development of self-regulatory strategies scale (srss

EğitimveBilim2011,Cilt36,Sayı160

EducationandScience2011,Vol.36,No160

DevelopmentofSelf-RegulatoryStrategiesScale(SRSS)

ÖzdüzenleyiciÖğrenmeStratejileriÖlçeğinin(ÖÖSÖ)Geliştirilmesi

CanselKADIOĞLU*EsenUZUNTİRYAKİ**YeşimÇAPAAYDIN***

GaziosmanpaşaÜniversitesiOrtaDoğuTeknikÜniversitesi

AbstractThepurposeofthisstudywastodevelopascaleassessinghighschoolstudents’useofself-

regulatorystrategieswhilestudying.Inthepilotstudy,thescalewasadministeredto422students.Eightfactorswereobtainedthroughexplanatoryfactoranalysis:namely,motivationregulation,effortregulation,planning,attentionfocusing,summarystrategy,highlightingstrategy,usingadditionalresources,andself-instruction.Inthevalidationstudy,the29-itemfinalversionofthescalewasadministeredto616students.Resultsofconfirmatoryfactoranalysisconfirmedeightfactorsolution.TheCronbach’salphaforeachfactorrangedfrom.68to.82.Additionally,resultsofMultivariateAnalysisofVariancerevealedsignificantgenderdifferences.FindingsprovidedsomeevidenceforthevalidityandreliabilityoftheSelf-RegulatoryStrategiesScalescores.

Keywords: Self-regulation, self-regulatory strategies, scale development, chemistryeducation.

ÖzBu çalışmanın amacı, lise öğrencilerinin ders çalışırken kullandıkları özdüzenleyici

öğrenmestratejileriniölçmekiçinbirölçekgeliştirmektir.Pilotçalışmadaölçek422öğrenciyeuygulanmıştır.Açıklayıcıfaktöranalizisonuçları,ölçeğinsekizfaktördenoluştuğunugöstermiştir.Bufaktörler,motivasyondüzenleme,çabadüzenleme,planyapma,dikkattoplama,özetleme,vurgulama, ek kaynakları kullanma ve özyönlendirmedir. Geçerlilik çalışmasında ölçeğin29maddeliksonhali616 öğrenciyeuygulanmıştır.Doğrulayıcı faktöranalizi sonuçları,sekizfaktörlüyapıyıdoğrulamıştır.Herbir faktör içinCronbachAlfa içgüvenirlikkatsayısı ise .68ile.82aralığındadeğişmiştir.Ekolarakçokdeğişkenlivaryansanalizisonucundacinsiyetfarkıolduğuortayaçıkmıştır.Sonuçlar,ÖzdüzenleyiciÖğrenmeStratejileriÖlçeği’ndeneldeedilenpuanlarıngüvenilirliğivegeçerliğihakkındakanıtlarsağlamıştır.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Özdüzenleme, özdüzenleyici öğrenme stratejileri, anket geliştirme,kimyaeğitimi.

Introduction

Oneofthemajorproblemsthatstudentsexperiencewhilestudyingisthattheyarenotawareofwhattheyarelearningorwhattheyaredoing.Studentshavemanydifficultiesinmanagingtime,choosingeffective learningstrategies,note taking,andpreparing for tests (Zimmerman,Bonner,&Kovach,1996).Enhancinglearningdoesnotmeanjustimprovingcontentknowledge;italsoincludesdevelopingstudyskills,socialskills,anddesiredmotivationalorientationstohelpstudentsbecomeindependentlife-longlearners.Recentstudiesgivepriorityto‘howindividualslearn’and‘howindividualsregulatethemselvesforlearning’,morespecificallyself-regulation.Research studies provided empirical evidence for the association between self-regulatory

* CanselKADIOĞLU,GaziosmanpaşaÜniversitesi,[email protected]** Doç.Dr.EsenUZUNTİRYAKİ,OrtaDoğuTeknikÜniversitesi,[email protected]*** Yrd.Doç.Dr.YeşimÇAPAAYDIN,OrtaDoğuTeknikÜniversitesi,[email protected]

12 CANSELKADIOĞLU,ESENUZUNTİRYAKİANDYEŞİMÇAPAAYDIN

strategies and learning outcomes such as academic achievement, motivational orientations,andself-efficacybeliefs(Arsal,2009;Arsal,2010;Haşlaman&Aşkar,2007;Pape&Wang,2003;Pintrich&DeGroot,1990;Orhan,2008;Sperling,Howard,Staley,&DuBois,2004; ;Yumusak,Sungur,&Cakiroglu,2007;Yükseltürk&Bulut,2009;Zimmerman,1990;Zimmerman&Martinez-Pons,1990;Zusho,Pintrich,&Coppalo,2003).Therefore,ineducation,self-regulationisoneofthemostessentialconstructs. Alllearnersareassumedtouseself-regulatorystrategiestosomedegree;thus,itisnotappropriatetotalkaboutabsenceofself-regulationorun-self-regulatedlearners(Winne, 1997), teachers shoulddetermine students’ existing strategiesandhelp themdevelopnewstrategiesaswellasenhance their contentknowledge.Tomakecorrect judgmentsaboutstudents’useofSRLstrategies,accuratemeasurementoftheconstructisneeded.Oncestudents’initiallevelsaredetermined,teacherscanorganizetheirclassroomstopromotedevelopmentofthesestrategies.

Zimmerman(2000)definedself-regulationas“self-generatedthoughts,feelings,andactionsthat areplannedand cyclically adopted to the attainment ofpersonal goals” (p.14).Differentmodelshavebeenproposed toprovideacomprehensiveexplanationabout thecognitiveandmotivationalvariablesinthisself-regulatoryprocess(Zimmerman,2001).Inthepresentstudy,Zimmerman (2000)’s model based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) has been usedto explain students’ use of self-regulatory strategies. Social cognitive theory explains humanfunctioning through reciprocal interactions among personal factors, environmental factors,andbehaviors(Bandura,1986).InBandura’striadicmodelofreciprocaldeterminism,personal,behavioral,andenvironmentalfactorsareviewedasseparatebut interdependentsourcesthatinfluence each other bi-directionally. For example, learner’s self-efficacy beliefs influence his/her taskchoice,effort,andpersistence ina task,whichshowsthe influenceofpersonal factoron behavior. On the other hand, when learner experiences success after working hard on atask (behavioral factor), his/her self-efficacy beliefs (personal factor)may increase (Schunk&Zimmerman,1997).Anotherreciprocalinteractionexistsbetweenenvironmentalandbehavioralfactors.After teacherpresents the rules forgroupwork (environmental factor), learners formgroups (behavioral factor). If the learners raise their hands to ask a question about the rules(behavioralfactor),theteacherreviewtherules(environmentalfactor).Thelastinteractionexistsbetweenpersonalandenvironmentalfactors.Whenthelearnerbelievesthats/hecannotachievethetask,theteachertriestopersuadethestudenttobelievehis/hercapability.Thisfeedback,inturn,generates self-confidence in the learner (personal factor influencesenvironmental factor,whichtheninfluencespersonalfactor).Thisreciprocalinteractionplaysaroleinself-regulatedlearning(SRL)inthatstudentsguidetheir learningbyinterpretingtheinformationbothfromtheirenvironmentandselforientations(motivationalandcognitivecharacteristics).

ZimmermanandMartinez-Pons(1986)definedSRLstrategiesas“actionsdirectedatacquiringinformationorskillthatinvolveagency,purpose(goals),andinstrumentalityself-perceptionsbyalearner”(p.615).Throughinterviews,theyidentified14strategieswhichstudentscommonlyuseintheirlearningprocesses:self-evaluation,organizingandtransforming,goal-settingandplanning,seekinginformation,keepingrecordsandmonitoring,environmentalstructuring,self-consequences,rehearsingandmemorizing,seekingpeerassistance,seekingteacherassistance,seekingadultassistance,reviewingtests,reviewingnotes,andreviewingtext.Zimmerman(2000)utilizedthesestrategiesinhismodelexplainingSRL.Zimmerman’smodelincludesthreephases:forethought,performance,andself-reflection.Theseprocesseshelpstudentsmotivateandguidetheirownlearning.Thefirstphase,forethoughtphase,includesprocesseswhichpreparestudentsforlearning.Afterevaluatingtheirpriorknowledge,studentssettheirownlearninggoalsanddeterminewhichstrategytouse.Forexample,goalsettingandplanningstrategiesfallunderthisphase.Thesecondone,performancephase,includestheimplementationofstrategiesforlearningandmonitoring their accuracy like environmental structuring.The thirdphase, self-reflectionphase, consists ofprocesses that occur after learning. Students judgewhat theyhave learnedandwhat theyneed to learn further.Becausepersonal,behavioral,andenvironmental factors

13DEVELOPMENTOFSELF-REGULATORYSTRATEGIESSCALE(SRSS)

areconstantlychangingandstudentsneedtousefeedbackfrompriorexperiencestoadjusttheircurrentefforts,SRLisacyclicalprocess(Zimmerman,2000).Self-reflectionphaseisfollowedbythe forethoughtphaseof thenext learningprocess. Indeed,Zimmerman (1990)considers thatthereisaself-orientedfeedbackloopinSRL.Learnersarealsoexpectedtobemetacognitively,motivationally,andbehaviorallyactiveintheirownlearning.Insum,“self-regulatedstudentsselect anduse self-regulated learning strategies toachievedesiredacademicoutcomeson thebasisoffeedbackaboutlearningeffectivenessandskill”(Zimmerman,1990,pp6-7).

Althoughtherehavebeenseveralstudiesonstudents’self-regulatorystrategiesinliterature,thesestudiessufferfromlackofaccuratemeasures.Forexample,MotivatedStrategiesforLearningQuestionnaire(MSLQ;Pintrich,Smith,Garcia,&McKeachie,1991)isoneofthemostcommonlyused instruments to assess students’motivational orientations (31 items) and use of learningstrategies(50items).Themotivationsectionincludessixsubscales(e.g.,intrinsicgoalorientation,task value, and test anxiety), while learning strategies section includes nine subscales (e.g.,rehearsal,organization,andeffortregulation).Theinstrumentwasusedinavarietyofstudies,and administered to different subject groups such as elementary school students (Karadeniz,Büyüköztürk,Akgün,Kılıç-Çakmak,&Demirel, 2008;Pintrich&DeGroot, 1990),high schoolstudents(Rao,Moely,&Sachs,2000; Karadenizetal.,2008;Yumusak,Sungur,&Cakiroglu,2007),andundergraduatestudents(Haşlaman&Aşkar,2007;Zushoetal.,2003).However,thisscaledoesnothavedesirablepsychometriccharacteristics.Forinstance,themotivationsectionandthelearningstrategiessectionhadgoodnessoffitindices(GFI)of.77and.78,respectively.Inaddition,someofthesubscalesyieldedpoorCronbachalphacoefficientsaslowas.52(Pintrichetal.,1991).Therefore,analternativeinstrumentmeasuringstudents’useofself-regulatorystrategieswithimprovedvalidityiswarranted.

Accordingly, the purpose of this studywas to develop a scalewith good psychometriccharacteristicsassessingself-regulatorystrategiesthathighschoolstudentsusewhilestudying.Although all SRL processes have equal importance and are interrelated to each other, studystrategies are implemented by studentsmainly in forethought and performance phases. Thisstudy was limited to the strategies that high school students use during forethought andperformancephases. Inaddition,studentsevaluatetheirperformanceandattributesuccessorfailuretoseveralfactorsinself-reflectionphase.Therefore,itwouldbemoreappropriatetoassessfirstthestrategiesinforethoughtandperformancephase;thentomeasurethestrategiesinself-reflectionphaseaftertheirperformance.

Method

SubjectsoftheStudyThetargetpopulationofthepresentstudywasalltenthgradestudentsinAnkara,Turkey.

Thestudyrequiredtwodatacollectionprocessesforpilotandvalidationstudy.Therefore,twoindependentsampleswereselectedinthestudy.Duringtheselectionprocess,first,thelistofhighschoolsinAnkarawasobtained.Then,fourhighschoolsforpilotstudyandfivehighschoolsforvalidationstudywereselectedrandomly.Inthepilotstudy,thedatawerecollectedfromtworegularhighschools(N=168),oneAnatolianhighschool(N=147)andoneprivateschool(N=107).Therewerea totalof422 tenthgradestudents (190male,219 female,and13nonrespondentsto the gender item). On the other hand, three regular high schools (N=240), one Anatolianhighschool(N=208)andoneprivateschool(N=168)participatedinthevalidationstudy.Afterrevisionsbasedonthepilotdataanalysis,therevisedinstrumentwasadministeredtovalidationsampleconsistingof616tenthgradestudents(312male,291female,and13nonrespondentstothegenderitem).Alladministrationswerecompletedinaregularclasshour(in10to15minutes).Studentswereinformedabouttheconfidentialityoftheresults.


InstrumentationAninitialpoolof48itemswasgeneratedbasedoninterviewsconductedwithhighschool

students (Kadıoğlu, Uzuntiryaki & Capa Aydin,2006), Zimmerman’s self-regulation model(Zimmerman,2000),andexistingself-regulationinstrumentssuchasMSLQ(Pintrichetal.,1991),motivationalregulationscale(Wolters,1999),andachievementgoalorientationsscale(Middleton&Midgley,1997).Authors(Kadıoğlu,Uzuntiryaki&CapaAydin,2006)conductedsemi-structuredinterviewswithasmallgroupofhighschoolstudents(n=3)fromdifferentschooltypes.Interviewquestionswere developed based onZimmerman’s self-regulationmodel (Zimmerman, 2000).Theseinterviewfindingsprovidedpreliminaryinformationtounderstandwhichstrategiesarecommonlyusedbyhighschoolstudentswhilestudying.Students’statementsrevealedfromtheinterviewweretransformedintoitemsforthepresentstudy.Followingsarethedescriptionsoftheproposedconstructs.Table1presentsthesampleitems.Table1.ConstructNamesandSampleItemsoftheSelf-RegulatoryStrategiesScale(SRSS)

Constructs SampleItemsMotivationRegulation Ipersuademyselftoworkhardinordertolearnthetopic.Planning IdecideonwhattolearnbeforeIstartstudyingatask.EffortRegulation Whilestudyingforatask,IgiveabreakifIdonotunderstandthe

topic.AttentionFocusing Beforestartingtostudy,Iorganizemystudyenvironment.TaskStrategies IlisttheconceptsthatIcannotunderstand.UsingAdditionalResources

Istudythetopicfromdifferentresources.

Self-Instruction Whilesolvingaproblem,Iexplaintomyselfhowtosolvetheproblem.

Motivationregulationandplanningstrategiesareemployedduringtheforethoughtphase.Students’ desire to engage in, pursue, and complete a task isdefinedasmotivation regulation.Students’ remembering the importance of the subject for their future life can be given as anexampleofthisstrategy.Planningis adjustingtime,resources,andstrategiestoperformoptimallysuchasmakinga“to-do”listbeforebeginningtostudy.

Effort regulation, attention focusing, summary strategy, highlighting strategy, usingadditional resources, and self-instruction strategies are used during the performance phase.Students’ showingeffort in continuingor completinga task regardlessofdifficulties is calledeffortregulation.Forexample,“keepingstudyingevenwhengetbored”fallsunderthiscategory.Attention focusing isdescribedas students’ attempts to arrange their surroundings inorder toavoiddistractionsandincreasetheirconcentration.Forinstance,keepingonlystudymaterialsonthetableisonewayofemployingthisstrategy.Taskstrategiesareusedtoorganizemainideasthroughreducingthetaskintomeaningfulpartssuchassummarizingthetopicbyuseofmapsorcharts.Usingadditional resources involvesusingavarietyof resourcesdifferent fromcoursematerials.Intheself-instruction,studentsovertlyorcovertlyexplainhowtoperformatask.

In the present study, chemistry coursewas selected arbitrarily to provide studentswithacontext inwhichtheyutilizeself-regulatorystrategieswhilestudying.Allof the itemswerewritten infirstperson(e.g.,“While Iamstudyinga task, Isummarize theconcepts that Icannotunderstand”). Itemswere formattedonasix-pointratingscaleof frequencyrangingfrom1 (never) to6 (always). Each itemin thescalewasexaminedby threeexperts in thefieldsofscienceeducation,andeducationalmeasurementregardingcontentvalidityandformatof thescale.Afterreceivingfeedbackfromtheexperts,thenumberofitemswasreducedto33andthescalewascheckedforgrammarandlanguagestructurebyaTurkishteacher.


Results

Resultsarepresentedintwosections:Findingsobtainedfrompilotstudyandfindingsofvalidationstudy.

PilotStudyThe data gathered from 422 students were analyzed using Exploratory FactorAnalysis

(EFA) to explore the underlyingdimensions; in otherwords to decide the number of factorsand which items were loaded on which factors (Çokluk, Şekercioğlu, & Büyüköztürk, 2010;Tabachnick&Fidell, 2007). Maximum likelihoodmethodof extractionwasused consideringthesuggestionofFabrigar,Wegener,MacCallum,andStrahan(1999).Fabrigaretal.state thatmaximumlikelihoodiscommonlyusedbecause“itallowsforthecomputationofawiderangeofindexesofthegoodnessoffitofthemodel…alsopermitsstatisticalsignificancetestingoffactorloadingsandcorrelationsamongfactorsandthecomputationofconfidenceintervals”(p.277).Tosimplifythedatastructure,obliquerotation,morespecificallydirectoblimin,waspreferredoverorthogonalrotationrestrictingthefactorstobeuncorrelated(Preacher&MacCallum,2003,p.25).PreacherandMacCallumrecommendthat,Iftheresearcherdoesnotknowhowthefactorsare related toeachother, there isno reason toassume that theyare completely independent.It isalmostalwayssafer toassumethat there isnotperfect independence,andtouseobliquerotation insteadoforthogonal rotation. (p.26).Avarietyofcriteriawasused todetermine thenumberofcommonfactorstoretain:theeigenvaluegreaterthan1criterion,thescreetest,theamountofcommonvarianceexplained,andconceptualinterpretabilityofthefactorstructure.These criteria suggested the adequacy of extracting eight factors, accounting for 62% of thecommonvariance.FullfactorloadingmatrixisgiveninTable2.Withacutoffvalueof.30(Hair,Black,Babin,Anderson,&Tatham,2005)foriteminclusioninafactor,thefactorswerelabeledrespectively: motivation regulation, effort regulation, planning, attention focusing, summarystrategy,highlightingstrategy,usingadditionalresources,andself-instruction.Resultsindicatedthattheitemsrelatedtotaskstrategieswerescatteredontwofactors.Afterexaminingthecontent,thefirstfactorwasnamedassummarystrategysinceitincludedstrategiessuchassummarizinginhis/herownwords(item19:“Isummarizethesubjectinmysentenceswhilestudyingforatask”) .The second factorwasnamedashighlighting strategyas it is related to emphasizingtheimportantpointsinthetask.Forexample,item12read“Iunderlineimportantpointswhilestudying fora task.”Two items (Items2and21)hadrelatively low loadings.However, theseitemswereretainedbecause theyreflect importantaspectsof theconstruct. Inaddition, threeitems(Item15,Item25,andItem27)didnotloadonanyfactors.Moreover,Item17(“Istudythetopicbydividingintosmalltasks”)loadedontheFactor8(Self-instruction),butthecontentwasnotappropriateforthatfactor.Forthosereasons,thesefouritemswereexcludedfromthescale,resulting29items.


Table2.FullfactorloadingsforSelf-RegulatoryStrategiesScale(SRSS)

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

ITEM5 .672 -.047 -.071 -.011 .067 -.094 -.023 -.033ITEM30 .579 -.056 .062 .005 .115 -.019 -.065 .063ITEM14 .488 -.008 .039 .102 .031 .005 -.087 .036ITEM3 .297 -.046 .011 .192 .225 -.053 -.060 .152ITEM21 .265 .067 -.193 .153 .111 -.154 .020 -.005ITEM15* .218 -.020 -.175 .059 .099 -.105 .112 .102ITEM23(R) -.041 .734 .061 -.171 .000 -.032 -.072 .039ITEM32(R) .020 .684 .026 -.012 -.053 .044 .033 -.025ITEM11(R) -.037 .595 -.058 .107 .088 .023 -.004 -.005ITEM6 -.049 .011 -.907 -.001 .034 -.018 .016 -.054ITEM1 -.062 -.040 -.576 .042 .113 .062 -.042 .059ITEM18 .045 -.021 -.544 .013 -.084 -.214 -.036 .152ITEM8 .096 -.059 -.382 .063 .104 -.177 -.015 .036ITEM9 -.086 -.078 -.011 -.703 .018 -.071 -.030 -.079ITEM33 .039 .006 -.068 -.658 -.018 .015 -.053 .071ITEM10 .133 .005 -.008 -.528 .108 -.020 -.082 -.086ITEM31 .263 .023 -.072 -.358 -.016 .012 -.038 .148ITEM2 .122 .005 -.040 -.255 .056 .152 -.132 .102ITEM7 .035 .024 -.149 .019 -.688 -.020 -.151 .008ITEM28 .074 .037 -.007 .042 -.537 .064 -.022 .017ITEM22 .139 -.026 -.008 -.061 -.437 -.148 -.076 .055ITEM27* .071 -.154 -.071 .068 -.173 .016 .005 .097ITEM20 -.020 .019 -.080 .044 -.034 .555 -.062 .077ITEM19 .076 -.102 -.071 .029 .059 .549 -.065 .072ITEM16 .119 .033 -.144 .034 -.057 .453 -.077 -.006ITEM12 -.051 .057 -.039 .263 .115 -.121 -.573 .099ITEM26 -.014 -.005 .020 .151 .169 -.162 -.453 .077ITEM4 .141 .061 -.031 .015 .059 .010 -.449 -.059ITEM25* .149 .012 -.111 -.079 .042 -.087 -.219 .217ITEM29 .103 -.064 -.067 -.066 -.001 -.032 -.049 .538ITEM13 .070 -.087 -.256 .149 -.091 -.003 -.126 .422ITEM17* .192 -.032 -.075 -.006 -.005 -.030 -.032 .410ITEM24 -.036 -.098 -.053 -.061 -.033 -.066 -.219 .405*Itemsdeleted(R)ItemsreversecodedF1:motivation regulation;F2: effort regulation;F3:planning;F4: attention focusing;F5:usingadditionalresources;F6:summarystrategy;F7:highlightingstrategy;F8:self-instruction


In addition,Cronbachalphaand95%confidence interval for reliability coefficientswerecalculated to determine the internal consistency of the scores obtained from the scale. TheCronbachalphacoefficientsover.70arestatedasadequateforaninstrumenttobeused(Nunnaly,1978;Özgüven, 2004).The alpha coefficients [and95%confidence intervals] for the factors ofmotivationregulation,effortregulation,planning,attentionfocusing,usingadditionalresources,summarystrategy,highlightingstrategy,andself-instructionwere.77[.74,.81],.69[.63,.74],.82[.79,.84],.78[.75,.81],.72[.67,.76],.73[.68,.77],.73[.70,.76],and.77[.72,.80],respectively.

ValidationStudyTherevised29-itemscalewasadministeredto616tenthstudentsfromfivedifferentschools

in order to validate the factor structure obtained from the pilot study.A confirmatory factoranalysiswasperformedusingLISREL8.30forWindows(Jöreskog&Sörbom,1993)inordertotesthowwellthefactorstructureemergesfromthepilotdatafitsthevalidationdata;inotherwordstoconfirmtheinitialmodelsuggestedbytheEFA(Jöreskog&Sörbom,1993,Kline,2005).Eight-factorsolutionwastestedandeachitemonthescalewasassignedtothespecifiedfactor.Toassessthemodeldatafit,AdjustedGoodnessofFitIndex(AGFI),RootMeanSquareErrorofApproximation (RMSEA),Non-NormedFit Index (NNFI),Comparative Fit Index (CFI), RootMeanSquareResidual(RMR)andStandardizedRootMeanSquareResidual(SRMR)wereused.ThevaluesofAGFI,NNFI, andCFIabove .90are indicativeofgoodfit (Jöreskog&Sörbom,1993;Kline,2005).ForRMSEA,valueslessthan.05indicategoodmodeldatafit,valuesrangingfrom .05 to .08 indicatemediocrefit, andvaluesgreater than .10 indicatepoorfit (Browne&Cudeck,1993).RootMeanSquareResidual(RMR)andStandardizedRootMeanSquareResidual(SRMR)shouldhavevalueslessthan.05foragoodmodelfit(Jöreskog&Sörbom,1993;Kline,2005).Findingsindicatedthatinitialfitindiceswerenotatthesatisfactorylevel.Afterexaminingmodificationindices,theerrorcovariancesbetweenitems23and12,27and2,and24and7weresetfree.Afterthisrevision,theeight-factormodelproposedfortheconfirmatoryfactoranalysisyieldedanAGFIof.84,RMSEAof.064,NNFIof.89,CFIof.91,RMRof.060,andSRMRof.060.Overallthesefitindicesindicatedamoderatefit.

The Lambda-x estimates,which indicate the loadings of each item on respective factor,for each itemwere given in Figure 1. They ranged from .53 to .90. In addition, confirmatoryfactoranalysisalsoproducescorrelationsbetweenthefactors.Forthesimplicity,thesevaluesarepresentedinTable3.Kline(2005)suggestedthatestimatedcorrelationsshouldnotexceedthevalueof.85fordiscriminantvalidity.Inthepresentstudy,onlyonecorrelationestimatebetweensummarystrategyandhighlightingstrategywasslightlyhigh(r=.87)whichwasinlinewiththeZimmerman’s(2000)model.


Figure1.StructuralModelforthe29-ItemScaleNote.Motivati=motivationregulation;Effort=effortregulation;Planning=planning;Attenti=attentionfocusing;Summary=summarystrategy;Highligt=highlightingstrategy;Selfinst=self-instruction;Resource=usingadditionalresources.CorrelationsamongfactorswerenotincludedinFigure1forsimplicity.PleaserefertoTable3forthesevalues.


Table3.IntercorrelationsAmongFactor

FactorName 1 2 3 4 5 6 71.MotivationRegulation 1.002.EffortRegulation 0.26** 1.003.Planning 0.77** 0.26** 1.004.AttentionFocusing 0.71** 0.19** 0.64** 1.005.SummaryStrategy 0.78** 0.17** 0.70** 0.51** 1.006.HighlightingStrategy 0.77** 0.16** 0.65** 0.65** 0.87** 1.007.Self-Instruction 0.79** 0.09* 0.65** 0.58** 0.83** 0.73** 1.008.UsingAdditionalResources 0.70** 0.18** 0.62** 0.49** 0.65** 0.70** 0.62***Correlationissignificantatthe.05level(2-tailed)**Correlationissignificantatthe.01level(2-tailed)Table4displaystheCronbach’salphacoefficientsalongwith95%confidenceinterval.Findingsindicatedthatallfactorsyieldedadequateinternalconsistencyestimates,rangingfrom0.68to0.82.

Table4.CronbachAlphaValuesand95%ConfidenceIntervalsforReliability

FactorName CronbachAlphas95%ConfidenceInterval

LowerBound UpperBoundMotivationRegulation .77 .74 .80EffortRegulation .68 .64 .72Planning .82 .79 .84AttentionFocusing .76 .73 .79UsingadditionalResources

.78 .74 .81

SummaryStrategy .74 .70 .77HighlightingStrategy .79 .76 .82Self-Instruction .77 .73 .80

Finally, to provide additional validity evidence, differentiation between groups approachwasusedasaprocedureforconstructvalidation(Crocker&Algina,1986 ;Tezbaşaran,2008).In the literature, girlswere found to beusing self-regulatory strategiesmore frequently thanboys(Ablard&Lipschultz,1998;Pokay&Blumenfeld1990;Zimmerman&Martinez-Pons,1990).To testwhether factors differentiated in the hypothesized direction,MultivariateAnalysis ofVariance(MANOVA)wasused.Eightfactorswereusedasdependentvariableandgenderasanindependentvariable.Beforeconductingtheanalysis,theassumptionsofMANOVAwerecheckedandfindingsindicatedthathomogeneityofthecovarianceassumptionwasviolated(Box’sM=69.04,p< .05).Therefore,amorerobuststatistic,Pillai’sTrace,wasselectedforreporting.TheresultsofMANOVArevealedsignificantdifferencesbetweenmalesandfemales(Pillai’sTrace=.232,F(594,8)=22.402,p<.05,h2 =.23).Themultivariateh2of.23impliedthatthemagnitudeofthedifferencebetweenthegroupswaslargeaccordingtothegenerallyacceptedcriteria(Cohen,1988). BonferroniadjustmentwasutilizedtoevaluatefurtherunivariateFstatisticsandassumedalphalevelof.05dividedbythenumberofdependentvariables(i.e.,eight).Therefore,obtainedF statisticswere evaluated at the alpha level of .01. Table 5 displays the results of follow-upunivariateanalysesaccompaniedwithmeansandstandarddeviations.Resultsrevealedthatthereweresignificantgenderdifferencesondependentvariablesforallfactorsexcepteffortregulation. Girlswerefoundtouseself-regulatorystrategiesmorefrequentlythanboys,asexpected.


Table5.Follow-upUnivariateAnalysesAlongwithAssociatedDescriptiveStatistic

FactorName Female MaleM SD M SD F

MotivationRegulation 3.74 1.12 3.18 1.05 41.194*EffortRegulation 3.04 1.18 3.03 1.20 .003Planning 3.39 1.24 2.82 1.14 34.683*AttentionFocusing 4.59 1.09 4.08 1.14 30.892*SummaryStrategy 3.57 1.21 2.61 1.14 102.245*HighlightingStrategy 4.52 1.19 3.25 1.33 151.187*Self-Instruction 3.82 1.30 3.14 1.23 42.540*UsingAdditionalResources 4.44 1.23 3.64 1.19 65.367**Fvaluesaresignificantatthe.01level(2-tailed)

DiscussionandImplications

FindingsofthisstudyindicatedthattheSRSSprovidesvalidandreliablescorestoexaminehighschoolstudents’useofself-regulatorystrategieswhilestudying.Itisalsoapracticaltoolforteacherstousebecauseadministrationdoesnotrequirelongperiodsoftimeanditisnotdifficultto interpret the results. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the claim that self-regulationisamultidimensionalconstructconsistingofdifferentprocesses. ThefinalversionoftheSRSSincludes29 items ineight factors.These factorsweremotivation regulation, effort regulation,planning,attentionfocusing,summarystrategy,highlightingstrategy,usingadditionalresources,andself-instruction.Thereliabilitycoefficientsofthefactorswerealsofoundtobereasonablyhighrangingfrom.68foreffortregulationand.82forplanning.

Additionally,findingsindicatingagenderdifferenceintheuseofself-regulatorystrategiesprovidedanothervalidityevidence.Boysandgirlsdifferedwithrespecttoallfactorsexcepteffortregulation.Further,girlswerefoundtouseself-regulatorystrategiesmorefrequentlythanboys.Thesefindingsareparallelwiththepreviousstudiesindicatinggenderdifferencesinfavorofgirls.Forexample,ZimmermanandMartinez-Pons(1990)foundthatgirlsusedmorestrategies(e.g.,goal-setting,planningstrategies,keepingrecordsandself-monitored)thandidboys.Similarly,PokayandBlumenfeld(1990)foundthatgirlsusedmoremetacognitive,generalcognitive,andeffortmanagement thandidboys. Likewise,Ablard andLipschultz (1998) reported that girlsusedSRLstrategiessuchaspersonalregulationoroptimizingtheenvironmentmoreoften.

Zimmerman (2000) proposes three cyclic phases (forethought, performance, and self-reflectionphases)whiledefiningthestructureofself-regulatedlearning.Healsodefinesmanysub-processesunderthesethreephasessuchasgoalsetting,outcomeexpectations,taskstrategies,self-evaluation,orcausalattributions.Thehighcorrelationsbetweenfactorsinthepresentstudywereevidentthattheself-regulatoryprocessesweredifferentbutinterrelated.Forexample,thecorrelationcoefficientbetweenmotivationregulationandplanningwasfoundtobe.77,whichindicatesthathighlymotivatedstudentsuseplanningstrategiesmorefrequently.Inthisstudy,themostfrequentlyusedself-regulatorystrategywasattentionfocusing,whileeffortregulation,summary strategies, and planning were the least often used ones. Results pointed out thatstudentstendedtogiveupwhentheycameacrosswithdifficulties,nottosummarizethetopicmeaningfully,andnottomakestrategicplanning.

ImplicationsforPracticeZimmermanetal.(1996)proposedthateverystudentcanbecomesuccessfullearnerbyusing

self-regulatory strategies. Therefore, teachers should teach students how to be self-regulated


learners.However,teachingstudentstobestrategiclearnersinvolvesmorethanacquisitionofnewstrategies.Itrequiresimplementingthestrategiesinnewtasksandadjustingthestrategiesconcerningthechangesinenvironmental,behavioral,andpersonalfactors.Teachersshouldmakestudentsresponsiblefortheirlearningandguidetheminthislearningprocess.Additionally,Pape,BellandYetkin(2003)arguedthatstrategyinstructionshouldbeindividualizedbecausedifferentstudentshavedifficultyindifferenttasks.Somestudentsmayhavedifficultyinanalyzingthetasks,whileothersstrugglewithmonitoring theirperformanceeffectively.Therefore, teacherscanbenefitfromthisinstrumentinordertodetermineeachstudent’sstrengthsandweaknesses.

Based on social cognitive theory, environmental factors (such as instruction strategyor teacher support) influence thedevelopment of these skills and learners becomemore self-regulatedwhentheyinternalizethestrategiesandusethemindifferenttasksandcontexts(Meyer&Turner,2002;Paris&Paris2001).Thisinstrumentcanprovidechemistryteachersinformationaboutwhichstrategieshighschoolstudentsusewhilestudyingforchemistryclassandhowoftentheyusethem.Inarecentreviewonstudystrategiesandscienceeducation,Schraw,Crippen,andHartley(2006)discussedtheimplicationsofSRLinscienceeducationandsuggestedseveralinstructionalstrategiesforscienceclassessuchasinquirybasedlearningandcooperation.Thesestrategies can be employed in chemistry courses to develop authentic classroom activities topromotedevelopmentofSRLstrategies.

ImplicationsforFurtherStudiesThepresentstudyhassomesuggestionsforfurtherstudies:First,thedataweregatheredfrom

tenthgradestudentstakingchemistryclasses.Findingscanbetestedatdifferentgradelevelsandcourses(e.g.,mathematics,physics).Second,longitudinalstudiescanbeconductedtoexaminethechangesinindividuals’useofself-regulatorystrategies.Likewise,cross-sectionalstudiesareimportanttounderstandwhatkindofstrategieselementaryandsecondarystudentsuseorneed.Third,thestrategiesinthescaledidnotcoverthreephasesofself-regulatedmodelproposedbyZimmerman;infuture,thescalecanbeimprovedconsideringdifferentsub-processes(e.g.,self-evaluation).Finally,inthisstudy,students’useofself-regulatorystrategieswereassessedthroughaself-reportinstrument.Eventhoughthisdatacollectionmethodprovidessomeunderstandingofstudentcognitionandmotivation,theymaynotreflectallcomplexinternalprocesses.Forthatreason,qualitativestudiescanbeconductedinordertoexplaintheseinternalprocesses.

References

Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students:Relations toadvancedreasoning,achievementgoals,andgender. JournalofEducationalPsychology,90,94–101.

Arsal, Z. (2009). The impact of self-regulation instruction onmathematics achievements andattitudesofelementaryschoolstudents. EducationandScience,34(152).3-14.

Arsal,Z.(2010).Theeffectsofdiariesonself-regulationstrategiesofpreservicescienceteachers.InternationalJournalofEnvironmental&ScienceEducation,5(1),85-103.

Bandura,A. (1986).Social foundations of thought andaction:A social cognitive theory.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Browne,M.W.,&Cudeck,R.(1993).Alternativewaysofassessingmodelfit.InK.A.Bollen&J.S.Long(Eds.),Testingstructuralequationmodels.(pp.136-162).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Cohen.J.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehavioralsciences.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Crocker,L.,&Algina,J.(1986).Introductiontoclassicalandmoderntesttheory.NewYork:Harcourt

BraceJovanovichCollegePublishers.Çokluk,Ö.,Şekercioğlu,G.,&Büyüköztürk,Ş.(2010)SosyalBilimlerİçinÇokDeğişkenliİstatistik:

SPSSveLISRELUygulamaları.Ankara:PegemAkademiYayınları.


Fabrigar,L.R.,Wegener,D.T.,MacCallum,R.C.,&Strahan,E.J.(1999).Evaluatingtheuseofexploratoryfactoranalysisinpsychologicalresearch.PsychologicalMethods,4,272-299.

Hair,J.F.J.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,Anderson,R.E.,&Tatham,R.L.(2005).Multivariatedataanalysis (6thed.).EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Haşlaman,T.,&Aşkar,P.(2007).Investigatingtherelationshipbetweenself-regulatedlearningstrategies and achievement in a programming course. Hacettepe University JournalEducation,32,110-122.

Jöreskog,K.,&Sörbom,D.(1993).StructuralequationmodelingwiththeSIMPLIScommandlanguage. Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Kadioğlu,C., Uzuntiryaki, E. & Capa Aydin, Y. (2006). A Qualitative Study on Tenth GradeStudents’ Self-Regulatory Skills. VII. National Science and Mathematics EducationConference,GaziUniversity,Ankara:Turkey

Karadeniz,Ş.,Büyüköztürk,Ş.,Akgün,Ö.E.,Kılıç-Çakmak,E.,&DemirelF.(2008).TheTurkishadaptationstudyofmotivatedstrategies forLearningquestionnaire (MSLQ) for12–18yearoldchildren:Resultsof confirmatory factoranalysis.TheTurkishOnline Journal ofEducationalTechnology,7(4),108-117.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:GuilfordPress.

Meyer,D.K.,&Turner,J.C.(2002).Usinginstructionaldiscourseanalysistostudythescaffoldingofstudentself-regulation.EducationalPsychologist,37(1),17-25.

Middleton,M.J.,&Midgley,C.(1997).Avoidingthedemonstrationoflackofability:anunexploredaspectofgoaltheory.JournalofEducationalPsychology,89(4),710-718.

Nunnally,J.C.(1978).Psychometrictheory(2nded.).NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Orhan,F.(2008).Self-regulationstrategiesusedinapracticumcourse:Astudyofmotivationand

teachingself–efficacy.HacettepeUniversityJournalofEducation,35,251-262.Özgüven,İ.E.(2004).Psikolojiktestler.Ankara:PDREMYayınları.Pape, S. J.,&Wang,C. (2003).Middle school children’s strategic behavior:Classification and

relation to academic achievement and mathematical problem solving. InstructionalScience,31,419-449.

Pape,S.J.,Bell,C.V.,&Yetkin,I.E.(2003).Developingmathematicalthinkingandself-regulatedlearning:Ateachingexperimentinaseventh-grademathematicsclassroom.EducationalStudiesinMathematics,53,179-202.

Paris,S.G.,&Paris,A.H.(2001).Classroomapplicationsofresearchonself-regulatedlearning.EducationalPsychologist,35,89-101.

Pintrich,P.R.,&DeGroot,E.V.(1990).Motivationalandself-regulatedlearningcomponentsofclassroomacademicperformance.JournalofEducationalPsychology,82,33-40.

Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., &McKeachie,W.J. (1991).AManual for the use of theMotivatedStrategiesforLearningQuestionnaire(MSLQ).AnnArbor,MI:NationalCenterforResearchtoImprovePostsecondaryTeachingandLearning.,TheUniversityofMichigan.

Pokay,P.,&Blumenfeld,P.C.(1990).Predictingachievementearlyandlateinthesemester:Theroleofmotivationanduseoflearningstrategies.JournalofEducationalPsychology,82,41-50.

Preacher,K.J.,&MacCallum,R.C.(2003).RepairingTomSwift’selectricfactoranalysismachine.UnderstandingStatistics,2,13-32.

Rao,N.,Moely,B.E.,&Sachs,J.(2000).Motivationalbeliefs,studystrategies,andmathematicsattainmentinhigh-andlow-achievingChinesesecondaryschoolstudents.Contemporary


EducationalPsychology,25(3),287–316.Schraw,G.,Crippen,K.J.,&Hartley,K.(2006).Promotingself-regulationinscienceeducation:

metacognitionaspartofabroaderperspectiveonlearning.ResearchinScienceEducation,36,111–139.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman B. J. (1997). Social Origins of Self-Regulatory Competence.EducationalPsychologist,32(4),195-208.

SperlingR.A.,HowardB.C.,StaleyR.,&DuBoisN.(2004)MetacognitionandSelfRegulatedLearningConstructs.EducationalResearchandEvaluation,10(2),117-139.

Tabachnick,B.G.,&Fidell,L.S.(2007). UsingMultivariateStatistics(5thed.).Boston:AllynandBacon.

Tezbaşaran,A.A. (2008).Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. (3rd ed.). [AdobeReader version].Retrieved from http://www.pdrciyiz.biz/likert-tipi-olcek-hazirlama-klavuzu-e-kitap-t8419.html

Winne, P.H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of EducationalPsychology,88,397-410.

Wolters,C.A.(1999).Therelationshipbetweenhighschoolstudents’motivationalregulationandtheiruseoflearningstrategies,effort,andclassroomperformance.LearningandIndividualDifferences,11,281-299.

Yumusak,N.,Sungur,S.&Cakiroglu,J.(2007).Turkishhighschoolstudents’biologyachievementinrelationtoacademicself-regulation.EducationalResearchandEvaluation,13(1),53–69.

Yükseltürk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender Differences in Self-Regulated Online LearningEnvironment.EducationalTechnology&Society,12(3),12–22.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning andAcademicAchievement:An overview.EducationalPsychologist,25(1),3-17.

Zimmerman,B.J.(2000).Attainingself-regulation:Asocialcognitiveperspective.InM.Boekaerts,P. Pintrich, & M. Ziedner (Eds.),Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Orlando, FL:AcademicPress.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: anoverview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Second Edition.Self-regulated learningandacademicachievement: theoreticalperspectives. (pp.1-37).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S. & Kovach R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyondachievementtoself-efficacy.Washington:APA.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M., (1986). Development of a structured interview forassessingstudentuseofself-regulatedlearningstrategies.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,23,614-628.

Zimmerman, B.J., &Martinez-Pons,M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:Relatinggrade,sex,andgiftednesstoself-efficacyandstrategyuse.JournalofEducationalPsychology,82,51-59.

ZushoA.,PintrichP.R.,&Coppalo,B.(2003).Skillandwill:theroleofmotivationandcognitioninthelearningofcollegechemistry.InternationaljournalofScienceEducation,25(9),1081-1094.

development of self-regulatory strategies scale (srss

Documents