy Minh, M.A., Mr Pham Nhat Khanh, M.B.A., who spent hours sharing with me their experiences in conducting a thesis and proof-reading, Ms Nguyen Nha Tran, M.A., who were enthusiastic in discussions, and my special friend, Ms Stephanie Albert, who always encouraged me Without these supports my thesis could not have been possible

Lastly, my thesis ends in reference to my family I am greatly indebted to my parents who, as always, have been wholeheartedly supportive For the past nine months, Dad and Mum have been taking great care of everything so that their daughter could devote all her time to the writing of the thesis

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

OF ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE – UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES IN HO CHI MINH CITY

In terms of statement of Requirements for Theses in Master’s Program

issued by Higher Degree Committee

Ho Chi Minh City, January 2012

MAI TH Ị THÙY VÂN

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I, MAI THỊ THÙY VÂN, hereby state that I being the candidate for the degree of Master in T.E.S.O.L accept the requirements of the University relating to the

retention and use of Master’s theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of the theses

Ho Chi Minh City, January 2012

MAI TH Ị THÙY VÂN

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 3.1: The flowchart of the research process 55 Table 4.1: The two groups’ means and standards deviation for Effort

Table 4.7: Differences between the two groups in the components of Effort

Regulation, Extrinsic Goal Motivation and Rehearsal 77

Table 4.8: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in the

components of Effort Regulation (a), Extrinsic Goal Motivation (b)

and Rehearsal (c) 78

Table 4.9: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in the

items of #31 and #16 of Extrinsic Goal Motivation component 79

Table 4.10: Differences in details between the two groups’ responses in

Table Appendix D.1: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation

Statistics’ results for Exam Anxiety component for two groups (two

times) 128

Table Appendix D.2: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation

Statistics’ results for Exam Anxiety component for two groups 129

Table Appendix D.3: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation

Statistics’ results for Extrinsic Goal Motivation component for two

groups (two times) 130

Table Appendix D.4: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation

Statistics’ results for Peer Learning component for two groups (two

times) 131

Table Appendix D.5: Reliability Statistics’ results and Item-total Correlation

Statistics’ results for Rehearsal component for two groups 131

Table Appendix D.6: Reliability Statistics and Item-total Correlation

Statistics for seven items of Self-Efficacy component (two times) 132

TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement i

Certificate of Originality ii

Retention and Use of the Thesis iii

List of Figures and Tables iv

Table of Content vi

Abbreviation x

Abstract xi

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.1.1 Instruments to measure learning strategies 1

1.1.2 Measuring learning strategies in Vietnam context 2

1.2 Theoretical Background 4

1.3 Statement of the Problems 6

1.4 Purposes of the Study 7

1.5 Research Questions 8

1.6 The Significance of the Study 8

1.7 The Scope of the Study 8

1.8 Definitions of Terms 9

1.9 Limitations 10

1.10 Summary 11

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 12

2.1 Self-regulated learning 12

2.1.1 Definition of Self-regulated learning 12

2.1.2 Modules of Self-regulated learning 15

2.1.2.1 Motivation 15

2.1.2.2 Learning Strategies 17

2.1.3 Historical overview of the emergence of the concept of self-regulated learning 21

2.1.3.1 The emergence of self-regulated learning in Psychological field 21

2.1.3.2 Self-regulated learning in Education field 23

2.1.3.3 Self-regulated learning as a suggestion to further research on L2 learning/ ESL 25

2.1.3.4 The emergence of the terms of self-regulated learning 26

2.1.4 Self-regulated learning and Learner autonomy 27

2.2 Conceptual Framework of Self-regulated learning 29

2.2.1 Prior models of Self-regulated learning 29

2.2.2 Previous studies of Self-regulated learning 33

2.2.2.1 Research on self-regulated learning in Math, Science and English L1 34

2.2.2.2 Research on self-regulated learning in distance courses 35

2.2.2.3 Research on self-regulated learning in ESL/EFL learning 36

2.2.2.4 The factors as the predictors for academic achievement 39

2.3 The Framework of the Study 40

2.3.1 The Module of Motivation 41

2.3.1.1 Exam Anxiety component 41

2.3.1.2 Extrinsic Goal Motivation component 43

2.3.1.3 Self-Efficacy component 45

2.3.2 The Module of Learning strategies 46

2.3.2.1 Effort Regulation component 46

2.3.2.2 Peer Learning component 47

2.3.2.3 Rehearsal component 49

2.4 Summary 50

CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 51

3.1 The Survey 51

3.2 The Research Process 52

3.3 Data Analysis Method 55

3.4 Participants 56

3.4.1 The Subjects for the Pilot Questionnaire 56

3.4.2 The Subjects for the Research Questionnaire 57

3.5 Instrumentation 57

3.5.1 Questionnaire 57

3.5.1.1 Pilot Questionnaire 58

3.5.1.2 Research Questionnaire 59

3.5.1.2.1 Items removed 59

3.5.1.2.2 Re-formatting the questionnaire 60

3.5.2 Statistic tools 60

3.5.2.1 Reliability Statistics 60

3.5.2.2 Item-Total Correlation Statistics 62

3.5.2.3 Descriptive Statistics 62

3.6 Summary 63

CHAPTER 4 - DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 64

4.1 Data analysis 64

4.1.1 Pilot Questionnaire 64

4.1.1.1 Effort Regulation component 65

4.1.1.2 Exam Anxiety component 65

4.1.1.3 Extrinsic Goal Motivation component 66

4.1.1.4 Peer Learning component 66

4.1.1.5 Rehearsal component 67

4.1.1.6 Self-Efficacy component 67

4.1.2 Research Questionnaire 68

4.1.2.1 Effort Regulation component 69

4.1.2.2 Exam Anxiety component 70

4.1.2.3 Extrinsic Goal Motivation component 71

4.1.2.4 Peer Learning component 72

4.1.2.5 Rehearsal component 73

4.1.2.6 Self-Efficacy component 74

4.2 Findings & Discussion 75

4.3 Summary 83

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 85

5.1 Conclusion 85

5.2 Pedagogical implications 87

5.3 Recommendations for further researches 90

Bibliography 92

Appendix A – Pilot Questionnaire (English and Vietnamese versions) 104

Appendix B – Research Questionnaire (English and Vietnamese versions) 112

Appendix C – Items in Pintrich et al.’s MSLQ from which the research questionniare adapted 126

Appendix D – Tables of the process of computing Reliability Statistics and Item-Total Correlation Statistics 128

ABBREVIATION

USSH – HCM city : the University of Social Sciences and Humanities of Ho Chi

Minh city MSLQ : the Motivation Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the self-regulated learning strategies that students employed in the preparation for the English Entrance Exam The subjects in the study already passed the exam to the English Major at the USSH – HCM city for the academic year of 2010-2011 321 students were divided into two groups Group one consisted of students who got the score of 7 and over for the subject of English in the entrance exam, the others in group two

The research applied a questionnaire to investigate these students’ regulated learning strategies The questionnaire consisted of 32 items, distributed into six components which are, alphabetically, Effort Regulation, Exam Anxiety, Extrinsic Goal Motivation, Peer Learning, Rehearsal, and Self-Efficacy The

self-questionnaire adapted from the MSLQ developed by Pintrich et al (1994) was used

to explore the differences between the self-regulated learning strategies ultilized by the two groups of students

The findings display that group-one students are more active than their counterparts when regulating their learning strategies for the components of Effort Regulation, Extrinsic Goal Motivation, Rehearsal, and Self-Efficacy On the other hand, group-two students are more active in taking strategies for Peer Learning Basing on the findings, the study made some suggestions for improving students’ learning ability The work also suggests measures to psychologically enhance students’ capability of regulating their efforts, to orientate student’s motivation and

to urge them into practicing their lessons over and over Furthermore, teachers should also tactfully make students positively anxious about their upcoming exam but such anxiety ought not to press the students so hard that they may suffer nervous breakdown

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This study reports the survey which aimed to investigate the self-regulated learning strategies of 321 students when they prepared for the subject of English to take the Entrance Exam to English major at USSH - HCM city for the academic year

of 2010 - 2011 This chapter introduces the general aspects of the survey In this chapter, the sections of Rationale, Theoretical Background, and Statement of the Problems, Purposes of the Study, Significance of the Study, Scope of the Study, Terms Definition and Limitations will be discussed in details The research questions which were formulated to lead the study are mentioned in section five of this first chapter

1.1 RATIONALE

1.1.1 Instruments to measure learning strategies

Since 1990, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed

by Oxford, has been used as the most famous language-learning strategies' instrument by EFL researchers (Ayatollahi, 2011, p 230) Recently, viewing learning strategies from the self-regulated learning perspective entails a shift of focus, though (Ayatollahi, 2011, p 231) It shifts the focus from the actual strategies and techniques that learners apply to the learners’ innate self-regulatory capacity It

is believed that this underlying capacity motivates learners to apply personal

strategic learning mechanisms (Tseng et al 2006) Aware of the Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning, Tseng, Dornyei, and Dierking (2006) found that the inventory focuses on specific strategic behaviors and can be considered as behavioral items These authors wrote:

“We cannot assume a linear relationship between the individual item scores and the total item scores For example, one can be a good

memory strategy user in general while scoring low on some of the items in the memory scale, e.g acting out a new word or using flash cards Thus (such) scales are not cumulative and computing mean scale scores are unjustifiable psychometrically” (Tseng et al., 2006, p 83)

The past twenty years have witnessed a large body of second language

research targeting language-learning strategies (e.g Anderson 2003; Chamot et al 1999; Cohen 1998, 2002; Ehrman et al 2003; Grenfell & Harris 1999; Lan &

Oxford 2003; Macaro 2001; MacIntyre 1994; McDonough 1995, 1999; Nunan 1997;

O’Malley et al 1985; O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990, 1996; Purdie and Oliver 1999; Purpura 1999; Wenden 1991; Wenden & Rubin 1987; Yamamori et al

2003, as cited in Tseng et al 2006, p 80) As a result, instruments developed to

measure self-regulated learning strategies are different from the more commonly used measures or inventories of language learner strategies Being the pioneers of this area, Pintrich and his colleagues (1994) have articulated a model of student’s cognition, which argued that students regulate their cognition by using motivational strategies in addition to cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies These researchers, then, suggest using the MSLQ, developed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKneachie (1991), as an instrument to measure learners’ strategies instead of the inventory as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

1.1.2 Measuring learning strategies in Vietnam context

Although self-regulation of learning has been shown to be teachable (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), Pape, Zimmerman, and Pajare (2002) shared the idea that few teachers systematically help their students improve their self-regulatory processes Furthermore, these authors believe students may better learn

on their own when their self-regulated learning strategies are instructed These authors affirmed:

“Students are seldom given much choice in academic tasks or activities, and they are not typically provided with the explicit modeling of strategic behaviors necessary to carry out complex learning tasks They are hardly ever given the opportunity to establish their own goals for their academic work, to monitor their progress toward goals that are important

to them, or to observe their progress toward such goals Further, students are rarely given the choice of when, where, or with whom they will study”

(Pape, Zimmerman & Pajare, 2002, p 1) Self-regulation has been found to be positively correlated to achievement, with highly self-regulated students being more motivated to use planning, organizational, and self-monitoring strategies than low self-regulated students (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) Stoffa, Kush & Heo (2011) claimed that students who are capable of monitoring their own meta-cognitive processes can control their learning by applying individualized cognitive strategies in their own learning These authors even added that cognitive learning strategies play a major role in providing students with methods to gain higher academic achievements (Stoffa, Kush & Heo, 2011, p 2) Research on cognitive strategies has demonstrated a significant correlation between cognitive learning strategies and academic performance, including language learning (MacIntyre, MacMaster & Baker, 2001; Sachs, Law, Chan & Rao, 2001) Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found a positive correlation between motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning Furthermore, all affective components were related to academic performance In line with these findings, Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) reported that there was a positive relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement and that if students are trained to have higher self-efficacy awareness, then their academic performance also improves Clearly, educators, as well as students, must learn how the use of personalized cognitive strategies contributes to language learning (Stoffa, Kush & Heo, 2011, p 2)

In Vietnamese context, in general, and in English major of USSH – HCM city context, in particular, this tendency is expected to be prevalent when Vietnam, to a certain extent, is still a country under the strong influence of Confucianism Students are more likely to demonstrate the habit of “listening and noting” instead of

“studying on their own.” Studying on Asian students’ learning styles, Littrell (2005) found that for the style of introverted learning, knowledge is something to be imparted by the teacher rather than discovered by the learners themselves; the students receive learning from the teacher rather than interpret it (Littrell, 2005, pp

6 – 7) Sue and Kirk (1972) discovered Asian students are more dependent on authority Tables, and more obedient and conforming to rules and deadlines Furthermore, research has shown that Asian students use different language-learning strategies than students from other cultural backgrounds (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Griffiths, 2003) Studying about students’ language-learning strategies revealed that cultural factors play an important role in students’ choice of language-

learning strategies (Stoffa et al., 2011) These researchers found that when Chinese

students study in mainland China, Taiwan, or in the United States, they frequently use comprehension strategies In contrast, Chinese and Korean students use infrequently memories strategies Also, social strategies are also generally unpopular among Chinese and Japanese subjects Unfortunately, in such a situation, there is little study addressing this realm in Vietnam’s context, leaving the self-regulated learning to be a cavity regardless that it is proven to be closely related to learners’ achievement

1.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

According to Zimmerman (1989), self-regulated learners are individuals who are “meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process” (Zimmerman, 1989, p 4) Self-regulated learners set specific learning or performance outcomes, and then monitor the effectiveness of their

learning methods or strategies and respond to their evaluations (Zimmerman, 1989) Thus, a main feature of self-regulated learning is meta-cognition This feature refers

to the awareness, knowledge, and control of cognition; the three processes that make

up meta-cognitive self-regulatory activities are planning, monitoring, and regulating

(Pintrich et al., 1991) Zimmerman and Paulsen (1995) pinpointed that

self-monitoring is essential for learning improvement, which helps students focus their attention on and discriminate between effective and ineffective performance and reveals inadequate learning strategies It improves time management as well

Other aspects of self-regulated learning include time management, regulating one’s own physical and social environment, and the ability to control one’s effort and attention (Pintrich, 1995; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997) Time management involves scheduling, planning, and managing one’s study time Research found that time planning and management training helped students better self-regulate their use

of study time and in turn, improved students’ grade-point average (Zimmerman, Greenberg & Weinstein, 1994) Seeking to determine a link between student time management and cumulative grade-point average in college students, Britton and Tessor (1991) concluded that students’ capability of time management and their short-range planning were more strongly related to their academic achievement than their achieved scores

Self-regulation is neither a measure of mental intelligence that is unchangeable after a certain point in life nor a personal characteristic that is genetically hereditary

or formed in early life Students learn regulation through experience and reflection (Pintrich, 1995) Teachers can teach in ways that help students become self-regulating learners (Coppola, 1995; McCombs, 1989) Since self-regulation is not a personality trait, students can control their behaviors and affect in order to improve their academic learning and performance In addition, self-regulated learning is particularly appropriate for college students, as they have great control

self-over their own time schedule, and how they approach their studying and learning (Pintrich, 1995)

When self-regulated learners find inadequate learning strategies, they will tend

to regulate their learning activities Regulating refers to “the fine-tuning and

continuous adjustment of one’s cognitive activities” (Pintrich et al., 1991, p 23)

Regulating activities enhance learning by employing a feedback loop during learning (Zimmerman, 1989), and self-monitoring training has been found to enhance performance across a wide variety of academic measures (Mace, Belfiore,

& Shea, 1989) Thus, students can become better learners if they become more aware of their learning and then choose to act accordingly to that awareness

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

According to Zimmermna & Risemberg (1997), self-regulation of learning has been shown to be teachable, if teachers help their students systematically improve their self-regulatory processes, their achievement will be surely improved (Pape, Zimmerman & Pajare, 2002) Many researchers have found that self-regulation is positively correlated to achievement, with highly self-regulated students being more motivated to use planning, organizational, and self-monitoring strategies than low self-regulated students (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Stoffa, Kush & Heo, 2011; MacIntyre, MacMaster & Baker, 2001; Sachs, Law, Chan & Rao, 2001; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994) Unfortunately, in Vietnam context, the learning strategies, especially self-regulated learning, have been ignored in psychological education Moreover, students today are different from those in the past Sousa (1988) wrote,

“Yesterday’s method worked well for yesterday’s students However, the student’s brain today is quite different from the one of fifteen years ago." For example,

“today’s children spend much more time on television and other electronic media than with their parents” (Sousa, 1988) Learners today are no longer viewed as passively being “instilled” with information and knowledge; they are actively

involved in reorganizing and reconstructing their existing knowledge with absorbed knowledge (Perkins, 1992) It is therefore paradoxical that people have not yet paid sufficient attention to this realm despite its teachability and the fact that if students become more aware of their learning and choose to act on that awareness, they can become better learners

newly-1.4 PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

The survey aims to examine the relationship between the self-regulated learning strategies applied and students’ achievements Doing the survey, the thesis author puts self-regulated learning strategies under the two large modules as

suggested by Pintrich et al (1994), the first one of which is learner’s motivation,

and the second is learner’s learning strategies For the first module, there are three components taken into consideration which are Exam Anxiety, Extrinsic Goal Motivation and Self-Efficacy The second module is made up by another three components: Peer Learning, Rehearsal and Self-Regulation

The survey also aims to give feedbacks to teachers and educators in the aspect of paying attention to students’ self-regulated learning strategies McKeachie (1988) discovered that teachers should help students become aware of alternative ways of approaching learning situation to assist students to be effective in their learning There has also been plenty of research revealing that higher achievers use more self-regulatory strategies, control their physical environment to meet their needs, seek help when needed, and use time management skills (Chen, 2002, p 14)

In line with contemporary theories of self-regulation in educational psychology, this study also targets the core differences that distinguish groups of students from their peers in terms of the self-regulated learning strategies applied

By doing so, the study applies the descriptive statistics into considering the employment of self-regulated learning strategies between the two groups of students

in question

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study was done under the following research question:

- In what ways did the self-regulated learning affect students’ results of the subject

of English in the entrance exam in terms of the six components in question?

This research question has two sub-research questions:

o How did students who got from 7.00 and over for the subject of English in the entrance exam regulate their self-learning during the preparation for the exam?

o How did students who got below 7.00 for the subject of English in the entrance exam regulate their self-learning during the preparation for the exam?

1.6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study gives us an insight into the relationship between learners’ regulated learning strategies and students’ achievements This relationship is worth considering because from the research findings, teachers and/or educators are able to draw out the reasonable models of self-regulated learning strategies to instruct students

self-The study also gives us in-depth information about the differences of students

in their learning strategies when preparing for their entrance exam in terms of students’ achievement

1.7 THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study confines itself to surveying students on six components of, alphabetically, Effort Regulation, Exam Anxiety, Extrinsic Goal Orientation, Peer Learning, Rehearsal, and Self-Efficacy These components are grouped into two modules Learners’ motivation module consists of three components: Exam Anxiety, Extrinsic Goal Orientation and Self-Efficacy and the other the module of learners’ learning strategies include three components of Peer Learning, Rehearsal, and Effort Regulation

The subject of this research work also limits to the surveyed first-year time English majors studying at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature, USSH – VNU-HCM in the academic year 2010 – 2011 There are totally 321 students involved in the study, consisting of students in 07 classes Among these students, 111 students got not less than 7.00 for the English test as part of the National University Entrance exam, while the remaining 210 students got below 7.00

Literature and Linguistics of the university put forward Thus, the terms GROUP ONE and GROUP TWO used in this thesis define the two groups mentioned above

In chapter three, section 3.6 is the discussion of the two groups in details

Components: In this thesis, the term component refers to the aspects that

students in the study took to regulate their self-learning In some other studies, the

term subscale is used instead

Scale: The term of scale is used for mentioning to something higher than components in the previously mentioned sense, i.e cognitive, meta-cognitive, etc

mentioned chiefly in chapter two are the scales

Modules: In this thesis, this term is used to mention the aspects of learners’ motivation and self-regulated learning strategies

Other terms are used in their normal definition

1.9 SUMMARY

In a nutshell, this chapter refers to the general aspects of the study This chapter begins with the Rationale, in which the instruments used for measuring learning strategies and studies about measuring learning activities in Vietnamese context are discussed This chapter also mentions the psychology of studying about learning strategies of students on which is the theory that the study bases In this chapter, the research questions, consisted of one main research questions and two sub-research questions, are also mentioned This chapter also mentions the problems that launch the study and the purposes the study wants to get Next to that, the chapter acknowledges the significance of the study as well as the scope of study In the section of terms definition, the chapter suggests some terms that should be understood in such a way that readers would not misunderstand from the contents of the thesis.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the theories and literature relevant to the topic under investigation in the present study The first section of this chapter discusses the linguistic notions of Self-regulated learning and the emergence of the terms Self-regulated learning in the environment of ESL/EFL The second section provides the conceptual framework of Self-regulated learning in two domains They are the prior models of Self-regulated learning and the previous studies on Self-regulated learning

2.1 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

2.1.1 Definition of Self-regulated learning

Since the 1980s, the formulations of self-regulation have been named controlled,” “self-instructed,” or “self-reinforced” (Zimmerman, 1986) in seeking to explain learners’ capability to learn on their own and to understand their motivation

“self-to do so Phenomenological theorists (McCombs, 1989) who focused on students’ motivation as self-esteem and self-actualization defined it in dimensions such as self-worth, planning, and goal setting, whereas behaviorists concentrated on self-monitoring, self-instruction and self-reinforcement Common to most of these terms, however, (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) believed that self-observation, self-evaluation, self-improvement were parts of the self-regulatory process of the students; Zimmerman (1986) had just taken the first step to conceptualize self-regulated learning It was not until 1989 did Zimmerman define self-regulated learning as, in terms of phenomenological, social cognitive, volitional, Vygotskian and cognitive constructivist theories, “self-regulated learners are individuals who are meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own

learning process” (Zimmerman, 1989, as cited in McMahon, 2001) To understand the concept of self-regulation, one needs to take various interpretations into account Zimmerman (1990), then, confirmed that:

“Definitions of self-regulated learning involve three features: their use of self-regulated learning strategies, their responsiveness to self- oriented feedback out learning effectiveness, and their interdependence motivational processes Self-regulated students select and use self- regulated learning strategies to achieve desired academic outcomes on the basis of feedback about learning effectiveness skill" (Zimmerman, 1990).

Pintrich and De Groot (1990) stated that there were many definitions of regulated learning They also included three main components, which seemed important to classroom context: first, “self-regulated learning includes students’ meta-cognitive strategies for planning, monitoring, and modifying their cognition" (Brown, Bransford, Campione & Ferrara, 1983; Zimmerman & Pons, 1986, 1988), second, “students’ management and control of their effort on classroom academic tasks,” and third, “their actual cognitive strategies that students use to learn, remember and understand the material” (Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988) He described more exactly that regulating indicated

self-“the fine-tuning and continuous adjustment of one’s cognitive activities” (Pintrich et al., 1991, as cited in Chen, 2002)

Pintrich (1995) reaffirmed that students may have different types of regulated learning: the first type was of behavior; the second was of motivation; and the last was of cognition However, the author believes there is a mixed type of self-regulation in students learning ability Mih & Mih (2010) also asserted that there were four types of self-regulation: cognitive, meta-cognitive, motivational, and emotional

self-Furthermore, the definition of self-regulation which “refers to the use of processes that activate and sustain thoughts, behaviors, and affects in order to attain goals,” later, was confirmed “Self-regulated learning refers to learning that results from students’ self-generated thoughts and behaviors that are systematically oriented toward the attainment of their learning goals" (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997)

Until the 21st century, theorists and experts have provided more understandable and concrete definitions Pintrich (2000) defines self-regulated learning as:

“Self-regulated learning is an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment.”

(Pintrich, 2000) There are, apparently, two inseparable parts in Pintrich’s definition of self-regulation First is the students must set “goals," and the other is then “to monitor, regulate, and control [the] cognition, motivation, and behavior” within the limit of the goals and specific settings In line with the definition, Zimmerman (2001, 2002) agrees that “what characterizes self-regulating students is their active participation in learning from the metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral point of view." Pintrich and Zusho (2002) reinforced the definition of self-regulated learning, the construct of which refers “to an active constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features of the environment” (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006) As applied in language learning, self-regulation can be defined more clearly by Schunk and Ertner (2000) as:

“Self-regulation comprises such processes as setting goals for learning, attending to and concentrating on instruction, using effective

strategies to organize, code, and rehearse information to be remembered, establishing a productive work environment, using resources effectively, seeking assistance when needed, holding positive beliefs about one’s capabilities, the value of learning, the factors influencing learning, and the anticipated outcomes of actions, and experiencing pride and satisfaction with one’s efforts.” (Schunk & Ertmer, 1999)

2.1.2 MODULES OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

There are two modules of self-regulated learning: motivation and learning

strategies (Pintrich et al., 1991)

2.1.2.1 Motivation

When students learn a language they must have a desire or motivation

“Motivation is some kind of internal drive that encourages somebody to pursue a

course of action” (Harmer, 1991) The term “motivation” has been defined in different ways and in various aspects and fields In educational context, motivation can be understood as “one of the key factors that influence the rate and success of language two learning Motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning

the L2 and later driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process”

(Dörnyei, 2001, p.117)

Language two learners are motivated in different ways and to different degrees (Thanasoulas, 2001) and when motivated, they perceived various kinds of goals (Harmer, 1991) including long-term goals and short-term goals Short-term goal students want to pass a test or to finish a unit in a book Meanwhile, somebody

is considered to have long-term goals if they wish to get a better job in the future or want to communicate with other people in English, the language that they learn as language two Long-term goal students are also regarded to be easier to teach

Motivation can be separated into two main categories: extrinsic motivation, related to factors outside the classroom and intrinsic motivation, related to the activities taken place inside the classroom The former includes (a) integrative motivation and (b) instrumental motivation Learners with integrative motivation are interested in the culture of target language community while instrumentally-motivated learners think language as an instrument or “monetary incentive” (Gardner, 1993, p.3) that can help them to get a better job The latter includes (a) physical conditions such as a badly lit or overcrowded classroom, uncomfortable seats, (b) method, (c) the teacher, and (d) success in which low challenge activities

or very difficult tasks can create de-motivation to the students

According to Gardner (1993, p.3) motivation comprised of three components: (a) desire to achieve a goal, (b) effort extended in this direction, and (c) satisfaction with the task In L2 learning, students set up a goal to achieve and then learners regulate their effort to attain the goal set in advance with the satisfaction gotten in completing the task Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) stated that motivation comprises

of (a) expectancy components, which are students’ beliefs about the probability of successfully achieving their goals and influencing students’ belief in his or her own control over success or failure, (b) value components, which are students’ reasons for engaging in a task, and (c) affective components It can be summarized as follows:

(a) Expectancy components

• Self-efficacy: students’ belief that they have the skills and capabilities to

accomplish specific goals

• Control beliefs: student’s belief that outcomes in the course are contingent on

their own effort That means students believe that their efforts to learn will result

in positive outcomes

(b) Value components

• Intrinsic goal orientation: an approach to learning that focuses on mastery,

learning and challenge

• Extrinsic goal orientation: students’ motivation for grades These extrinsic

goals may often be obtained by focusing solely on material that will be tested or graded to the exclusion of other educational goals; worse yet they may be attained by cheating…

• Task value: represents beliefs that students will have about the specific course

material

(c) Affective components

• Test anxiety: the feeling of discomfort and worry many students experience

before or during a test or examination when they fear that they will do badly The emotional distress has little effect on the performance, but worry “steals” cognitive capacity needed for good performance

2.1.2.2 Learning strategies

Motivation is believed to be able to explain why students desire to learn language two However, to learn language two effectively learners need to employ strategies Indeed, “Learning strategies are the mental and communicative procedures learners use in order to learn and use language” (Nunan, 1999) O’Malley and Chamot (1990) define learning strategies are “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them to comprehend, learn or retain new information.” Similarly, Wenden (1998) stated that learning strategies are “mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so.” Learning strategies are also simply defined “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge” (Rubin, 1975, p 43) It can

be found in O’Malley and Chamot’s indications that “more effective learners differed from less effective learners ones in their use of strategies.”

Rubin and Thompson’s framework (1982) includes fourteen strategies that may help learners to learn better

• Good language learners find their own way to learn and take charge of their own learning

• They organize information about the language and their own program of study

• They are creative and experiment with the language

• They create their own opportunities to practice the language

• They learn to live with uncertainty

• They use mnemonics by organizing individual items into patterns and linking things together

• They make errors work for them and know how to deal with errors (Don’t stop talking for fear of errors)

• They use linguistics knowledge and rely on what they know such as their first language or other languages they know

• They know how to use context to help them understand the message by guessing and taking risks

• They need to learn to make intelligent guesses

• They learn expressions and idioms as wholes

• They learn ways to keep conversation going

• They make use of production techniques such as paraphrasing, using synonyms, and asking for help

• They use different styles of speech depending on the formality of the context

Indeed, good language learners employ various strategies and more frequently than less effective learners do (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) The authors classify learning strategies into

(a) Meta-cognitive strategies, which includes all facts learners acquire about their own cognitive processes as they are applied and used to gain knowledge and

acquire skills in varied situations (Wenden, 1998, p 34) (selective attention, planning, and monitoring),

(b) Cognitive strategies, which operates directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning” (rehearsal, organization, inferencing, summarizing, reducing, imagery, transfer, and elaboration),

(c) Social/affective strategies (cooperation, questioning for clarification, and self-task)

According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies can be divided into direct and indirect strategies The former includes memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies The latter includes meta-cognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies Pintrich (1990) asserts that learning strategies comprise of (a) cognitive and meta-cognitive and (b) resource management strategies

(a) Cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies

• Rehearsal: repetition and memorization of course material

• Elaboration: methods by which students process new information in order to

connect and integrate it with prior knowledge

• Organization: strategies for relating and concepts to one another

• Critical thinking: includes application, problem solving, analysis, interference,

synthesis and evaluation

• Meta-cognition: thinking about one’s own learning and thinking, choosing an

appropriate strategy for learning, monitoring whether one understands or is confused, and planning alternative approaches are examples of meta-cognitive self-regulating strategies

(b) Resource management strategies

• Time and environment management: ability to manage and regulate their time

and their study environments Time management involves scheduling, planning,

and managing one’s study time such as setting aside blocks of time to study, effective use of that study time and setting realistic goals Study environment management refers to the setting where the student does her class work Ideally, the learner’s study environment should be organized, quiet and relatively free of visual and auditory distractions

• Effort regulation: students’ ability to control their effort and attention in the face

of distractions and uninteresting tasks Effort management is self-management and reflects a commitment to completing one’s study goals, even when there are difficulties or distractions Effort management is important to academic success because it not only signifies goal commitment, but also regulate the continued use of learning strategies

• Peer learning: Collaborating with peers has positive effects on achievement

Dialogue with peers can help a learner clarify course material and reach insights one may not have attained on one’s own

• Help seeking: students must learn to manage is the support of others This

includes both peers and instructors Good students know when they don’t know something and are able to identify someone to provide them with some assistance There is a large body of research that indicates that peer help, peer tutoring, and individual teacher assistance facilitate student achievement

2.1.3 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE EMERGENCE OF THE

CONCEPT OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

There have been a number of developments of the concept of self-regulation

in different fields, including psychology, education and, certainly, language teaching and learning The aim of this section is to present an overview of the main strands of thoughts that have led to the interest in the research in self-regulation process of second language learning

2.1.3.1 The emergence of self-regulated learning in Psychological field

In the early 1920s, Tolman, who was attracted to mentalism and purpose,

introduced his purposive behavior, a theory of learning ability in human psychology

which accepted the reality of consciousness According to Kitchener, the psychologist believed this system was objective and thus scientific (Kitchener, 1999,

p 98) After that, Hullian and his followers denied Tolman’s theory and limited theory to concepts supposed to reflect the psychological basis of behavior (Kitchener, 1999, pp 217 – 218) This school of thought claimed that behaviorism began as positivist reaction against introspectionism, which is one variety of mentalist Before 1960s, Hullian behaviorism had played a predominant role in the study of behaviors Hullian behaviorism, which managed to explain learning and motivation by scientific laws of behaviors, in contrast to prior Tolman’s theory of learning ability without goals (part of motivation), played a predominant role in the study of behaviors

However, in early 1960s, Hullian and neo-Hullian quasi-physiology have appeared archaic and were not able to give a full and complete explanation of patterns of animals and human beings (Kitchener, 1999, p 218) In the 1960s, psychology witnessed the switch from behaviorism to cognitivism (Anderson & Simon, 1995; Bredo, 1997) which led to the emergence of self-regulated learning Skinner’s radical behaviorism had developed rapidly; hence, there was a need of a revolution in cognitive psychology, which was signaled by the introduction of the cognitive maps of rats and men by Tolman1, who also believed in “latent learning”

1

Edward Chace Tolman (April 14, 1886 – November 19, 1959) was an American psychologist

He was most famous for his studies on behavioral psychology Tolman is best known for his studies

of learning in rats using mazes, and he published many experimental articles, of which his paper with Ritchie and Kalish in 1946 was probably the most influential His major theoretical

contributions came in his 1932 book,Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men, and in a series of papers in the Psychological Review, "The determinants of behavior at a choice point" (1938),

"Cognitive maps in rats and men" (1948) and "Principles of performance" (1955)

or learning occurring without the presence of goals According to Gestalt psychology2, the mind and brain are considered as solving problems in human holislically There was also Lewin’s disciplinary theory in both biology and

psychology, and particularly active research conducted by McClelland et al (1953)

and their students on expectancies and the value of human’s motivation for achievements In late 1960s, during the revolution in cognitive psychology, a great number of advancements were made, generally, seeking to understand perception, memory and cognitive process of humans Cognitive psychologists, as the results, shifted their interests to the application of cognitive theory to social psychology, organizational psychology, educational systems, and health behavior and systems

One particular consequence of the cognition revolution was that educational practitioners would be sufficiently aware of the significance of human cognition; furthermore, they accepted those research works which were conducted in both natural and laboratory settings Mutual interactions between laboratory study and applied research brought in more insight into cognition in terms of both theory and practice (Pintrich, 2000)

2.1.3.2 Self-regulated learning in Educational field

In the same period of time of psychology revolution, the American education system witnessed the formulations of student learning patterns under the socio-environment approach Since then, remarkable achievements resulted from this approach began to grow in number from the early 1960s, and self-regulation became

a popular topic during the decade During the early 1960s, social environment

2

Gestalt psychology or gestaltism (German: Gestalt - "essence or shape of an entity's complete

form") is a theory of mind and brain of the Berlin School; the operational principle of gestalt

psychology is that the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies Gestalt psychologists stipulate that perception is the product of complex interactions among various stimuli Contrary to the behaviouralist approach to understanding the elements of cognitive processes,

gestalt psychologists sought to understand their organization (Carlson and Heth, 2010)

formulation of student learning and achievement rose to prominence The zeitgeist for reform was “fueled by Hunt’s (1961) and Bloom’s (1964) influential books on the importance of early experience on children’s intellectual development and by Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001, p 3) Furthermore, “disadvantages in the intellectual environment of the home of poor children and disparity between this home environment and the curriculum and the atmosphere” was paid close attention (Hess, 1970, as cited in Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001, p 3) With the similar school of thought, Ronsenberg (1965) stated that lower-class children had lower self-esteem Proposals for pedagogical reform,

by recognition of this fact, were made by humanistic psychologists and educators such as Rogers (1969), and Glasser (1969)

One inclusion in the reform movements in education in the United States of Amarican in 1970s, which was based on instructional theories, was that students were viewed as playing such a “primarily reactive rather than a proactive role." Consequently, teachers were strongly expected to adapt their instructions to every single student, basing on “their mental ability, socio-cultural background, achievement of educational standards,” which meant students were not allowed to

“initiate or substantially supplement experiences designed to educate themselves.”

In this period, there was plenty of research on self-regulated learning, mainly concentrating on the influence of learning strategies on academic performance (Brown & Smiley, 1978; Pask, 1976) These early studies proved that high academic achievements could only be made by students when they received proper training of how to use learning strategies, but they would stop employing the strategies right after the training finished As a result, researchers realized that other reasons for the absence of independence in students’ use of learning strategies in different contexts should also be considered

In the late 1970s, the advent of the term “meta-cognition” contributed to the discussion on “knowledge about knowledge” and “thinking about thinking”

(Pintrich, 2000) Educational psychologists, such as Pintrich (2000), McKeachie (1988) attempted to understand “the use of knowledge and skills,” theorists needed

to study “goals, motivation and affect." Accordingly, the concept of cognition” in educational psychology began to emerge and was defined as an

“meta-“executive control process” that included “planning, monitoring and control of cognitive strategies” (Brown & Smiley, 1978)

Together with “meta-cognition”, the concept “motivation” appeared and was soon explored by professionals to give insight into why students use learning strategies According to theorists, motivation could be explained as “the most important factor for the interpretation of individual achievement in the learning task” (Radovan, 2011) Previously, Pintrich (1999) proved that motivational beliefs (three types – self-efficacy, mastery goal orientations and task value beliefs – chosen

in the research) had the positive relationship with self-regulated learning Garcia (1995) also indicated that “adding motivational strategies to our model of self-regulated learning may be a way of gaining greater insight into achievement of high-anxiety students, minority students, and of students labeled at-risk These students’ affective concerns may be taking precedence over the demand of a learning task.” Hence, motivation could be believed to be one of the significant components of the model of self-regulated learning

2.1.3.3 Self-regulated learning as a suggestion to further research on L2

learning / ESL

There have been many pieces of research on self-regulated learning such as investigations into identifying key self-regulatory processes employed by efficient

and poor self-regulators (Boekaerts et al., 2000; Pintrich, 2000; Printrich & Zusho,

2002) Investigators also conducted research on the correlation among regulation, motivation, and learning (Pirntrich, 2000; Pintrich, 2003) Another line

of the investigations is the impact of designed interventions on learners’

self-regulatory skills and academic success (Schunk & Ertmer, 1999) Adding to the main theme, in field of psychology, developmental psychologists, Henderson and Cunningham (1994), examined the development of students’, especially children’s, self-regulatory skills such as how they adapt their cognitive and emotional aptitudes

to behavioral self-control Such research, in broader sense, is aimed at furthering our understanding of self-regulation in learning and its implications in academic contexts as well Recently, most researchers have shifted their interests in two critical issues – motivation and self-regulatory skills (McMahon & Luca, 2001; Schunk, 1995) Similarly, drawing a lot of attention from the researchers is what self-regulated learning is and how it can be taught (Montalvo & Torres, 2004) Educators believe that self-regulated learning can be trained to students At present time, some researchers’ interests are also to explore what self-regulated learning

aspects positively affect language two learning outcomes (Stoffa et al., 2011) The

question what kinds of self-regulated learning model which comprises from the skills/ strategies that can help students achieve in their language two learning still remains unanswered as well as what is the best model that fits students in certain areas has not been formed

2.1.3.4 The emergence of the terms of self-regulated learning

Since the 1960s, the concept of self-regulation began from the recognition of the importance of “personal initiative” in learning, which was reaffirmed by contemporary American leaders Among these leaders was Gardner (1963), the United States former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (1965 – 1968) His suggestion was “the ultimate goal of the education system is shifted to the individual the burden of pursuing his own education” (Zimmerman, 1990) Zimmerman (1990) agreed that the focus of “personal initiative” shifted to the point

of view that education should not consider “students’ learning ability and their learning environment as “fixed entities."" Instead, students should be encouraged to control their “personally initiated processes and responses in order to “improve their ability and their environments for learning.” Self-regulated learning has been regarded as “personal quality,” “an individual attribute” – “a relatively enduring attribute of a person that predicts future behavior” (Winne & Perry, 2000)

McKeachie (1988) strengthened the understanding of the terms: motivation, cognition and meta-cognition by explaining that “if individuals were to plan how to use their knowledge of the conditions under which their knowledge and skills could

be most effectively, they needed to consider their goals.” Therefore, research on

“motivation” continued to grow as a very dynamic and vibrant area of research, drawing plenty of psychological scientists’ attention Both expectancy-value and attribution theories of motivation revealed the concept of “self” as a significant motivation value People’s behaviors in many situations might be affected by the act

of enhancing their self-concept and protecting that against the threat The two examples of the reappearance of the “self” provided in the research in a frame of Bandera’s intensive program on “self-efficacy” and that in Hazel Markus’s work on

“possible selves” played as a major thematic role in the theory and research One of the first theories that addressed this topic is the noteworthy Bandura’s social cognitive theory in 1986 providing a theoretical foundation for the development of a model of self-regulated learning in which personal, contextual and behavioral factors interact in such a way as to give students an opportunity to control their learning

Self-regulation, as its name suggests, constructs “integrate the cognitive, motivational, social and behavioral strands” of theory and research (McKeachie, 1988) The emergence of the term of “self-regulation” was well-timed since it could cover all of these aspects: motivation, cognition, meta-cognition and socio-environment affect

2.1.4 SELF-REGULATED LEARNING AND LEARNER AUTONOMY

There are similarities and differences between the notions of self-regulated learning and learner autonomy Self-regulated learning and learner autonomy, according to some authors and researchers, are considered parts of “independent learning” as “it indicates competence and independence” (Paris & Newman, 1990) and “lifelong learning” (Broady & Kenning, 1996; Candy, 1991), the process to successful learning (Boekeart, 1997) They both are understood to be the process in which students take responsibility of their own learning (Zimmerman, 1989) For instance, “self-regulatory learners are individuals who are meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process” (Zimmerman, 1989) Autonomous learners, likewise, are those who have “the ability

to take charge of one's learning” (Holec, 1981) Autonomy also involvesthe situations “in which learners study independently,” learners’ self-directed learning skills and taking responsibility for their own learning (Benson & Voller, 1997) Generally, they both are the process in which students have the rights to decide what skills and strategies they should use to learn in order to achieve academic goals

However, when considered in terms of the learners and teacher’s role in the learning process, self-regulated learning and learner autonomy are different Boeckaert (1997) confirms that “It is clear that self-regulated learning is not an event but, rather, refers to a series of reciprocally related cognitive and affective processes that operate together on different components of the information-processing system." In fact, self-regulated learning is positioned at the junction of motivation, cognition and meta-cognition Students make efforts to use various meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies to regulate their own learning

“Self-regulated learning involves the regulation of three general aspects of academic learning First, self-regulation of behavior involves the

active control of the various resources students have been available to

them, such as their time, their study environment (for example, the place in which they study), and their use of others such as peers and faculty members to help them (Garcia & Pintrich, 1995; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie, 1993) Second, self-regulation of motivation and involves

controlling and changing motivational beliefs such as self-efficacy and

goal orientation, so that the students can adapt to the demands of a course

In addition, students can learn how to control their emotions and affect (such anxiety) in ways that improve their learning Third and finally, self-

regulation of cognition involves the control of various cognitive strategies

of learning, such as the use of deep processing strategies that result in

better learning and performance than students showed previously (Garcia

& Pintrich, 1995; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie, 1993).”

(Pintrich, 1995)

As compared in terms of (1a) “active control of the various resources”, (2a)

“controlling and changing motivational beliefs”, and (3a) “control of various cognitive strategies of learning” (Pintrich, 1995), autonomy is defined as “capacity-

a construct of (1b) attitudes and (2b) abilities-which allows learners to take more

responsibility for their learning” (Benson, 1997) Moreover, the main characteristic

of autonomy is emphasized as an approach to learning in which students take (3b)

some responsibility for their own learning over and above responding to instruction

(Cotterall, 1995, p.195)

Lambert & McCombs (1998) draws the conclusion that autonomous learners are “active, goal-directed, self-regulating, and assume personal responsibility for contributing to their own learning” (Lambert & McCombs, 1998, p.16)

In conclusion, learner autonomy involves students’ participation in the lessons inside and outside a classroom (Ho & Crookall, 1995) Meanwhile, a self-

regulated learner becomes involved in academic tasks for “intrinsic satisfaction derived from engagement, mastery and success” (Paris, 1990)

2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

2.2.1 Prior models of Self-regulated learning

Until the present time, there have been some most utilized models to measure student’s student's ability as follows:

Weinstein, Shulte & Palmer’s (1987, as cited in McMahon & Joe, 2001) includes in the ten-scale model:

(1) Attitude towards studying and motivation for success

(2) Motivation, diligence, self-discipline, and willingness to work hard (3) Use time of management principles for academic tasks

(4) Anxiety and worry about school performance

(5) Concentration and attention to academic tasks

(6) Information processing , acquiring knowledge, and reasoning

(7) Selecting main ideas and recognizing important information

(8) Use of support techniques and materials

(9) Self-testing, reviewing, and preparing for classes

(10) Test strategies and preparing for tests

The model provided above concentrates on some aspects that are considered similar to Pintrich’s model (2003, 2004), such as “motivation” (1) and (2),

“intrinsic/extrinsic goal orientation” (4), “task value” (3) and (5), “test anxiety” and

“rehearsal” (9) and (10), “meta-cognition strategies” (7), “resources management” (8)

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986, 1988) includes the strategies used by students in their model as they conducted the structured interview As being compared to Pintrich’s model, it can be found that Pintrich’s cover all aspects of