2009; 31: e477–e483

WEB PAPER

Metacognitive awareness and self-regulated

learning skills of medical students in different
medical curricula
SEVGI TURAN1, ÖZCAN DEMIREL2 & _ISKENDER SAYEK1
1
Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Turkey, 2Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, Turkey

Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the acquisition of metacognitive awareness and self-regulated learning skills in
medical schools using different curricular models.
Methods: The study was carried out in four medical schools implementing different curricular models. Eight hundred and sixty
two medical students took part in the study and two scales (self-regulated learning perception scale – SRLPS and metacognitive
awareness inventory – MAI) were used. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93 for the MAI, and 0.88, 0.91, 0.83, and 0.76 for the four
dimensions of the SRLPS.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in MAI scores according to gender, curricular language, or previous
exposure or not to a learner-centered method during secondary school, but the differences in scores according to the phase and
curricular model were found to be significant. With regard to SRLPS total scores, no difference was found according to gender, but
significant differences were found according to phase, curricular language, and curricular model. MAI and SRLPS scores of students
from the medical school using a learner-centered curriculum were higher than the other schools’ students.
Conclusion: This study suggests that students who experience a learner-centered curriculum, such as PBL during their medical
education demonstrate improved metacognitive awareness and self-regulated learning skills.

Introduction Practice points

The knowledge explosion results in information obsolescence
before it is even acquired. This rapid change in knowledge
requires that students develop their lifelong learning
skills if the educators intend to prepare students for
the future. The ability to engage in lifelong learning is based
on the development, and subsequent successful application, of
two skill areas: metacognition and self-directedness (Dunlap
2005).
Metacognitive strategies as defined by Flavel are under-
standing and regulating one’s own cognitive processes in
order to monitor, direct, and control them (Kincannon et al.
1999). Metacognition could be simply defined as thinking
about thinking or as a ‘‘person’s cognition about cognition’’
(Gama 2004). Metacognitive skills include taking conscious
control of learning, planning, and selecting strategies, mon-
itoring the progress of learning, correcting errors, analyzing the
effectiveness of learning strategies, and changing learning
behaviors and strategies when necessary (Dunlap 2005).
Metacognitively aware learners are more effective learners,
show higher performance levels, use more strategies, and
better regulate their own learning (Hammann & Stevens 1998).
As a result of the findings of studies showing that metacog-
nitive strategies can be learned (Kincannon et al. 1999), the
interest of educators and curriculum developers has focused
on this issue.
. Problem based learning fosters both metacognitive and
self-directed learning skills.
. The learner-centered approach which begins at an early
stage of education motivates to students to learn.
. Monitoring of students learning skills during the mod-
ification process of curriculum is needed for supporting
students.
Self-regulation is defined as self-regulated thoughts, feel-
ings, and actions for attaining academic goals (Zimmerman
1998). Self-regulated learners are proactive in their efforts to
learn, monitor their behavior in terms of their goals, and self-
reflect on their increasing effectiveness, which enhances their
self-satisfaction and motivation to continue to improve their
methods of learning (Zimmerman 2002). Self-regulated stu-
dents are metacognitively, motivationally and behaviorally
active participants in their own learning (Zimmerman 1990).
According to Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons (1990), successful
students surpass other students because they possess more
information about their own cognition and they actively
engage in more techniques to help foster learning.
Successful students play a more active role in learning, process
new information more effectively, relate new information to

Correspondence: Sevgi Turan, Department of Medical Education and Informatics, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Sihhiye 06100 Ankara
– Turkey. Tel: 90 312 305 26 17; fax: þ90 312 310 05 80; email: sturan@hacettepe.edu.tr
ISSN 0142–159X print/ISSN 1466–187X online/09/100477–7 ß 2009 Informa Healthcare Ltd. e477
DOI: 10.3109/01421590903193521
S. Turan et al.
previous information, organize and transform presented
material, set goals for themselves, plan their strategies, and
seek assistance when needed (Bland 2005).
The proposed model and theory indicate that there is a
relationship between metacognition and self-regulation. Even
some theorists assert that these concepts are alike. On the
other hand, others define that self-regulation is more compre-
hensive than metacognition. According to Winne, metacogni-
tive knowledge and monitoring are components of self-
regulated learning when measured as an aptitude, and they
state that ‘self-regulated’ is associated with forms of learning
that are metacognitively guided, at least partly intrinsically
motivated, and strategic (Winne & Perry 2005). The other
perspective of self-regulated learning is based on the social
cognitive theory. Considering these theorists, self-regulated
learning is more than metacognitive knowledge and skills.
Self-regulated learning involves an underlying sense of self-
efficacy and personal agency and the motivational and
behavioral processes to put these self beliefs into effect.
Views of self-regulated learning that do not include this core
self-referential system have difficulty in explaining human
failures to self-regulate. The social cognitive theorists indicate
that educational psychologists need to expand their views of
self-regulation beyond metacognitive trait, ability, or stage
formulations, and begin treating it as a complex interactive
process involving social, motivational, and behavioral compo-
nents (Zimmerman 1995). There is, however, general agree-
ment that the relationships between metacognition and self-
regulated behavior are not yet well-understood (Winne 1996;
Hammann & Stevens 1998; Sperling et al. 2004).
Metacognitive awareness and self-regulated learning skills
are important in medicine because of the rapid change in
knowledge. The World Federation for Medical Education
describes lifelong and self-directed learning as professional
characteristics that should be evaluated in the training of
physicians (Hoban et al. 2005).
The range of curricular models that medical schools may
employ is wide, including discipline-based, system-based, and
problem-based learning (PBL). In the discipline-based curri-
culum, often called conventional or traditional curriculum,
well-defined, distinct subjects form the basis of the curriculum.
The school program is strictly determined by the subjects
studied and is often inflexible. The second model, a system-
based curriculum, is an integrated curriculum. It is based on
body and organ systems. In this model, basic science is taught
as it relates directly to clinical medicine. The third model is the
PBL curriculum. PBL is identified by tutorials in which students
are presented with a specific practical, real problem, or set of
problems to solve (Wood 2003). In medicine, PBL is centered
around the discussion and learning that emanates from a
clinically based problem.
PBL is accepted as helping students develop metacognitive
awareness and depends on self-regulated learning skills (Paris
& Paris 2001; Dunlap 2005). One of the objectives of these
types of educational methodologies is that students will
become active participants in their own learning, constructing
knowledge rather than just being passive recipients (Levett-
Jones 2005). Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) identified one of the
primary educational objectives that can be addressed by PBL
e478
as being the development of effective self-directedness. PBL
appeals to curriculum developers because it is based on
interdisciplinary learning, results in multiple outcomes, is
integrated and competency-based, and emphasizes metacog-
nitive or high-order skills and real-life perspectives (Putnam
2001).
Consequently, investigating metacognitive awareness and
self-regulated learning skills of medical students is very
important in order to evaluate the curriculum and to modify
it as necessary. Therefore, the aim of the study was to
investigate the metacognitive awareness and self-regulated
learning skills of medical students in different medical
curricular models. In the study design, answers to the
following questions were sought:
(1) Is there a significant difference in perception of self-
regulated learning skills and metacognitive awareness
of medical students based on the curricular model?
(2) Is there a significant difference in perception of self-
regulated learning skills and metacognitive awareness
of medical students based on their medical education
phase, curricular language, gender, and whether or not
they were previously exposed to the learner-centered
method in secondary school?
Methods
Subjects
The study was carried out in four different medical schools in
Turkey that use different curricular models; 862 medical
students took part in the study. The medical education is
composed of 6 years – the first 3 years are considered the
preclinical phase and the last 3 years as the clinical phase
(Bahar-Ozvaris¸ et al. 2004).
The medical schools taking part in this study were coded.
Description of their curricular models (Sayek et al. 2006) is
shown in Table 1. Two schools (A and B) apply an integrated
model with PBL. Since medical school A integrated PBL into
the curriculum one year prior to the start of the study (2005–
2006), its curriculum was considered to be in a process of
transition. Medical school C applies PBL and medical school D
a conventional curriculum. Entrance requirements for all
schools are the same because of the centralized university
entrance exam in Turkey.
Research design and implementation
Two scales were developed and used in the present study.
Scales included a brief cover letter informing students about
the purpose of the study and demographic data was also
obtained. Students signed an informed consent before they
completed the scales. The participation rate of medical schools
varied between 47% and 60%.
Instruments
Self-regulated learning perception scale (SRLPS) and metacog-
nitive awareness inventory (MAI) were used. These scales are
described below.
 Learning skills of medical students

Table 1. Curricular models of participating medical schools.

Medical school Curricular model The percent of PBL time Participants Participation rate (%)
a
A Integrated (transition process) 10 Preclinical phase 57
B Integrated 10 Preclinical phase 47
C PBL All Preclinical and clinical phase 56
D Conventional None Preclinical and clinical phase 60

a
Since medical school A integrated PBL into the curriculum one year prior to the start of the study (2005–2006), its curriculum was considered to be in a process of
transition.

Self-regulated learning perception scale. The scale is com-
posed of four dimensions and 41 items (see the appendix, the
presented questions are mixed in the study). Items were
included by taking into account the literature, expert opinion,
and students’ narratives about their learning strategies. The
items were answered on a five-point scale ranking from one to
five, and item scores were summed to obtain sub-dimensions
and total score. For total score, the minimum possible score is
41 and the maximum possible score is 205. Dimensions of the
scale were as follows:
psychometric properties). As a result, the scale was applied
with 28 items, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.93.
Questionnaire. A questionnaire was used with the aim of
determining the students’ gender, curricular language (Turkish
or English), phase, and previous exposure or not to a learner-
centered method during secondary school.
Statistical analysis

. Motivation and action to learning: Seven items, the Student-t test was used to compare scores according to gender,
minimum possible score is seven and the maximum curricular language, medical school phase, and previous
possible score is 35. exposure or not to a learner-centered method during second-
. Planning and goal setting: Eight items, the minimum ary school. To compare scores between different medical
possible score is eight and the maximum possible score is curricular models, Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance was used
40. as variances were not equal. After these analyses, the Mann–
. Strategies for learning and assessment: Nineteen items, the Whitney U test was used for determining different groups.
minimum possible score is 19 and the maximum possible
score is 95.
. Lack of self-directedness: Seven items, the minimum possi-
Results
ble score is seven and the maximum possible score is 35. About 50.5% of the students who participated in study were
male, and for 74.1% of the students the curricular language
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for reliability were 0.88, 0.91,
was Turkish. 58.9% of students declared that they were not
0.83, and 0.76, respectively, for the four dimensions.
exposed to learner-centered education while in secondary
The scale’s items were prepared by taking into account the
school.
literature, expert comments, and students’ narratives on their
Seven hundred and ninety-one students completed the
learning strategies. To provide content validity, seven experts
MAI. The mean score of the scale was 99.55. There were no
were asked to evaluate the items. Sixty-six items, of which 12
statistically significant differences according to gender, curri-
were negative, were written at first. And to determine evidence
cular language, or exposure or not to a learner-centered
for construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis was
method during secondary school. However, a statistically
conducted. Items with loadings below 0.45 or where the
significant difference was found according to medical school
difference between two factors was greater than 0.1 were
phase and curricular model. The scores of students in the
dropped. The last factor analysis, which included 41 items,
preclinical phase were lower than those of students in the
produced four factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.5, and
clinical phase ( p ¼ 0.002). The MAI scores of students from
recovered 47.10% of variance. The factors explained 18.36%,
school C were found to be higher than those from schools A
16.94%, 11.95%, and 7.87% of the variance, respectively.
( p ¼ 0.000), B ( p ¼ 0.009), and D ( p ¼ 0.03); and students’
scores from school B were also greater than those from school
Metacognitive awareness inventory. The MAI, devised by
A ( p ¼ 0.005) (Table 2).
Schraw and Dennison (1994), was adopted for medical
Eight hundred and fifty-two students completed the SRLPS.
students. After the scale was translated into Turkish, two
The mean score of the scale was 143.39. The mean scores of
experts assessed the linguistic concurrence. Items were rated
the dimensions were 25.98 for motivation and action to
on a five-point Likert scale and item scores were summed to
learning, 29.48 for planning and goal setting, 68.57 for
obtain total score. The minimum possible score is 28 and the
strategies for learning and assessment, and 19.36 for lack of
maximum possible score is 140.
self-directedness. The SRLPS scores were analyzed separately
Factor analysis using varimax rotation was employed to
for total and dimension scores. Results were as follows
determine the components of MAI of the Turkish version.
(Table 3):
However, the results of the factor analysis were not included in
the theoretical definition of dimensions (see Schraw and . There was no difference according to gender in total and
Dennison (1994), for full data on scale development and dimension scores.
e479
S. Turan et al.

Table 2. Students mean scores of metacognitive awareness.

na Mean SD 2/t b
p
Gender
Female 361 98.52 16.76 t ¼ 1.84 0.066
Male 375 100.70 15.39
Phase
Preclinical 646 98.79 16.34 t ¼ 3.09 0.002
Clinicalc 145 103.62 14.32
Curricular language
Turkish 532 99.18 17.01 t ¼ 1.36 0.174
English 204 100.80 13.43
Prior exposure or not to a learner-centered method during secondary school
Yes 298 100.59 18.02 t ¼ 1.24 0.217
No 433 99.03 14.67
Curricular model
A 320 96.37 18.30 2 ¼ 25.64 0.000
B 209 100.72 13.35
C 145 104.35 14.54
D 117 100.21 14.98

a
Groups n is lower than students who answered the scale because some questions in the questionnaire were not answered. b2 ¼ Kruskal Wallis, t ¼ student-t test.
c
Out of 145 clinical students, 83 attend medical school C, and the others medical school D.

Table 3. Students mean scores of self-regulated learning perception.

Motivation and action Planning and goal Strategies for learning

to learning setting and assessment Lack of self-directedness Total

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Gendera
Women (n ¼ 389) 26.03 4.51 29.92 5.50 68.52 11.04 19.03 5.24 143.49 18.10
Men (n ¼ 404) 25.87 5.04 29.16 6.07 68.64 11.49 19.56 5.23 143.24 20.07
t 0.45 1.84  0.16  1.44 0.19
p 0.650 0.126 0.874 0.150 0.854
Phasea
Preclinical (703) 25.87 4.82 29.21 5.87 68.24 11.45 19.43 5.15 142.74 19.53
Clinical (146) 26.39 4.62 31.13 5.18 70.44 10.12 18.62 5.63 146.59 16.52
t 1.16 3.46 2.03 1.61 2.09
p 0.249 0.001 0.043 0.109 0.037
Curricular languagea
Turkish (n ¼ 639) 25.64 5.03 29.28 6.02 67.86 11.83 19.43 5.27 142.22 20.32
English (n ¼ 210) 26.82 3.93 30.23 5.09 70.61 9.24 18.93 5.15 146.58 14.82
t 3.44 2.18 3.41 1.19 3.29
p 0.001 0.03 0.001 0.234 0.001
Prior exposure or not to a learner-centered method during secondary schoola
Yes (n ¼ 348) 26.43 4.96 29.65 6.28 69.02 12.24 19.23 5.39 144.32 20.97
No (n ¼ 494) 25.60 4.66 29.45 5.44 68.27 10.56 19.37 5.14 142.69 17.77
t 2.39 0.47 0.91  0.36 1.18
p 0.017 0.640 0.362 0.720 0.239
Curricular Modela
A (n ¼ 378) 25.23 5.25 28.45 6.30 66.47 12.08 20.11 5.08 140.26 21.84
B (n ¼ 211) 26.87 3.86 30.08 5.16 70.39 9.39 18.95 5.11 146.29 15.24
C (n ¼ 146) 26.39 4.82 31.13 5.05 71.27 10.29 18.56 5.52 147.35 15.59
D (n ¼ 117) 26.27 4.03 29.64 5.44 68.73 10.96 18.70 5.03 143.39 18.97
2 16.82 24.53 23.16 16.18 20.85
p 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000

. With respect to medical school phase, clinical phase
students had higher scores than the others in planning
and goal setting ( p ¼ 0.001), in strategies for learning and
assessment ( p ¼ 0.043) and in their total score ( p ¼ 0.037).
There was no difference in the other scores.
e480
. With respect to curricular language, there was no difference
in lack of self-directedness, but a significant difference was
found in the scores of motivation and action to learning
( p ¼ 0.001), in planning and goal setting ( p ¼ 0.03), in
strategies for learning and assessment ( p ¼ 0.001), and in

Table 4. . The differing groups of students self-regulated learning
perception scores according to curricular models.
Differing groups of
Dimensions medical schools
Motivation & action to learning A–B ( p ¼ 0.000)
A–C ( p ¼ 0.015)
Planning & goal setting A–B ( p ¼ 0.003)
A–C ( p ¼ 0.000)
B–C ( p ¼ 0.036)
C–D ( p ¼ 0.010)
Strategies for learning & assessment A–B ( p ¼ 0.000)
A–C ( p ¼ 0.000)
C–D ( p ¼ 0.044)
Lack of self-directedness A–B ( p ¼ 0.000)
A–C ( p ¼ 0.001)
Total A–B ( p ¼ 0.000)
A–C ( p ¼ 0.000)
C–D ( p ¼ 0.024)
total score ( p ¼ 0.001), with students from the English
stream curriculum having higher scores than the others.
. The students who reported having previous exposure to
learner-centered methods during secondary school had
higher scores than the others in the dimension of motivation
and action to learning ( p ¼ 0.017). No difference was found
in the other dimension scores or in the total score for this
variable.
. There were significant differences in the total and all
dimension scores according to medical curricular model.
The differing groups are shown in Table 4.
Discussion
Metacognition becomes increasingly important in situations of
heightened learner self-direction, where learners are asked to
decide what, how and when to explore (Kincannon et al.
1999). Similarly, developing metacognitive strategies is impor-
tant for reaching the goals of PBL (Hmelo-Silver 2004). In this
study, the scores of the students attending the medical school
that used a PBL curriculum (C) were higher than those of the
other schools’ students, with a significant difference (Table 2).
Furthermore, inclusion of PBL into the curriculum, at a rate of
even as little as 10%, led to an increase in the metacognitive
awareness score.
The lower scores of students from school A might reflect
difficulties in the transition process. However, it is clear that
the curricular model is related to obtaining metacognitive
awareness. Other studies have also revealed that a self-
directed learning environment (Kincannon et al. 1999) and
PBL (Sungur & Tekkaya 2006) have enhanced metacognitive
skills. As shown by Cartier et al. (2001), half of the strategies
used by medical students in a PBL program were of a
metacognitive nature.
In the current study, the medical education phase had a
significant effect on the MAI score (Table 2). The MAI scores of
preclinical-phase students were lower than those of the
clinical-phase students. The relationship between metacogni-
tion and experience is known. However, it is indicated that
expert learners may monitor their comprehension and
Learning skills of medical students
retention and evaluate their own progress automatically
(Hacker 1998; Sperling et al. 2002; Gama 2004). Although
clinical-phase students are more experienced in learning, it
seems that they are conscious of their strategies but that the
metacognitive processing aspect has not yet become
automatic.
In this study, there was no statistical difference in MAI
scores according to gender, curricular language, and prior
exposure or not to a learner-centered method in secondary
school (Table 2). In contrast to our study, some studies have
implied significant differences in the use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies in favor of girls among young learners
(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons 1990; Niemivirta 1997) and
among adult learners (Bidjerano 2005). This difference has
been explained as male and female students demonstrating
differential propensity in using these strategies for learning, or
as female students perhaps being more reflective upon their
learning experiences (Bidjerano 2005).
The mean score of the SRLPS in this study was found as
143.39. All dimensions and total scores were greater than the
possible mean score ((41 þ 205)/2 ¼ 123). Shokar et al. (2002)
reported that the self-directed learning readiness scores of
third-year medical students who participated in a PBL curric-
ulum were significantly higher than the mean reported for
general adult learners.
In our study, differences in SRLPS scores between genders
were not found to be significant. In contrast to our study, some
studies have implied significant differences in the use of self-
regulated learning strategies in favor of girls (Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons 1990; Niemivirta 1997; Patrick et al. 1999; Ray
et al. 2003; Bidjerano 2005).
There were significant differences in motivation and action
to learning, strategies for learning and assessment, and total
score, with higher scores noted in the English stream
curriculum. The higher scores of these students might have
been affected by their general performance level because their
school entrance scores were also higher.
A significant difference in scores in the dimension of
motivation and action to learning was determined between
those students exposed or not to a learner-centered method
during secondary school, with students having previous
exposure scoring higher. The response in the question about
whether a learner-centered method was used at the secondary
school was limited by the students’ judgment. In any case, this
result indicates that students become motivated to learn if the
learner-centered approach begins at an early stage of
education.
Planning and goal setting and total scores according to
medical school phase were also significantly different, with
clinical-phase students having higher scores. This might be a
result of both creating more independent learning opportu-
nities in the clinical environment and being exposed to PBL.
One of the important findings of this study is that there was
a significant difference in students’ SRLSP scores according to
the medical curricular model. The total scores of the students
in the medical school that used a PBL curriculum (C) were
higher than those of the students in the school using a
traditional curriculum. Similar to that observed with the
metacognitive awareness score, the findings from the SRLSP
e481
S. Turan et al.
scores of the school in the transition process (A) were
interesting. The SRLSP scores of students from that school
were not significantly different from those of the school using
the traditional curriculum. Also in accordance with results in
metacognitive awareness, there was evidence that inclusion of
even as little as 10% of PBL into the curriculum contributes to
an increase in self-regulated learning skills, since students in
the medical school that used a PBL curriculum and those in the
school that used PBL in only 10% of the curriculum differed in
only the planning and goal setting dimension. Studies have
also confirmed that PBL improved self-directed learning skills
(Hmelo et al. 1994; Litzinger et al. 2001; Yeung et al. 2003). In
light of these findings, it could be said that PBL achieves the
goal of improving the self-directedness of medical students.
Conclusions
The findings of this study show that the students in PBL
curriculum have higher MAI and SRLSP scores. A learner-
centered approach is essential to learn those skills that are
important for attaining lifelong learning. The quantitative
evaluation of the score has shown that curriculum develop-
ment studies are needed to improve the levels of metacogni-
tive and self-regulated learning skills.
The most important limitation of the current study is that it
was descriptive in nature and did not attempt to explain a
cause and effect relationship. Nevertheless, this study provides
a hint as to where to start investigating and indicates those
methods that appear more promising for achieving improved
metacognitive awareness and self-regulated learning skills.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and
writing of the article.
Notes on contributors
S. TURAN, PhD, is a research assistant in the Department of Medical
Education, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine.
O. DEM_IREL, PhD, is Professor of Curriculum Development and Instruction
and the Head of the Department in the Department of Curriculum
Development and Instruction, Hacettepe University Faculty of Education
_I. SAYEK, MD, is Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of
Medicine, in the Hacettepe University.
References
Bahar-Ozvaris S, Aslan D, Sahin-Hodoglugil N, Sayek I. 2004. A faculty
development program evaluation: From needs assessment to long-term
effects, of the teaching skills improvement program. Teach Learn Med
16(4):368–375.
Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM. 1980. Problem-based learning: An approach to
medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Bidjerano T. 2005. Gender differences in self-regulated learning. The 36th
Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association.
Kerhonkson, NY.
Bland LS. 2005. The effects of a self-reflective learning process on student
art performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Florida State
University School of Visual Arts and Dance.
e482
Cartier S, Plante A, Tardif J. 2001. Learning by reading: Description of
learning strategies of students involved in a problem-based learning
(Research Report-143). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
452 511).
Dunlap JC. 2005. Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone
course prepares students for a profession. ETR&D 53(1):65–85.
Gama CA. 2004. Integrating metacognition instruction in interactive
learning environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Sussex, UK.
Hacker DJ. 1998. Metacognition: Definitions and Empirical Foundations.
Memphis: The University of Memphis, The University of Memphis,
11.11.2005: Available from: http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/trg/
meta.htm.
Hammann LA, Stevens RJ. 1998, April. Metacognitive awareness assessment
in self regulated learning and performance measures in an introductory
educational psychology course. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Hmelo C, Gotterer GS, Bransford JD. 1994, April. The cognitive effects of
problem-based learning: A preliminary study. Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Hmelo-Silver CE. 2004. Problem-based learning: What and how do students
learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16(3):235–266.
Hoban JD, Lawson SR, Mazmanian PE, Best AM, Seibel HR. 2005. The self
directed learning readiness scale: A factor analysis study. Med Educ
39:370–379.
Kincannon J, Gleber C, Kim J. 1999. February. The effects of metacognitive
training on performance and use metacognitive skills in self-directed
learning situation. Paper Presented at the National Convention of the
Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Houston,
TX.
Levett-Jones TL. 2005. Self-directed learning: Implications and limitations
for undergraduate nursing education. Nurs Educ Today 25:363–368.
Litzinger T, Wise J, Lee S, Simpson T, Joshi S. 2001. Assessing readiness for
lifelong learning. American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition, Albuquerque, NM.
Niemivirta M. 1997. March. Gender differences in motivational-cognitive
patterns of self-regulated learning. Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Paris SG, Paris AH. 2001. Classroom applications of research on self-
regulated learning. Educ Psychol 36(2):89–101.
Patrick H, Ryan AM, Pintrich PR. 1999. The differential impact of extrinsic
and mastery goal orientations on males’ and females’ self-regulated
learning. Learn Individ Differ 11(2):153–171.
Putnam AR. 2001. Problem-based teaching and learning in technology
education. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the
Association for Career and Technical Education, New Orleans, LA.
Ray MW, Garavalia L, Gredler ME. 2003. April. Gender differences in self-
regulated learning, task value, and achievement in developmental
college students. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Sayek _I, Kiper N, Odabas¸{ O. 2006. Mezuniyet öncesi t{p eğitimi raporu.
Ankara: Türk Tabipleri Birliği.
Schraw G, Dennison RS. 1994. Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemp Educ Psychol 19:460–475.
Shokar GS, Shokar NK, Romero CM, Bulik RJ. 2002. Self-directed learning:
Looking at outcomes with medical student. Fam Med 34(3):197–200.
Sperling RA, Howard BC, Miller LA, Murphy C. 2002. Measures of children’s
knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemp Educ Psychol
27:51–79.
Sperling RA, Howard BC, Staley R, DuBois N. 2004. Metacognition and self-
regulated learning cunstructs. Educ Res Eval 10(2):117–139.
Sungur S, Tekkaya C. 2006. Effects of problem-based learning and
traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. J Educ Res
99(5):307–317.
Winne PH, Perry NE. 2005. Measuring self regulated learning.
In: Boekarters M, Pintrich PR, ve Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of
self regulation. San Diego: Academic Press. pp 532–566.
Winne PH. 1996. A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-
regulated learning. Learn Individ Differ 8(4):327–353.

Wood DF. 2003. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine problem based
learning. BMJ 326:328–330.
Yeung E, Au-Yeung S, Chiu T, Mok N, Lai P. 2003. Problem design in
problem-based learning: Evaluating students’ learning and self-directed
learning practice. Innov Educ Teach Int 40(3):237–244.
Zimmerman BJ, Martinez-Pons M. 1990. Student differences in self-
regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy
and strategy use. J Educ Psychol 82(1):51–59.
Appendix: Dimensions and items of
the SRLPS
Motivation and action to learning
. I take action to learn according to my interests.
. I search for possibilities to learn new things.
. When faced with a problem, I take action to solve it.
. I take every opportunity to learn new things.
. I am curious about the causes of things I see, hear or read.
. I attentively observe/examine things around me.
. I derive new learning assignments for myself from the
things I observe around me.
Planning and goal setting
. I make a plan to utilize resources and strategies in order to
reach my goal.
. I make a plan as to how I will carry out the learning process.
. I prioritize my goals.
. I manage my time in order to learn as efficiently as possible.
. I make a plan to utilize learning resources efficiently.
. I identify the resources needed during the learning
process.
. I clearly identify the objectives to be achieved at the end of
the learning process.
. I identify the learning materials that will help me to learn.
Strategies for learning and assessment
. I search for ways to facilitate learning in new situations.
. After any learning assignment, I assess whether I learned
the material completely.
. I use different learning strategies for the acquired knowl-
edge to be sustainable.
. I search for new strategies if those used in implementing my
plan are inadequate.
. I use different learning strategies for the knowledge I
acquire to be meaningful.
Learning skills of medical students
Zimmerman BJ. 1998. Academic studying and the development of personal
skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educ Psychol 5(2/3):73–86.
Zimmerman BJ. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.
Theor Pract 41(2):64–72.
Zimmerman BJ. 1990. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
An overview. Educ Psychol 25(1):3–17.
Zimmerman BJ. 1995. Self-regulation involves more then metacognition: A
social cognitive perspective. Educ Psychol 30(4):217–221.
. I assess whether or not my goals are accomplished.
. I strive to eliminate any difficulties I face during the learning
process.
. I continuously improve my problem–solving methods.
. I strive to improve my weaknesses in learning.
. I choose the most appropriate learning approach to reach
my goal.
. I evaluate my mistakes during the learning process and
learn from them.
. After accomplishing my objective(s), I identify new goals to
achieve.
. I evaluate my learning approaches to see if they really help
me learn.
. I use my own strategies of learning.
. I apply my newly acquired knowledge into new problem
states.
. I experiment with new learning strategies until I learn the
material completely.
. I objectively judge my work during the learning process.
. I explore other peoples’ methods of problem solving.
. I compare other peoples’ problem solving strategies with
my own.
Lack of self-directedness
. I wait for other people to tell me what to do in order to
learn.
. I have difficulties in determining how I should study a
particular subject.
. I wait for other people to provide me with the important
knowledge that I have to learn.
. When faced with difficulties in solving a problem, I prefer
other people to solve it.
. The instructor is primarily responsible for my learning.
. I prefer to wait for someone to instruct me as to how to
study.
. I face problems in identifying how I should start to study.
e483