Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Education Research International

Volume 2012, Article ID 735790, 14 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/735790

Research Article
Training Self-Regulated Learning in the Classroom:
Development and Evaluation of Learning Materials to
Train Self-Regulated Learning during Regular Mathematics
Lessons at Primary School

Manuela Leidinger and Franziska Perels

Department of Educational Research, Saarland University, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany

Correspondence should be addressed to Manuela Leidinger, [email protected]

Received 1 June 2012; Revised 27 July 2012; Accepted 13 November 2012

Academic Editor: Susanne Narciss

Copyright © 2012 M. Leidinger and F. Perels. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

The aim of the intervention based on the self-regulation theory by Zimmerman (2000) was to promote a powerful learning
environment for supporting self-regulated learning by using learning materials. In the study, primary school teachers were asked
to implement specific learning materials into their regular mathematics lessons in grade four. These learning materials focused on
particular (meta)cognitive and motivational components of self-regulated learning and were subdivided into six units, with which
the students of the experimental group were asked to deal with on a weekly basis. The evaluation was based on a quasiexperimental
pre-/postcontrol-group design combined with a time series design. Altogether, 135 fourth graders participated in the study.
The intervention was evaluated by a self-regulated learning questionnaire, mathematics test, and process data gathered through
structured learning diaries for a period of six weeks. The results revealed that students with the self-regulated learning training
maintained their level of self-reported self-regulated learning activities from pre- to posttest, whereas a significant decline was
observed for the control students. Regarding students’ mathematical achievement, a slightly greater improvement was found for
the students with self-regulated learning training.

1. Introduction thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically
adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (page 15).
According to Boekaerts et al. [1], the concept of self- The model distinguishes between three learning phases: the
regulation is used in a variety of psychological fields (see forethought or planning phase, the performance or volitional
also [2]). In research on educational settings, self-regulated control phase, and the self-reflection phase. For each of these
learning [3] is classified as an important factor for effective phases, two components are uniquely characterized which
(school-based) learning and academic achievement (e.g., are again represented by specific processes.
[4–6]). As components of the forethought phase, both the analysis
Regarding theories and models of self-regulation, there of the given task (task analysis) and self-motivation beliefs
are different approaches to describe the construct. Some are relevant variables in the beginning of the learning
models regard self-regulation as consisting of different layers process. Task analysis includes processes of goal setting
(e.g., [7]), while other models emphasize the procedural and strategic planning. According to Locke and Latham
character of self-regulation and describe different phases [11], goal setting has been defined as a decision upon
(e.g., [8–10]). In our study, we refer to the self-regulation specific outcomes of learning or performance. Highly self-
model developed by Zimmerman [8], who defines self- regulated students organize their goal systems hierarchically
regulation as a cyclical process that “refers to self-generated and tend to set process goals in order to achieve more
2 Education Research International

distal outcome goals [8]. Furthermore, strategic planning self-observation, Zimmerman [8] adduced the processes of
is a process relevant to the forethought phase—and closely self-recording and self-experimentation. Self-recording has
related to goal setting—because after selecting a specific the advantage of retaining personal information at the point
goal, students engage in planning how to reach it [9, when it occurs and includes the possibility of altering or
12]. Indeed, these processes are quite useless if students modifying the behavior. Self-experimentation offers the pos-
are not motivated or cannot motivate themselves to use sibility of systematically varying different aspects of behavior.
corresponding strategies. Therefore, self-motivation beliefs, As a common self-recording technique, Zimmerman [8]
such as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, intrinsic value, argued for diaries to support self-observation processes
and goal orientation, are relevant motivational variables of because of the reactivity effect [27].
the forethought phase and they affect direction, intensity, Subsequent to the performance phase, the completion
and persistence of students’ learning behavior [13, 14]. of a task is the initial point of the self-reflection phase.
Self-efficacy refers to “personal beliefs about having the This phase is characterized by the components of self-
means to learn or perform effectively” [15, page 17], judgment and self-reaction. Zimmerman [8] describes self-
whereas outcome expectations refer to the judgments of judgment as consisting of two processes: self-evaluation
the consequences that behavior will produce [16]. In line and causal attributions, which includes the comparison of
with Deci and Ryan [17], intrinsic value is defined “as the one’s behavior with one’s goals [28]. Students evaluate their
doing of an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than learning results and draw conclusions concerning further
for some separate consequences” (page 56). Regarding goal learning behavior. In this context, there are different types
orientation, there is a first distinction between a mastery of criteria to evaluate one’s performance. In line with Zim-
goal construct and performance goal construct (e.g., [18]): merman [8], we distinguished between normative criteria
whereas mastery goals (also called mastery orientation) are and self-criteria. In this context, self-criteria are regarded as
focused on learning and self-improvement, performance being more effective for self-regulated learning [29] because
goals (also called performance orientation) represent a more they involve the comparison of current performance with
general concern with demonstrating ability and trying to do earlier levels of performance and allow judgments about
better than (or to not appear worse than) others [19, 20]. the learning progress. Self-evaluative judgments are related
There is a distinction between two different types of perfor- to causal attributions. Students attribute their behavior by
mance goals: performance-approach goals and performance- considering the results. There is evidence that in cases of poor
avoidance goals [18]. Students can be motivated to try to performance, attributions to insufficient effort or a poor
outperform others in order to demonstrate their competence task strategy can be beneficial to motivational aspects; in
(performance-approach) or to avoid failure in order to cases of successful performance, attributions to one’s ability
avoid looking incompetent (performance-avoidance). With are beneficial to motivation [30, 31]. The comparisons of
respect to self-regulated learning theory, a positive influ- results to goals, as well as causal attributions, are linked
ence of mastery goals on the different components of to the students’ affect or self-reactions. In this context,
self-regulated learning was found [10]. In addition, these Zimmerman [8] described perceptions of satisfaction or
motivational variables are important components of self- dissatisfaction (called self-satisfaction) and distinguished
regulated learning as they initiate the learning process and between adaptive or defensive interferences that modify a
affect students’ performance [14]. person’s self-regulatory approach during subsequent efforts
In the next phase—the performance or volitional control to learn or perform. Thereby, the feedback resulting from
phase—self-regulated learning is determined by processes current performance influences prospective performance.
of self-control and self-observation. In this regard, self- Zimmerman [8] designated this procedural nature of self-
control strategies—or volitional strategies—are necessary regulation as a feedback loop. The theoretical model is
when disturbances occur while performing a task [21, 22]. depicted in Figure 1.
In his model, Zimmerman [8] differentiated between self- As self-regulated learning has become a key construct
instruction, task strategies, imagery, and attention focusing in education in recent years because of its importance
as important strategies of self-control. Corno [23] empha- in influencing learning and achievement in school and
sized that a flexible use of volitional strategies assists self- beyond [33], there are many studies on enhancing students’
regulated learning because it enables students to shield their self-regulatory abilities by training them either during or
goal-related behavior from distractions. In the framework after their regular classes (e.g., [34–36]). Leopold et al.
of our study, we concentrated on attention focusing as an [37] fostered text understanding by the intervention of
effective self-control strategy in avoiding distractions and text highlighting and self-regulation strategies. Souvignier
speculations of irrelevant matters [24]. and Mokhlesgerami [38] focused on the enhancement of
Another important component of the performance phase cognitive, motivational, and metacognitive aspects of self-
concerns the ability of self-observation, which is described as regulated learning with respect to reading comprehension.
the systematic observation and documentation of thoughts, Regarding science lessons, Labuhn et al. [39] trained seventh
feelings, and actions regarding goal attainment [25]. Regard- graders in cooperation with teachers. The target groups of
ing self-regulated learning, students cannot adequately these studies were students at the secondary school level
engage in self-regulatory behavior without self-observation (ranging from fifth to eleventh grade). As the development
because they are only able to modify their behavior if they are of self-regulation begins in early childhood [40, 41], and
attentive to relevant aspects of it [26]. As for the processes of in line with the results of a meta-analysis by Dignath and
Education Research International 3

Performance or volitional control

Self-control
Task strategies
Imagery
Self-instruction
Attention focusing
Self-observation
Self-recording
Self-experimentation

Forethought Self-reflection
Task analysis
Goal setting Self-judgment
Strategic planning Self-evaluation
Self-motivation beliefs Causal attribution
Self-efficacy Self-reaction
Outcome expectations Self-satisfaction
Intrinsic motivation Adaptive/defensive inferences
Goal orientation

Figure 1: Phases and processes of self-regulation [32].

Büttner [42], interventions have been developed to foster of De Corte et al. [52], who promoted the conception
self-regulated learning of students in primary school [43, of the powerful learning environment, which fosters the
44] or even kindergarten [45]. Dignath et al. [46] pointed application of self-regulatory learning strategies. There-
out that improving the self-regulated learning of primary fore, the teachers received teaching materials that included
school students has positive effects on learning outcomes, instructions to train their students in their natural learning
strategy use, and motivation (see also [47]). Otto [43] trained environment at school. Following the processual character
primary school students, as well as their teachers and parents, of Zimmerman’s model [8], these materials focused on
and was able to compare direct and indirect effects of self- particular strategies of each of the three phases. In detail,
regulation training. Rozendaal et al. [48] followed a similar the forethought phase was represented by strategies of goal
approach. In the framework of their study, they trained setting, strategic planning, and intrinsic value. With respect
significant reference persons (teachers) on how to improve to the following phases, the learning materials focused
students’ self-regulated learning abilities [49]. on attention focusing as a strategy of the performance
The abovementioned studies represent different app- or volitional control phase and on causal attribution as a
roaches to enhance self-regulated learning by training either strategy of the self-reflection phase. In order to enhance
students themselves or other relevant persons, such as their transferability, the learning materials were related to the
teachers or parents. Thereby, self-regulated learning was current mathematics curriculum. As self-regulated learning
combined with different academic subjects such as reading strategies are transferable to different situations and areas
comprehension, text understanding or mathematical mod- [53], students should be thus enabled to use these strategies
elling, and problem-solving. This approach is in line with in different contexts.
the results of a meta-analysis conducted by Hattie et al. [50],
which pointed out that the direct and isolated instruction of 2. Hypotheses
self-regulated learning strategies had turned out to be less
effective regarding its transferability on students’ learning As the intervention was designed in order to improve self-
behavior. Instead, the authors argued that direct instruction regulated learning strategies of fourth grade students, the
of strategies ought to be linked to factual content in order purpose of the study dealt with the influence of self-regulated
to apply these strategies in a natural setting. With regard learning interventions on students’ self-regulated learning.
to mathematical learning, De Corte et al. [51] argued In addition, an effect was expected on students’ mathematics
that “self-regulation constitutes a major characteristic of achievement because the intervention was conducted with
productive mathematics learning” because the main goal respect to mathematical contents and conducted during
of learning and teaching mathematics concerns “the ability regular mathematics lessons. In the framework of the study,
to apply meaningfully learned knowledge and skills flexibly a training to improve self-regulated learning was developed
and creatively in a variety of contexts and situations” (page and implemented into regular mathematics lessons for a
155). There are a few studies (e.g., [47, 49]) that combine period of six weeks. In this process, the teachers received
the instruction of mathematical problem-solving strategies learning materials and instructions on how to train their stu-
with multidisciplinary self-regulated learning strategies. The dents. It was expected that training particular self-regulatory
presented study was designed with regard to the approach processes could have an effect on students’ self-regulated
4 Education Research International

learning. Longitudinally, there should be an increase in self- Table 1: Overview of the contents of the different units.
regulated learning strategies in the trained group compared Session/unit Content
to the control group. In detail, the variables goal setting,
1st unit Introduction of Kalli Klug/learning diary
strategic planning, intrinsic value, attention focusing, and
causal attribution, as well as self-regulated learning, should 2nd unit Goal setting
be enhanced in the experimental group. As the training was 3rd unit Strategic planning
linked to the contents of the mathematics curriculum, an 4th unit Intrinsic value
effect of the intervention on the mathematical achievement 5th unit Attention focusing
of the trained students was expected, too. There should be 6th unit Causal attribution
found a stronger increase in mathematics achievement in
the trained group compared to the control group. As the
training effects were expected to be stable, there should be no to the (meta)cognitive abilities of primary school students
significant changes of variables between posttest and follow- because it had to be taken into account that students of this
up measurement in the experimental group. age have a growing (metacognitive) awareness of their own
Beyond the pre/posttests, the students of the experimen- thinking processes and have the opportunity to control them
tal group were also asked to complete a structured diary task [40]. As Bronson pointed out, primary school students “can
addressing their self-regulated learning. Therefore, process learn to consciously set goals, select appropriate strategies to
data could be analyzed by means of interrupted time series reach the goals, monitor progress and revise their strategies
analyses. With regard to the trained variables goal setting, when necessary, and control attention and motivation until
strategic planning, intrinsic value, attention focusing, and a goal is reached” [40, page 213]. On the other hand, the
causal attribution, intervention effects were assumed. In learning materials focused on the abovementioned strategies
addition, it was expected that variables, which were not part in order to represent the different phases of Zimmerman’s
of the training but dealt with within the diary, improved self-regulation model [8]. Therefore, goal setting, strategic
over the intervention period. This should be the case for the planning, and intrinsic value were selected according to the
variables self-efficacy, self-recording, and self-evaluation as forethought phase, while the strategy of attention focusing
well as for self-regulated learning in general. represented the performance and volitional control phase.
As a strategy belonging to the self-reflection phase, causal
3. Method attribution was selected.
The learning materials focused on the abovementioned
3.1. Participants. The study was conducted in seven German strategies and were differentiated between six units. Each of
primary schools with altogether 135 fourth graders. The these units—excluding the first—referred to one particular
participation was voluntary and the students’ legal guardians self-regulated learning strategy. In order to impart these self-
were asked for their consent. In the experimental group (EG), regulatory contents to the students in a playful and child-
63 students took part, whereas 72 students were assigned oriented manner, a fictitious character named Kalli Klug was
to the control group. The mean age of the participants was developed with which the students could identify themselves,
9.26 (SD = .56), and 50.40% were female. There were no and which guided them through the different units. The
significant differences between the experimental and control first unit aimed to introduce the fictitious character to
group concerning students’ mathematics marks (t = −1.56, the students; therefore, a one-page profile of Kalli Klug
P = .12), and the mathematics marks on their report card was handed out to the students. The students learned that
(t = −0.44, P = .66). The students of the experimental group the character was an endearing bear of the age of nine,
were involved in training carried out by their teachers. The which had learned several strategies that helped him to
control group did not receive any training. improve his learning behavior and who wanted to relay this
information to the students. In this context, a learning diary
3.2. Design. The study was evaluated by a time series design was introduced as one method to optimize learning behavior.
combined with a longitudinal design, including pretesting The contents of units 2 and 3 were related to cognitive
and posttesting of an experimental group (EG) and a control and metacognitive strategies. In detail, the third unit of
group (CG). The experimental group was trained in self- the learning materials includes cognitive and metacognitive
regulated learning and each student was asked to fill out a strategies because the students were asked to apply particular
learning diary for the duration of the training. The control cognitive learning strategies such as organizing as well as
group was a group receiving neither training nor diaries. metacognitive strategies like comprehension monitoring.
The units 4 and 6 dealt with motivational strategies, such
3.3. Intervention. Based on the study of Perels et al. [49], as self-motivation and favorable attributional styles. The
learning materials to foster self-regulated learning strategies fifth unit focused on volitional strategies, such as attention
were developed with respect to fourth grade students’ focusing. Table 1 gives an overview of the contents of the
learning abilities. The learning materials were addressed to units.
(meta)cognitive strategies, such as goal setting, and strategic Every unit was designed for the duration of one lesson
planning, as well as to volitional/motivational strategies, such (45 minutes). The teachers received the learning materials in
as intrinsic value, attention focusing, and causal attribution. the form of units according to the number of students in the
On the one hand, these strategies were selected with respect classroom and the instruction plans on how to impart the
Education Research International 5

Table 2: Overview of the scales of the self-regulated learning questionnaire regarding the sources, authors, and changes.

Scale Changes Source Author

Goal setting Simplified formulation of the items SELVES Otto [43], Schmidt [54]
Simplified formulation of the items
Strategic planning SELVES Otto [43]
One additional item
Otto [43], Gürtler [55],
Intrinsic value Simplified formulation of the items
Pekrun et al. [56]
Simplified formulation of the items
Attention focusing SELVES Otto [43]
Three additional items
Self-recording Simplified formulation of the items SELVES Otto [43]
Self-evaluation Simplified formulation of the items SELVES Otto [43]
Simplified formulation of the items
Causal attribution Bruder [57]
One additional item

Table 3: Reliabilities of the self-regulated learning questionnaire.

Cronbach’s alpha
Phase Scale N
Pretest Posttest Followup
Forethought phase Goal setting 4 .54 .61 .74
(e.g. “Before I start with a mathematics task, I plan Strategic planning 3 .58 .71 .65
how to begin”) Intrinsic value 6 .80 .85 .79
Performance or volitional control Attention focusing 6 .76 .79 .74
(e.g. “When doing a complex mathematics task, I
Self-recording 3 .65 .76 .81
control whether my proceeding is reasonable”)
Self-reflection Self-evaluation 4 .56 .80 .71
(e.g. “If I failed a mathematics task, I reflect on what
Causal attribution 5 .67 .65 .58
to change next time”)
Overall scale Self-regulated learning 31 .90 .92 .88
N: number of items; followup: follow-up measurement after 12 months.

contents. Additionally, they received supporting documents The learning materials were made available to the
which explained the theoretical background of the units. teachers a week before the official start of the training. As
Every unit followed the same procedure: each began with the students had to work on one unit per week, there was
a short repetition of the preceding unit. Then, the teachers enough time for the teachers to familiarize themselves with
demonstrated a new problem with which the character had the learning materials. Further support was available in the
been confronted (e.g., how to deal with distractions that form of a mentor, available at a teacher’s discretion [58].
restrict one from learning). Following this, the students had
to think about this problem and find strategies to solve the 3.4. Instruments
problem. Alternatively, they learned the strategies which the
character used in order to solve the problem by itself. In 3.4.1. Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire. Within the
addition, the students had to transfer these strategies to their framework of the study, a questionnaire was used to measure
own learning behavior. The units finished with a task that fourth grade students’ self-regulated learning. A first version
had to be done for homework. of this questionnaire was tested and revised in a pilot survey
The teachers were asked to work on these learning with a parallel student target group (N = 58). The students
materials together with their students during their regular filled out the questionnaire a week before and after the
mathematics lessons. In order to support the implementa- intervention, as well as after a period of twelve months
tion of the contents, the teachers received instructions with (follow-up measurement). The responses were coded on a
recommendations for proceeding. It was the teachers’ task to scale with scores ranging from 1 to 4 (1: I disagree, 2: I
transfer these interdisciplinary strategies to the mathematical somewhat disagree, 3: I somewhat agree, and 4: I agree). Some
contents of their lessons. For example, the second unit of the items have been taken from established instruments
focused on goal setting. The students learned how to set [43, 59–61], and, if necessary, selected scales were newly
goals and were prompted to set their personal goals for their developed (for details, see Table 2). Reliabilities (Cronbach’s
mathematics learning for the following week. Therefore, it alpha) were assessed for all scales (Table 3).
can be said that the teachers were actively and personally The questionnaire was applied during regular classes
involved in the implementation of the training. and instructed by qualified experimenters in a standardized
6 Education Research International

Table 4: Split-half reliabilities of diary scales, evaluated with the current learning behavior for that day. Before doing their
odd-even method. homework, the students had to answer eight items with
Scale rodd-even regard to the processes of the forethought phase (e.g., goal
setting: “I know exactly what I want to learn today” or
Forethought phase
intrinsic value: “Today, I have a mind to learn”). After having
Goal setting .92 finished their homework, they were asked to answer eleven
Strategic planning .69 items related to processes of the volitional control phase and
Intrinsic value .95 the self-reflection phase (e.g., attention focusing: “Today I’ve
Self-efficacy .96 learned very concentratedly” or self-recording: “Today while
Volitional control phase learning, I thought about my learning process”).
Attention focusing .90 A split-half reliability was calculated (odd-even coeffi-
cient) by dividing the days for each person into two groups,
Self-recording .93
one with even numbers and one with odd numbers. The
Self-reflection phase mean values of each person were correlated for the variables.
Self-evaluation .95 Table 4 shows the detailed results for each self-regulatory
Causal attribution .83 variable, which was measured by the diary. All variables
All items: P < .001; N = 63. correlated highly significantly (P < .001).

3.4.3. Mathematics Test. Additionally, the students had to

way. On the one hand, the questionnaire was designed to work on a standardized mathematics test [62] consisting
represent the several contents of the units; on the other, of eight tasks altogether, which dealt with arithmetic,
the instrument was developed with respect to the phases calculations concerning practical problems, and geometry.
and processes of Zimmerman’s self-regulation model [8], As the students were asked to work on it before and after
such as goal setting, strategic planning, intrinsic value, the intervention, two versions were administered which were
attention focusing, self-recording, self-evaluation, and causal similar regarding item difficulty (approximately Pi = .67)
attribution. These processes were chosen to represent the and item-scale correlation (approximately ri(t−i) = 0.33).
scales of the overall scale self-regulated learning. Following The students were able to reach a maximum number of ten
the model, the forethought phase was composed of the scales points.
goal setting, strategic planning, and intrinsic value, with 13
items altogether. Regarding the performance or volitional 3.4.4. Teacher’s Register. As the training was carried out by
control phase, two scales with nine items in total were teachers, it was interesting to measure teachers’ evaluation of
composed which covered themes of attention focusing and the learning materials including the instructions. The teach-
self-recording. The self-reflection phase referred to the scales ers’ assessments of the learning materials were used as an
self-evaluation and causal attribution, which were measured indicator for the implementation of the materials. Therefore,
by nine items. Altogether, the questionnaire consisted of 31 a kind of teacher’s register was handed out to teachers in
items. In Table 3, the reliabilities of the questionnaire are order to evaluate each unit regarding design, applicability,
depicted for the measurements (pretest/posttest/follow-up and comprehensibility. With respect to a teacher’s daily work
measurement). The reliabilities of the posttest were regarded routine, the evaluation system followed the German system
as criterion. Since Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.61 of notation (1: very good, 2: good, 3: satisfactory, 4: adequate,
and 0.85, the reliability of the instrument can be rated as 5: poor, and 6: insufficient). Additionally, the teachers were
satisfactory (α > .60). As the study was designed for regular asked to estimate the motivation of their students while
mathematics lessons, the scales were related to mathematics; working on the learning materials (1: not motivated, 2: less
for example, “Before I start with a mathematics task, I plan motivated, 3: motivated, and 4: very motivated). A further
how to begin.” function of this register was to give teachers an opportunity
for feedback and suggestions for useful variations of the
3.4.2. Learning Diary. In order to measure self-regulated learning materials.
learning on the state level, the students of the experimental
group were also asked to fill out paper-and-pencil diaries for 4. Results
a period of six weeks. The items of the diary had to be filled
out before and after performing homework tasks and were Following the succession of the hypotheses, the results of the
related to items of other instruments, which were already longitudinal data are reported firstly followed by the tests of
developed in this context (see [43, 54]). As with the ques- time series hypotheses.
tionnaire, they corresponded to the phases of self-regulated
learning and were presented in a closed format, coded on 4.1. Results of the Longitudinal Analyses
a four-point Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from 1
to 4 (1: I disagree, 2: I somewhat disagree, 3: I somewhat 4.1.1. Pre/Postanalysis of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire.
agree, and 4: I agree). Altogether, the students had to estimate The research questions postulated that training on self-
19 items which asked for their daily learning behavior at regulated learning leads to an improvement of self-regulated
home. Therefore, the items were worded concerning the learning variables. We expected no changes for the untrained
Education Research International 7

Table 5: Descriptive data of the self-regulated learning variables and results for the interaction time × training.

DV M (SD)
time ∗ training Group Pretest Posttest df F η2
Overall scale
CG 3.16 (.40) 3.02 (.58) 1, 133 6.58∗ .05
Self-regulated learning
EG 3.12 (.42) 3.16 (.50)
Scales
CG 3.42 (.45) 3.42 (.48) 1, 133 3.99∗ .03
Goal setting
EG 3.29 (.55) 3.46 (.52)
CG 3.38 (.55) 3.16 (.71) 1, 133 5.74∗ .04
Strategic planninga
EG 3.12 (.62) 3.28 (.59)
CG 3.17 (.64) 2.96 (.71) 1, 133 6.68∗ .05
Intrinsic value
EG 3.35 (.66) 3.37 (.64)
CG 3.24 (.50) 3.13 (.56) 1, 133 .95 .01
Attention focusing
EG 3.26 (.60) 3.25 (.65)
CG 3.33 (.59) 3.08 (.78) 1, 133 4.51∗ .03
Self-recordinga
EG 3.12 (.64) 3.20 (.66)
CG 2.88 (.68) 2.86 (.79) 1, 133 .03 .00
Self-evaluation
EG 2.94 (.61) 2.90 (.85)
CG 3.08 (.67) 3.00 (.64) 1, 133 1.19 .01
Causal attribution
EG 3.06 (.61) 3.12 (.61)
CG: control group (N = 72); EG: experimental group (N = 63).
a Because of pretest differences, MANCOVA with pretest values as covariate was conducted.
∗ P < .05.

group (control group). The differences between the experi- P = .001, d = 0.41. With respect to the self-regulated
mental group and control group were calculated by means learning variables, this significant decline for the students of
of analyses of variance, with time as a repeated measurement the control group was also detected for the scales strategic
factor. As it was not possible to randomly assign the students planning, t(71) = 2.73, P = .01, d = 0.32, intrinsic value,
to the conditions, the pretest differences were controlled t(71) = 4.06, P = .00, d = 0.49, and self-recording, t(71) =
first. Regarding self-regulated learning variables, significant 2.82, P = .01, d = 0.33. For the students of the experimental
pretest differences between the groups were found for the group, there was a significant increase concerning the scale
scales strategic planning, t(133) = 2.57, P = .01, d = .43, goal setting, t(61) = −2.28, P = .03, d = 0.28. Figure 2
and self-recording, t(133) = 2.09, P = .04, d = .34. As can be presents the results for the students’ self-regulated learning
seen, the students of the experimental group reported higher and mathematical achievement separately for experimental
pretest values than the students of the control group did and control group.
(see Table 5). Because of these pretest differences, analyses of
covariance with the pretest value as covariate were conducted 4.1.2. Pre/Postanalysis of the Mathematics Test. Regarding
to control these differences. Table 5 gives an overview of the the mathematical competencies of the students, the experi-
results of interaction time × training, as well as means and mental group as well as the control group should improve
standard deviations for the overall scale and the scales. The their mathematics achievement because both groups were
results indicate a significant interaction effect for the overall continuously taught in mathematics. However, the experi-
scale self-regulated learning, F(1, 133) = 6.58, P = .01, η2 = mental group should benefit from training on self-regulated
.05, as well as for the scales goal setting, F(1, 133) = 3.99, learning strategies in terms of a greater increase in their
P = .04, η2 = .03, and intrinsic value, F(1, 133) = 6.68, P = mathematics achievement. The results of the t-test showed
.01, η2 = .05. There were no significant interaction effects that the mathematical competencies of both groups were
for the scales attention focusing, self-evaluation, and causal improved after the training period (see Figure 2). Regarding
attribution. Regarding strategic planning and self-recording, the effect size, the experimental group showed a stronger
the results of the analysis of covariance showed significant increase, t(62) = −5.29, P = .00, d = .68, than the control
effects for both scales (strategic planning: F(1, 133) = 5.74, group, t(71) = −2.61, P = .01, d = .31.
P = .02, η2 = .04; self-recording: F(1, 133) = 4.51, P = .04, In addition, it was examined if a training effect could be
η2 = .03). found. As there were significant pretest differences between
Regarding the overall scale self-regulated learning, there the groups of the overall measure (sum over all tasks of
was a small nonsignificant increase among the students of the test), an analysis of variance was conducted with pretest
the experimental group, whereas a significant decline was values as covariate. The results showed no significant training
found for the students of the control group, t(71) = 3.36, effect.
8 Education Research International

10 3.3
9 3.25
8
Mathematical achievement

3.2

Self-regulated learning
7
3.15
6
5 3.1
4 3.05
3
3
2
2.95
1
0 2.9
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Experimental group Experimental group

Control group Control group
(a) (b)
Figure 2: Interaction time × group for the overall scale self-regulated learning as well as for mathematical achievement. Mathematical
achievement measures could take values from 0 to 10; self-regulated learning was rated on a four-point scale.

4.1.3. Follow-Up Measurement. The students of the exper- In Table 7, the results for the trained variables of each
imental group received the same questionnaire again in unit are depicted. The first column represents the subscales
order to measure the stability of the training’s effect after a of the diary. The b0 score shows the intercepts for the variable
period of twelve months. The data of the variables should as an indicator for the basic level, whereas b1 is the indicator
be stable, which means that no significant additional effects for the change level. Using the t-score, the means before
were expected and that the values should not decrease (baseline) and after the training can be analyzed to expose
significantly. Therefore, the assumption that there were no changes. The ARMA model describes how the level of the
changes regarding goal setting, strategic planning, intrinsic variable, measured at a previous point in time, influences
value, self-recording, self-evaluation, attention focusing, the same variable at a following point in time. The number
causal attribution, and the overall scale self-regulated learn- of terms in autoregressive (AR) terms of the model reports
ing was tested and the alpha-level was increased to 20% the dependency among successive observations. Thereby,
[63]. In general, results show that the variables did not each term has an associated correlation coefficient that
change significantly between the posttest and the follow-up describes the magnitude of this dependency. With regard to
measurement. Table 6 shows the detailed results for the scales the moving average (MA) terms, the model represents the
as well as for the overall scale self-regulated learning. persistence of a random shock from one observation to the
next. After the model estimation, (partial) autocorrelations
4.2. Results of the Training Evaluation Based on Process Data. were computed in order to test white noise residuals (with
In order to describe the training evaluation based on process Ljung-Box-Q test).
data of the experimental group, interrupted time series were The results showed that after the first training unit,
conducted for the trained self-regulated learning variables students reported having been able to improve their goal
related to the units of the learning materials and trend setting strategies (t = 4.64, P = .00). The second unit
analyses were conducted for the untrained variables self- caused no enhancement with respect to the variable strategic
efficacy, self-recording, and self-evaluation. As 70% of the planning. After the third unit, the variable intrinsic value
diaries were filled out with more than 22 data points (>73%), improved significantly (t = 2.65, P = .01). In contrast,
data for the variables of the learning diary were aggregated with respect to the variables attention focusing and causal
from 44 students and included into analyses. Therefore, attribution, there were no effects of the fourth and fifth units.
the mean of the variable computed across all participants However, the variable causal attribution showed AR (1)
could be generated for each day. In order to examine the process. For the other variables, there were no dependencies
training effects for the components related to the units based among successive observations (white noise).
on the learning diary data, a multiple baseline design was Additionally, trend analyses were conducted for the
used and interrupted time series analyses were conducted. variables that were not explicitly trained but should have
Step functions were expected to show an immediate impact been influenced by the intervention. Because of the reactivity
and to continue over the long term. In order to analyze effect (see [65–67]), positive linear trends were expected
ARMA processes, the residuals were used [64]. With the for the nontrained variables self-efficacy, self-recording,
residual data, autocorrelations and partial autocorrelations and self-evaluation, as well as for the overall scale self-
were conducted to identify ARMA processes. regulated learning. Regarding the variables self-efficacy and
Education Research International 9

Table 6: Results of the t-tests for follow-up measurements of the experimental group.

M (SD)
Scale Posttest Followup df ta P d
Goal setting 3.47 (.51) 3.44 (.53) 57 .49 .62 .15
Strategic planning 3.29 (.58) 3.16 (.60) 57 1.41 .16 .18
Intrinsic value 3.39 (.62) 3.46 (.55) 57 −.84 .40 .11
Attention focusing 3.27 (.62) 3.15 (.53) 57 1.69 .10 .21
Self-recordingb 3.21 (.67) 3.06 (.73) 57 1.63 .11 .22
Self-evaluation 2.93 (.83) 2.83 (.76) 57 .92 .36 .12
Causal attribution 3.11 (.61) 3.04 (.61) 57 .65 .52 .09
Overall scale
Self-regulated learning 3.16 (.46) 3.08 (.40) 57 1.49 .14 .19
N = 58 (three students were absent on the day of the follow-up measurement); d: effect size.
a −indicates an increase, +indicates a decrease.

Table 7: Results of the interruption time series analysis to examine the effects of the intervention.

b0 b1 t ARMA models ARMA parameter t

Kickoff: baseline
1st unit: goal setting 2.91 .66 4.64∗∗ W.N.
2nd unit: strategic planning 3.39 .18 .98 W.N.
3rd unit: intrinsic value 3.12 .45 2.65∗ W.N.
4th unit: attention focusing 3.48 .11 .58 W.N.
5th unit: causal attribution 3.61 −.24 −1.31 AR (1,0) .68 4.86∗∗
b0 : basic value, b1 : change; W.N.: white noise.
∗ P < .05, ∗∗ P < .01.

self-evaluation, there were no significant changes, whereas 3.8

significant linear trends were found with respect to self-
recording (P = .04; b0 = 3.07; b1 = .01; RSQ = .14) and self-
3.7
regulated learning (P = .03; b0 = 3.31; b1 = .01; RSQ = .16).
Thereby, the time trend over a period of 30 days could explain
14% of the variance of self-recording and 16% of the variance
Self-regulated learning

3.6
of self-regulated learning. Figure 3 shows the results for the
linear trend of the overall scale self-regulated learning.
3.5
4.3. Teachers’ Evaluation of the Learning Materials. The
teachers’ assessment of the learning materials regarding their 3.4
design, application, and comprehensibility ranged between
1.60 and 1.67 (design: M = 1.60, SD = .72; applicability:
M = 1.73, SD = .95; comprehensibility: M = 1.67, 3.3
SD = .61). The students’ motivation while working on the
learning materials was estimated with a mean value of 3.30
(SD = .62). Based on these results, the implementation of 3.2
0 10 20 30
the learning materials should be carried out successfully.
Days

5. Discussion Figure 3: Trajectory and linear trend for self-regulated learning

measured on a four-point scale.
The aim of the intervention was the enhancement of
fourth grade students’ self-regulated learning by working on
interdisciplinary teaching materials, which were related to
particular strategies of Zimmerman’s self-regulation model for the scales goal setting, intrinsic value, strategic planning,
[8]. By means of analyses of variance with time as repeated and self-recording.
measurement factor, significant interaction effects were Regarding the results within the groups, it could be
found for the overall scale self-regulated learning, as well as pointed out that the overall scale self-regulated learning
10 Education Research International

did not change in the expected direction. Instead of a limited. In this study, the learning diary primarily seemed to
significant increase for the experimental group, there was serve as an evaluation instrument and not as a part of the
a significant decrease for the control group, whereas for intervention.
the experimental group the overall scale remained stable. In summary, the results lead to the assumption that the
Regarding the experimental group, this result for the overall learning materials seemed to be beneficial with regard to
scale was supported by the results of the scales strategic fourth grade students’ self-regulated learning and mathe-
planning, intrinsic value, attention focusing, self-recording, matics achievement. However, the results of the pretest and
self-evaluation, and causal attribution. Except for the scale posttest measurements for self-regulated learning have to
goal setting, a significant increase was found as expected. For be discussed critically. Regarding the experimental group,
the control group, the results of the scales strategic planning, there was only a small, nonsignificant increase found for
intrinsic value, and self-recording showed a significant the overall scale and the scales strategic planning, intrinsic
decline as did the overall scale self-regulated learning. Twelve value, attention focusing, self-recording, self-evaluation, and
months after training, the students of the experimental causal attribution. Additionally, no interaction effects were
group filled out the same questionnaire again, in order to found for the variables attention focusing, self-evaluation,
measure stability of intervention effects. There should be no and causal attribution. As the variables self-recording and
significant change of the data according to an increase or self-evaluation were not involved as part of the training, this
decline. The results show that all scales were stable after a result was not unexpected. Obviously, it was not possible to
period of twelve months. improve these variables by training other specific processes of
Besides the improvement in students’ self-regulated self-regulated learning. With respect to the other variables,
learning, we also expected an effect with respect to students’ the lack of effects was not expected. It can be discussed as
mathematical achievement. As the learning materials were to whether there was enough time to practice and transfer
related to mathematical contents and implemented during the strategies of these units, which were very complex. The
regular mathematics lessons, we dealt with the question of students worked on the teaching materials for the duration
whether there was a supportive effect of self-regulated learn- of one lesson per week and had to deal with one task
ing on students’ mathematics achievement [5]. Regarding per training session. It would probably have been useful
the effects between the groups, no significant interaction if the students had worked on more than one task during
effect was found. The results showed an enhancement for each training session to make sure that they transferred the
the experimental group as well as for the control group. As learned strategies to their everyday work. Furthermore, it
both groups have been taught mathematics, this increase was may be possible that the imparted strategies initially interfere
not unexpected. Regarding the effects within the groups, we with already existing strategies [68]. As the study was realized
expected a greater increase in mathematics achievement for at grade four, the students may already have developed their
the experimental group than for the control group. With own strategies to regulate their learning behavior. Greater
respect to the effect sizes, the students of the experimental effects might be expected when there is a continuous and
group showed better improvement in their mathematics fairly long-term instruction of self-regulated learning in
achievement than the control group did. These results were regular classes [69].
in line with Perels et al. [49]. In their study, they also found Moreover, there are limiting factors and unanswered
an improvement for both groups, but a greater increase for questions regarding this study: for the assessment of self-
the students belonging to the experimental group. regulated learning, only self-report methods (questionnaire
On the level of process data, interrupted time series and learning diary) were used. These self-report methods
analyses indicated an increase in value of some of the trained only measured students’ evaluation of their use of strategies,
variables in the expected direction after the training. In but not their actual use [70]. In future research, multimethod
detail, this was the case for the variable goal setting after approaches should be used. In this study, the students were
the second unit, as well as for the variable intrinsic value also videotaped during regular mathematics lessons (before
after the fourth unit. Regarding strategic planning, attention and after the intervention phase). For further analysis, the
focusing, and causal attribution no significant changes were observation data has to be analyzed and referred to the
found. Additionally, linear trends were performed for the results of the self-report data. Consequently, it will be
nontrained variables self-efficacy, self-recording, and self- possible to analyze if students actually used the self-regulated
evaluation, as well as for the overall scale self-regulated learning strategies supported by the learning materials. In
learning. Although these variables were not part of the this context, also other on-line methods like thinking-aloud
training, the students had to answer items corresponding protocols might be of interest (see [71]).
to them by filling out the diary each day. Therefore, we Additionally, there is another question concerning the
expected an influence in terms of the reactivity effect [27, 65]. measurement of self-regulated learning. By using learning
Regarding the scale self-recording and the overall scale self- diaries, we were able to assess and analyze students’ self-
regulated learning, significant linear trends were found as regulated learning on a daily basis. Following Schmitz and
expected whereas there were no trends for the variables self- Wiese [9], we used this data as process data to conduct time
efficacy and self-evaluation. The absent linear trends for series analysis. This approach has to be regarded critically
these variables are in contrast to the results of other studies because learning diaries represent self-report measurements.
(see, e.g., [43, 67]). Therefore, the postulated reactivity effect It has to be questioned to which extent this data could be
[65] has to be considered critically because evidence for it was concerned as process data.
Education Research International 11

Another limitation concerns the state aspect of Zim- Finally, the significant interaction effect for the overall
merman’s model [8]. He postulated that self-regulation is scale self-regulated learning and the scales goal setting,
an adaptable and cumulative process. According to these intrinsic value, strategic planning, and self-recording mainly
assumptions, his self-regulation model tends to focus on occurred due to the significant decline of the control group.
state aspects of self-regulation. However, in the study we This decline was not expected and cannot be explained in the
used self-report data, which rather concerns trait aspects framework of this study. For further intervention research, it
of self-regulation. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the might be worthwhile to assess more information concerning
theoretical framework of the study and the chosen assess- the control group.
ment methods. However, other authors, such as Schmidt In this context, it also might be of interest to design an
[54] or Hong and O’Neil [72], regard self-regulation at both intervention which involves more or even all of the postu-
the state and trait levels. They hypothesize that academic lated strategies of Zimmerman’s self-regulation model [8]. In
self-regulation consists of transitory (meta)cognitive states our study, there had to be a focus on the selected strategies
and relatively stable (meta)cognitive traits. For example, for two reasons. Firstly, the (meta)cognitive abilities of the
students with high self-regulatory traits tend to use their target group had to be considered (see [40]). Secondly, the
metacognitive skills more effectively than students with low duration of the intervention was determined because the
trait self-regulation [73]. Hong [74] compared state and learning materials were implemented into regular mathemat-
trait self-regulation models and came to the conclusion that ics lessons. This implied that the more time was spent on the
every self-regulation state refers to a general trait component learning materials, the less time could be spent on the regular
(see also [75]). Furthermore, she reported high correlations mathematics contents. Therefore, and for developmental
between state and trait constructs (see also [76]). Therefore, psychological reasons, the intervention was reduced to six
analyzing self-regulatory traits by using questionnaire data units. However, the study involved both (meta)cognitive and
makes assumptions about self-regulatory states, as postulated motivational aspects of self-regulated learning correspond-
in Zimmerman’s self-regulation model [8]. ing to the three learning phases of Zimmerman’s model [8].
Furthermore, the implementation of the developed This represents an advantage of the study in contrast to
learning materials has to be discussed because the contents other trainings which focused either on (meta)cognitive or
of the units were imparted by the teachers themselves. motivational components (for an overview, see [79]).
From the teachers’ point of view, the learning materials In summary, present findings show that it is possible
and the instructions were evaluated as very good to good to maintain a rather high level of self-regulated learning by
with respect to design, applicability, and comprehensibility. using self-regulated learning materials which were imple-
Furthermore, the teachers estimated the motivation of their mented by teachers. To our opinion it is worth emphasizing
students while working on the learning materials to be that the embedding of specific self-regulated learning strate-
very positive. These estimations indicate that the developed gies into regular mathematics lessons was not at the cost of
teaching materials could be successfully implemented in students’ mathematical achievement, but supported it. Thus,
the regular classroom situation. In fact, an innovation it might be assumed that if an improvement of students’ self-
such as these learning materials can be evaluated as being regulated learning occurs, this improvement might be related
successfully introduced as soon as the teachers have adopted to improvements in mathematical achievement. Further
it [77]. Adoption in this context means that the teachers studies should investigate if and under what conditions this
are able and willing to implement an innovation into their assumption holds true. Therefore, the learning materials
lessons. Moreover, they have to feel confident in their ability should be optimized and the evaluation instruments adapted
to adapt it to the needs and abilities of their students. to other subjects.
Following Bitan-Friedlander et al. [78], teachers’ adoption of The present study implies practical consequences of
an innovation in the educational field depends on “agreeing creating powerful learning environments for supporting self-
with the theoretical content and with the pedagogical value regulated learning. As the results show, it is possible to
of the innovation” [78, page 617]. The extent to which an embed self-regulated learning strategies in regular lessons by
innovation might be adopted by a teacher can be defined using interdisciplinary learning materials. As self-regulated
in terms of the teacher’s personal concerns. In the present learning represents an important factor for academic and
study, the teachers expressed being excited about the learning lifelong learning [80], teaching these strategies should be
materials. However, there were no other clues as to what integrated into regular elementary school lessons in order to
extent the teachers were involved and motivated to work with improve the development of advantageous learning behavior
the learning materials. For further studies, this might be an as early as possible.
interesting and helpful approach.
Another limitation refers to the question of how the Acknowledgment
students were assigned to the experimental and the control
This research was supported by grants from the DFG
group. As the learning materials needed to be implemented
(German Research Foundation).
by teachers into students’ regular learning environment, it
was not possible to realize a randomized assignment of References
the students to experimental and control group. Therefore,
students’ pretest values of self-regulated learning and math- [1] M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, “Self-regulation.
ematical achievement were controlled. An introductory overview,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation,
12 Education Research International

M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, Eds., pp. 1–9, [19] J. M. Harackiewicz, K. E. Barron, P. R. Pintrich, A. J. Elliot, and
Academic Press, San Diego, Calif, USA, 2000. T. M. Thrash, “Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary
[2] A. Bandura, “The primacy of self-regulation in health promo- and illuminating,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 94,
tion,” Applied Psychology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 245–254, 2005. no. 3, pp. 638–645, 2002.
[3] B. J. Zimmerman, “Investigating self-regulation and moti- [20] C. Ames, “Achievement goals and the classroom motivational
vation: historical background, methodological developments, climate,” in Student Perceptions in the Classroom, D. H.
and future prospects,” American Educational Research Journal, Schunk and J. L. Meece, Eds., pp. 327–348, Lawrence Erlbaum
vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 166–183, 2008. Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1992.
[4] P. R. Pintrich and E. V. De Groot, “A motivational science [21] G. Dreisbach and H. Haider, “How task representations guide
perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and attention: further evidence for the shielding function of task
teaching contexts,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 95, sets,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp.
no. 4, pp. 667–686, 2003. 477–486, 2009.
[5] L. Nota, S. Soresi, and B. J. Zimmerman, “Self-regulation and [22] F. Wieber, A. von Suchodoletz, T. Heikamp, G. Trommsdorff,
academic achievement and resilience: a longitudinal study,” and P. M. Gollwitzer, “If-then planning helps school-aged
International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. children to ignore attractive distractions,” Social Psychology,
198–215, 2004. vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 39–47, 2011.
[6] B. J. Zimmerman and A. Bandura, “Impact of self-regulatory
[23] L. Corno, “The best-laid plans. Modern conceptions of
influences on writing course attainment,” American Educa-
volition and educational research,” Educational Researcher,
tional Research Journal, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 845–862, 1994.
vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 14–22, 1993.
[7] M. Boekaerts, “Self-regulated learning: where we are today,”
International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. [24] J. Kuhl, “Action control: the maintenance of motivational
445–457, 1999. states,” in Motivation, Intention and Volition, F. Halisch and J.
[8] B. J. Zimmerman, “Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive Kuhl, Eds., pp. 279–291, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1985.
perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. [25] D. H. Schunk, “Progress self-monitoring. Effects on children’s
R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, Eds., pp. 13–41, Academic Press, self-efficacy and achievement,” Journal of Experimental Educa-
San Diego, Calif, USA, 2000. tion, vol. 51, pp. 89–93, 1983.
[9] B. Schmitz and B. S. Wiese, “New perspectives for the [26] K. D. Vohs and B. J. Schmeichel, “Self-regulation: how and
evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: why people reach (and fail to reach) their goals,” in The Self,
time-series analyses of diary data,” Contemporary Educational C. Sedikides and S. J. Spencer, Eds., pp. 139–162, Psychology
Psychology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 64–96, 2006. Press, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
[10] P. R. Pintrich, “The role of goal orientation in self-regulated [27] W. J. Korotitsch and R. O. Nelson-Gray, “An overview
learning,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. R. of self-monitoring research in assessment and treatment,”
Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, Eds., pp. 451–502, Academic Press, Psychological Assessment, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 415–425, 1999.
San Diego, Calif, USA, 2000. [28] A. Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
[11] E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham, “Building a practically useful Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA,
theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey,” 1986.
American Psychologist, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 705–717, 2002. [29] C. Schöne, O. Dickhäuser, B. Spinath, and J. Stiensmeier-
[12] S. Schreblowski and M. Hasselhorn, “Selbstkontrollstrate- Pelster, “Goal orientation and reference-norm orientation:
gien: Planen, Überwachen, Bewerten [Metacognitive control two related constructs?” Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psycholo-
strategies: Planning, monitoring, valuing],” in Handbuch gie, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 93–99, 2004.
Lernstrategien, H. Mandl and H. F. Friedrich, Eds., pp. 252–
[30] M. Dresel and A. Ziegler, “Langfristige Förderung von Fähig-
161, Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2006.
keitsselbstkonzept und impliziter Fähigkeitstheorie durch
[13] E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham, “What should we do about
computerbasiertes attributionales Feedback [Long-term enha-
motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first
ncement of academic self-concept and implicit ability theory
century,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 29, no. 3, pp.
through computer-based attributional feedback],” Zeitschrift
388–403, 2004.
für Pädagogische Psychologie, vol. 20, pp. 49–63, 2006.
[14] D. H. Schunk, P. R. Pintrich, and J. L. Meece, Motivation in
Education. Theory, Research, and Applications, Pearson, New [31] B. J. Zimmerman and A. Kitsantas, “Developmental phases in
Jersey, NJ, USA, 3rd edition, 2008. self-regulation: shifting from process goals to outcome goals,”
[15] B. J. Zimmerman, “Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 29–36,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 82– 1997.
91, 2000. [32] B. J. Zimmerman and T. J. Cleary, “Adolescents’ development
[16] F. Pajares, “Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self- of personal agency: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-
regulated learning,” in Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning. regulatory skill,” in Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, F. Pajares
Theory, Research, and Application, D. H. Schunk and B. J. and T. C. Urdan, Eds., pp. 71–96, Information Age Publishing,
Zimmerman, Eds., pp. 111–139, Routledge, New York, NY, Greenwich, UK, 2006.
USA, 2007. [33] M. Boekaerts and E. Cascallar, “How far have we moved
[17] E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, “The “what” and “why” of goal toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regu-
pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of be- lation?” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 199–
havior,” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227–268, 2000. 210, 2006.
[18] M. Dowson and D. M. McInerney, “What do students say [34] M. Boekaerts, “Self-regulated learning: a new concept em-
about their motivational goals?: towards a more complex and braced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and
dynamic perspective on student motivation,” Contemporary students,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 161–186,
Educational Psychology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 91–113, 2003. 1997.
Education Research International 13

[35] D. Leutner, A. Barthel, and B. Schreiber, “Students can learn [50] J. Hattie, J. Biggs, and N. Purdie, “Effects of learning skills
to motivate themselves for learning—a training experiment,” interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis,” Review of
Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, vol. 15, no. 3-4, pp. Educational Research, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 99–136, 1996.
155–167, 2001. [51] E. De Corte, L. Mason, F. Depaepe, and L. Verschaffel,
[36] F. Perels, T. Gürtler, and B. Schmitz, “Training of self- “Self-regulation of mathematical knowledge and skills,” in
regulatory and problem-solving competence,” Learning and Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, B. J.
Instruction, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 123–139, 2005. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk, Eds., pp. 155–172, Routledge,
[37] C. Leopold, V. den Elzen-Rump, and D. Leutner, “Self- New York, NY, USA, 2011.
regulated learning from science texts,” in Studies on the [52] E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, and C. Masui, “The CLIA-model: a
Educational Quality of Schools. The Final Report on the DFG framework for designing powerful learning environments for
Priority Programme, M. Prenzel, Ed., pp. 221–228, Waxmann, thinking and problem solving,” European Journal of Psychology
Münster, Germany, 2007. of Education, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 365–384, 2004.
[38] E. Souvignier and J. Moklesgerami, “Using self-regulation as
[53] M. V. J. Veenman, J. J. Elshout, and J. Meijer, “The generality vs
a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster
domain-specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning
reading comprehension,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 16, no.
across domains,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 7, no. 2, pp.
1, pp. 57–71, 2006.
187–209, 1997.
[39] A. S. Labuhn, S. Bögeholz, and M. Hasselhorn, “Fostering
learning through stimulation of self-regulation in science [54] M. Schmidt, How to Manage your PhD Thesis. Development
lessons,” Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, vol. 22, no. of a Process Model of Self-Regulation to Foster Postgraduate
1, pp. 13–24, 2008. Students, Dr. Kovac, Hamburg, Germany, 2009.
[40] M. B. Bronson, Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Nature and [55] T. Gürtler, Trainingsprogramm zur Förderung selbstregulativer
Nurture, Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 2000. Kompetenz in Kombination mit Problemlösestrategien PROS-
[41] N. Eisenberg, C. L. Smith, A. Sadovsky, T. L. Spinrad, R. EKKO [Training program for the improvement of problem
F. Baumeister, and K. D. Vohs, “Effortful control: Relations solving and self-regulating competencies] (Dissertation, TU
with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in Darmstadt), 2003.
childhood,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, [56] R. Pekrun, T. Goetz, A. C. Frenzel, P. Barchfeld, and R. P. Perry,
and Applications, R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs, Eds., pp. “Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance:
259–282, Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 2004. the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ),” Contempo-
[42] C. Dignath and G. Büttner, “Components of fostering rary Educational Psychology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 36–48, 2011.
self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on [57] S. Bruder, Die Förderung von Selbstregulation bei Kindern
intervention studies at primary and secondary school level,” unter Einbezug ihrer Eltern. Die Entwicklung, Durchführung
Metacognition and Learning, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 231–264, 2008. und Evaluation eines Elterntrainings zur Förderung selbst-
[43] B. Otto, SELVES—Schüler-, Eltern-und Lehrertraining zur regulierten Lernens in Verbindung mit der Adaption eines
Vermittlung effektiver Selbstregulation, Logos, Berlin, Germany, Schülertrainings für die Sekundarstufe I [Promotion of chil-
2007, [SELVES—student, parents, and teacher training to dren’s self-regulation integrating their parents] (Dissertation,
impart effective self-regulation]. TU Darmstadt), 2006.
[44] N. Spörer and J. C. Brunstein, “Erfassung selbstregulierten [58] S. Loucks-Horsley, K. E. Stiles, S. Mundry, N. Love, and P.
Lernens mit Selbstberichtsverfahren. Ein Überblick zum Stand W. Hewson, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of
der Forschung [Assessing self-regulated learning with self- Science and Mathematics, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, Calif,
report measurements: a state-of-the-art review],” Zeitschrift USA, 3rd edition, 2010.
für Pädagogische Psychologie, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 147–160, 2006. [59] R. Schwarzer and G. S. Schmitz, “Collective efficacy of
[45] F. Perels, M. Merget-Kullmann, M. Wende, B. Schmitz, and C. teachers: a longitudinal study in ten German states,” Zeitschrift
Buchbinder, “Improving self-regulated learning of preschool fur Sozialpsychologie, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 262–274, 1999.
children: evaluation of training for kindergarten teachers,”
[60] K. P. Wild, U. Schiefele, and A. Winteler, Inventar zur
British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 79, no. 2, pp.
Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium [Learning and Study
311–327, 2009.
Strategies Inventory], Universität der Bundeswehr, Institut
[46] C. Dignath, G. Büttner, and H. P. Langfeldt, “How can pri-
für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie,
mary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies
München, Germany, 1992.
most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training
programmes,” Educational Research Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. [61] R. Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem, Skalen zur Erfassung von
101–129, 2008. Lehrer-und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychomet-
[47] L. S. Fuchs, D. Fuchs, K. Prentice et al., “Enhancing third- rischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung
grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self- des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen [Scales for the
regulated learning strategies,” Journal of Educational Psychol- assessment of student and teacher characteristics], Freie Univer-
ogy, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 306–315, 2003. sität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1999.
[48] J. S. Rozendaal, A. Minnaert, and M. Boekaerts, “The influence [62] T. Roick, D. Gölitz, and M. Hasselhorn, Deutscher Mathema-
of teacher perceived administration of self-regulated learning tiktest für dritte Klassen [German Mathematics Test for Third-
on students’ motivation and information-processing,” Learn- Graders] (DEMAT 3+), Beltz Test, Göttingen, Germany, 2004.
ing and Instruction, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 141–160, 2005. [63] J. Bortz, Statistik für Human-und Sozialwissenschaftler [Statis-
[49] F. Perels, C. Dignath, and B. Schmitz, “Is it possible to improve tics for Human and Social Sientists], Springer, Heidelberg,
mathematical achievement by means of self-regulation strate- Germany, 2005.
gies? Evaluation of an intervention in regular math classes,” [64] B. Schmitz, “Univariate and multivariate time-series models:
European Journal of Psychology of Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. the analysis of intraindividual variability and intraindividual
17–31, 2009. relationships,” in Statistical Methods in Longitudinal Research
14 Education Research International

(Vol. II: Time Series and Categorical Longitudinal Data), A. V. [80] M. Lüftenegger, B. Schober, R. van de Schoot, P. Wagner, M.
Eye, Ed., Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1990. Finsterwald, and C. Spiel, “Lifelong learning as a goal—do
[65] J. Webber, B. Scheuermann, C. McCall, and M. Coleman, autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well prepared
“Research on self-monitoring as a behavior management tech- pupils?” Learning and Instruction, vol. 22, pp. 27–36, 2011.
nique in special education classrooms: a descriptive review,”
RASE: Remedial & Special Education, vol. 14, no. 2, Article ID
56, pp. 38–56, 1993.
[66] T. Hascher and L. Wepf, “Lerntagebücher im Praktikum
von Lehramtsstudierenden [Use of learning diaries in the
internship of student teachers],” Empirische Pädagogik, vol. 21,
no. 2, pp. 101–118, 2007.
[67] B. Schmitz, “Self-Monitoring zur Unterstützung des Transfers
einer Schulung in Selbstregulation für Studierende [Self-
monitoring to support the transfer of a training in self-
regulation for students],” Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psycholo-
gie, vol. 15, no. 3-4, pp. 181–197, 2001.
[68] M. Bannert, Metakognition beim Lernen mit Hypermedia.
Erfassung, Beschreibung und Vermittlung Wirksamer Metakog-
nitiver Strategien und Regulationsaktivitäten, . Waxmann,
Münster, Germany, 2007.
[69] K. R. Hilden and M. Pressley, “Self-regulation through
transactional strategies instruction,” Reading and Writing
Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 51–75, 2007.
[70] N. E. Perry, K. O. VandeKamp, L. K. Mercer, and C. J. Nordby,
“Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-
regulated learning,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 37, no. 1, pp.
5–15, 2002.
[71] M. V. J. Veenman, “Alternative assessment of strategy use
with self-report instruments: a discussion,” Metacognition and
Learning, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 205–211, 2011.
[72] E. Hong and H. F. O’Neil, “Construct validation of a trait self-
regulation model,” International Journal of Psychology, vol. 36,
no. 3, pp. 186–194, 2001.
[73] E. Hong, “A structural comparison between state and trait self-
regulation models,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 9, no. 4,
pp. 333–349, 1995.
[74] E. Hong, “Differential stability of state and trait self-regu-
lation in academic performance,” The Journal of Educational
Research, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 148–158, 1998.
[75] B. Schmitz, M. Schmidt, M. Landmann, and C. Spiel, “New
developments in the field of self-regulated learning,” Journal
of Psychology, vol. 215, no. 3, pp. 153–156, 2007.
[76] N. S. Endler, D. S. Crooks, and J. D. A. Parker, “The inter-
actional model of anxiety: an empirical test in a parachute
training situation,” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, vol. 5, pp. 301–
311, 1992.
[77] G. E. Hall, A. A. George, and W. L. Rutherford, Measuring
Stages of Concern about the Innovation: A Manual for Use
of the SoC Questionnaire, Research and Development Centre
for Teacher Education. University of Texas, Austin, Tex, USA,
1977.
[78] N. Bitan-Friedlander, A. Dreyfus, and Z. Milgrom, “Types of
“teachers in training”: the reactions of primary school science
teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an
innovation,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 20, no. 6,
pp. 607–619, 2004.
[79] D. H. Schunk and P.A. Ertmer, “Self-regulation and academic
learning: self-efficacy enhancing interventions,” in Handbook
of Self-Regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M.
Zeidner, Eds., pp. 631–651, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif,
USA, 2000.