Fostering Self-Regulated Learning

Through the European Language

Portfolio: An Embedded
Mixed Methods Study
NICHOLAS ALLAN ZIEGLER
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education
118 Henzlik Hall
Lincoln, NE 68588-0355
Email: nick.ziegler@huskers.unl.edu

The European Language Portfolio (ELP) is an alternative assessment used in foreign language classes
throughout Europe to support and record language learning. Directly linked to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) proficiency guidelines, it is designed
to achieve an ambitious dual goal: document students’ skills and foster self-regulated learners. The
question remains whether the ELP accomplishes its desired effect. To investigate it, the researcher
employed an embedded mixed methods design in Saxony, Germany, comprising a total of 575 students
in 28 classes with 19 teachers in 6 schools. In a preliminary two-group quasi-experimental phase, students
using the ELP (n ¼ 318) reported higher mastery goal orientation, task value, academic self-efficacy, self-
regulatory efficacy, and instructor evaluations. The ELP’s effect increased with its frequency of use.
Investigation into teachers’ pedagogical beliefs revealed no statistical difference, strengthening the
attribution of the results to ELP use. To reveal a more complete understanding of the ELP’s effect, semi-
structured interviews investigating student and teacher perception of the ELP were conducted with a
purposefully selected subgroup of participants using the ELP. Interviews included open-ended prompts
designed to illustrate the quantitative results. This study provides strong empirical evidence supporting
the claim that the ELP accomplishes its pedagogical purpose.
Keywords: self-regulated learning; autonomy; academic self-efficacy; motivation; alternative assessments;
mixed methods

SELF-REGULATED LEARNERS ARE AGENTS
who control their own learning processes
(Bandura, 2001). They value learning and believe
they will succeed if they use effective strategies to
accomplish their learning goals. Understanding
that their current aptitude is the result of past
effort, they have an incremental view of their
emerging ability. As such, success or failure to
obtain learning goals is interpreted as a result of
the strategies used. Accurate self-evaluations of
The Modern Language Journal, 98, 4, (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12147
0026-7902/14/921–936 $1.50/0
© 2014 The Modern Language Journal
ability enable them to set cognitively challenging
goals, reinforcing their intrinsic interest. A strong
metacognitive understanding of their learning
process informs their action plans and strategy
monitoring toward goal attainment. They enjoy
learning and persist when confronted with
adversity, adjusting strategies and goals as needed.
Upon goal completion, they reflect both on their
products—to evaluate the quality of their work—
and their learning process—to ensure future
success.
Fostering these qualities in our students is not
only essential for their success academically, but
also professionally. As students move from the
classroom to the boardroom, or any other room
for that matter, they need to develop the capacity
922
to solve the ill-defined challenges of our society,
which differ significantly from the well-defined
problems associated with high-stakes, standard-
ized tests. There is a need to develop curricula
designed not only to ensure the uptake of
rigorous requirements, but also to foster self-
regulated learning. Within the context of the
foreign language classroom, the European
Language Portfolio (ELP) does just that. The
ELP is an alternative, portfolio-based assessment
designed with the pedagogical purpose of foster-
ing self-regulated learning (Little, Gouillier, &
Hughes, 2011).
This study investigates whether the ELP accom-
plishes its desired effect using an embedded
mixed methods design. A quasi-experimental
study was embedded into a rigorous explanatory
sequential (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) design.
This initial quantitative phase focused on the
effect the ELP has on students, investigating
whether students using the ELP are more
autonomous, self-regulated learners. Within the
experimental group, items were added to
the survey that addressed student and teacher
perception of the ELP. Following the quantitative
component, semi-structured interviews with a
purposefully selected subgroup of students and
teachers using the ELP further explored their
perception of the ELP. In accordance with
explanatory sequential mixed methods designs,
the qualitative data serve to illustrate the quanti-
tative data, producing a deeper understanding of
how the European Language Portfolio impacts
students.
SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
Personal Characteristics of Self-Regulated Learners
Social cognitive theory depicts self-regulated
learning as a result of reciprocal interactions
among personal characteristics, behaviors, and
environmental variables (Schunk, 2001). Central
to the self-regulated learner’s belief system is
academic self-efficacy (Bandura & Locke, 2003).
The belief that one will succeed is the basis for a
perception of agency and plays a causal role in
academic motivation (Zimmerman, 2000). Self-
efficacy mediates academic performance cogni-
tively, motivationally, and affectively (Chemers,
Hu, & Garcia, 2001).
Cognitively, having confidence in one’s ability
influences choice of academic activities and
enables a more pensive approach to academic
challenges, thereby encouraging strategic attri-
butions (Zimmerman, 2000). Strategic attribu-
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
tions refer to one’s control beliefs, or locus of
control. The most psychologically adaptable
belief structure is that current ability is the result
of effort (a changeable, innately controlled
variable) (see Weiner, 2005). The belief that
ability increases through effort empowers stu-
dents with the knowledge that they can learn any
content when they use effective strategies. This
supports academic persistence and achievement.
Motivationally, students with higher academic
self-efficacy will set more challenging learning
objectives (Locke & Lathan, 2002). Achievement
goal theory differentiates between two sets of
adaptive learning goals: mastery approach and
performance approach. Mastery approach goals
are defined as those designed to develop compe-
tence (i.e., I want to learn how to speak Spanish);
performance approach goals are those designed
to demonstrate competence (i.e., I want my
classmates, parents, teachers, etc. to think I speak
Spanish well) (Elliot, 2005). It is generally accepted
that, while mastery approach goals are related to
higher intrinsic interest and task value, perfor-
mance approach goals are associated with greater
achievement (Harackiewicz et al., 2002). Hence,
instead of a dichotomous effect, having both a
high mastery approach goal orientation and a
high performance approach goal orientation may be
the most psychologically adaptable combination.
Affectively, high academic self-efficacy miti-
gates the negative effects related to academic
challenges (Carver & Scheier, 2005). For students
with high academic self-efficacy, challenges are
more likely to be perceived as manageable
stressors that can be overcome, leading to
persistence toward goal attainment (Bandura,
1986). Academic success fosters higher academic
self-efficacy by producing a positive emotional
self-reaction to learning. This increases intrinsic
interest in and task value of the subject area
(Zimmerman, 2000). Creating a snowball effect,
those who have higher academic self-efficacy tend
to persevere when faced with adversity and
achieve their goal, resulting in increased academ-
ic self-efficacy. Conversely, those who have lower
academic self-efficacy tend to respond negatively
to academic challenges, more readily capitulating
to pressure. This reinforces their negative self-
image and can result in learned helplessness
(Stipek, 1988).
Behavioral Processes of Self-Regulated Learning
Self-regulated learning is a cyclical process
(Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman & Kitsansas, 2005)
that can be divided into three subprocesses:
Nicholas Allan Ziegler
forethought before, performance control during,
and self-reflection after learning occurs (see
Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004; Schunk, 2005).
During the forethought phase, students decide
what and how they are going to learn. Motivation-
al constructs such as task value, self-efficacy, and
goal orientation all play critical roles in choosing
a task. Setting challenging learning objectives
requires accurate self-judgments of ability in
relation to the curricular standards. After goal
setting, students employ their metacognitive
understanding of learning to develop a strategic
plan for goal attainment.
In the performance control phase, students put
their plans into action. Students engage in self-
monitoring of strategies in relation to goals.
Successful goal attainment may require the
revision of the forethought phase to reassess
strategies and/or goals. Persistence is key.
During the self-reflection phase, students
evaluate both learning products and processes.
External (learning products) and internal (abili-
ty) judgments are made referencing the curricu-
lum’s standards. Accuracy depends on the quality
of the individual’s understanding of these stand-
ards. Because the degree of success in goal
attainment is attributed to the strategies used in
the performance control phase, those strategies
are reevaluated to establish their effectiveness.
While the self-regulated learning process is
cyclical in nature, the “phases are also interactive
in that individuals may simultaneously engage
in more than one” (Schunk, 2005, p. 86). This is
especially true when considering long-term goals,
which often require various short-term goals. In
this example, after finishing the first step toward
the long-term goal, the individual may simulta-
neously self-reflect on the quality of the progress
made while reconsidering the action plan going
forward.
Environmental Variables
Research on the environmental variables asso-
ciated with self-regulated learning has focused on
interventions designed to scaffold the behavioral
processes and personal characteristics of self-
regulated learning. In an experimental study by
Kitsansas, Reiser, and Doster (2004), 94 students
were randomly assigned to eight different treat-
ment conditions with combinations of goal-
setting, self-evaluation, and organizational sig-
nals. Results indicated that both goal-setting and
self-evaluation had positive impacts on students’
self-efficacy, strategic attributions, and satisfac-
tion with their performance and procedural skills.
923
In another study utilizing an experimental design
with 99 college students, Chang (2007) found
engaging students in self-monitoring and self-
evaluation had a positive effect on their achieve-
ment and motivational beliefs.
Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) provide a tem-
plate for classroom-based interventions designed to
foster self-regulated learning in their description of
the Self-Regulation Empowerment Program, which
requires students to set goals, self-monitor strategy
use, make strategic attributions, and adjust goals
and strategies to meet needs. Investigation into
whether the program has its desired effect was
promising. Cleary, Platten, and Nelson (2008)
reported that engaging high-needs students with
this program led to gains in academic performance,
a greater use of adaptive self-regulatory strategies,
and higher self-efficacy.
This literature review has illustrated the per-
sonal characteristics, behavioral processes, and
environmental variables associated with self-
regulated learning. The emerging picture is that
interventions, environmental variables that are
carefully designed to engage students in activities,
and behavioral processes that are consistent with
the cyclical nature of self-regulated learning
effectively elicit the psychological constructs and
personal characteristics that are attributed to self-
regulated learners. With this in mind, we turn to
the intervention investigated in this study: the
European Language Portfolio.
THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGE PORTFOLIO
The Council of Europe’s European Language
Portfolio (ELP) was developed “to provide a
detailed cumulative record of the user’s experi-
ence of second- and foreign-language (L2)
learning and use” (Little, 2012, p. 9). The ELP
has two functions: It documents the users’ level of
proficiency following the guidelines delineated by
the Common European Framework of Reference
(reporting function) and provides foreign lan-
guage teachers a framework for fostering process-
es associated with self-regulated, or autonomous,
learning (pedagogical function). To accomplish
this ambitious goal, the ELP is comprised of three
separate but interacting components: Passport,
Biography, and Dossier. Little et al. (2011)
explain the three parts as: “a language passport,
which summarizes the owner’s linguistic identity
by briefly recording second/foreign languages
(L2s) learnt, formal language qualifications
achieved, significant experiences of L2 use, and
the owner’s assessment of his/her current profi-
ciency in the L2(s) he/she know(s); a language
924
biography, which is used to set language learning
targets, monitor progress, and record and reflect
on especially important language learning and
intercultural experiences; and a dossier, which can
serve both a process and a display function, being
used to store work in progress but also to present a
selection of work that, in the owner’s judgment,
best represents his/her L2 proficiency” (p. 7).
Rather than an explicit teaching method or
curriculum, the ELP provides teachers and
students a bank of activities designed to help
learners plan, monitor, and reflect on language
learning, which can be adapted to any foreign
language curriculum (see Little & Perclová,
2001). These activities engage learners in the
processes of self-assessing ability, developing
effective learning strategies, setting learning
goals, providing proof of ability, and reflecting
on finished products.
Research into using the European Language
Portfolio as an intervention for fostering self-
regulated learners is promising. The final report
on the ELP’s pilot project phase included
quantitative and qualitative data collected from
more than 30,000 participants across 16 partici-
pating countries (Schärer, 2000). Schärer con-
cluded that overall “the ELP was perceived and
highly valued by a large proportion of learners
and teachers in the pilot projects . . . [and that]
there is some evidence that the ELP will have a
positive effect on learning in general” (p. 14). A
difficulty, however, in evaluating this positive
effect has been an overreliance on descriptive
statistics and anecdotal evidence (see Schärer,
2008).
In an empirical investigation into the Lingua-
Folio (the American adaptation of the European
Language Portfolio), Moeller, Theiler, and Wu
(2012) linked language learners’ ability to goals of
increased achievement, higher motivation, and
growth in proficiency in a 5-year longitudinal
quasi-experimental study with 1,273 high school
students. In a separate quasi-experimental study,
Ziegler and Moeller (2012) linked LinguaFolio
use to increased task value, mastery goal orienta-
tion, and accuracy in self-assessment among
university students.
While ELP use throughout Europe is on the rise
(Schärer, 2008), it is far from universally adopted.
Little et al. (2011) wrote, “the ELP will continue
to thrive and develop, however, only if its effect
on the learning, teaching and assessment of
language skills can be convincingly shown to be
positive” (p. 16). The current study employs an
embedded mixed methods design to evaluate
whether the European Language Portfolio is
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
accomplishing its pedagogical purpose of foster-
ing self-regulated learners.
METHOD
The purpose of the current study is to evaluate
the validity of the ELP as a means for fostering
self-regulated learners using an embedded
mixed methods design. This is an advanced
mixed methods design (see Figure 1) that “occurs
when the researcher collects and analyzes both
quantitative and qualitative data within a tradi-
tional quantitative or qualitative design” (Creswell
& Plano Clark, 2011, p. 71). This is an umbrella
term that can refer to a multitude of combinations
of quantitative and qualitative strands. Specific to
this study, a quasi-experimental design is em-
ployed as the quantitative phase of an explanatory
sequential mixed methods design. The explana-
tory sequential design begins with a quantitative
phase that informs the consequent qualitative
phase through the methods level strategies of
connecting (i.e., analysis of one strand informs
the sampling strategy in the other), building (i.e.,
analysis of one strand informs the data collection
of the other), merging (i.e., investigating parallel
constructs in both strands to facilitate compari-
son), and/or embedding (i.e., linking data
collection and analysis at multiple points) (Fet-
ters, Curry, & Creswell, 2013). The purpose of the
qualitative phase is to produce meta-inferences
that explain, or illustrate, the quantitative results
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Following a
pragmatic world view, mixing the quantitative
and qualitative methods allows for a more fruitful
interpretation of findings, providing “the best
opportunities for answering important research
questions” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004,
p. 16).
PROCEDURES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In Saxony, Germany, ELP use is not mandatory
and the decision to use the ELP is typically made
at the school level. This allowed the researcher to
use referral sampling to establish an experimental
group of schools that use the ELP and a control
group of schools that do not. In total, the
experimental group included 318 students using
the ELP in classes ranging from grades four
through nine in four different schools with 12
different teachers (see Figure 1). Two hundred
fifty-seven students not using the ELP in classes
five through nine at two different schools with
seven teachers comprised the control group. All
participating students were enrolled in daily
Nicholas Allan Ziegler
FIGURE 1
Procedural Diagram: Embedded Mixed Methods Study
Note. SRL ¼ Self-regulated learning; TB ¼ Teacher beliefs; ELP ¼ European Language Portfolio.
English as a foreign language classes, a required
class. Within the experimental group, students
began using the ELP in the third grade (exclud-
ing a nominal number of students who had
moved into the schools after the third grade). The
cross-sectional sample of student age groups
provides the ability to infer ELP impact over
time in comparison to students not using the ELP
in the control group. All schools were located in
the same city in Saxony, Germany, and had similar
demographics, including socioeconomic status.
The large sample size helps to mitigate the
limitation that this is not a true experimental
study.
In the present study, both the quantitative,
quasi-experimental phase and the qualitative,
follow-up interviews phase investigated what is
here referred to as units of analysis: students and
teachers. Due to the complexity of the embedded
mixed methods design and for the purpose of
clarity in reporting the findings, the research
questions are divided into two sections: quasi-
experimental and mixed methods (see Table 1).
Quasi-Experimental Phase
Surveys measuring variables associated with self-
regulated learning were administered to students
925
in both the control and experimental groups to
investigate significant differences. Teacher sur-
veys were also conducted investigating teachers’
pedagogical beliefs to account for this extraneous
environmental variable. Within the experimental
group, items were added to the survey addressing
perception of the ELP for both students and
teachers. Inclusion of the ELP items enabled
investigating how student perception of the ELP
related to the measures for self-regulated learn-
ing, as well as how teacher perception of the ELP
related to measures of pedagogical beliefs.
Student Surveys. Measures for the motivational
characteristics of self-regulated learners (mastery
approach goal orientation, performance ap-
proach goal orientation, task value, academic
self-efficacy, and strategic attributions) were
adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learn-
ing Questionnaire (Pintrich et al., 1991) and the
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley
et al., 2000) survey. The reliability of all measures
(Cronbach’s alpha) is reported to be above .73
(Midgley et al., 2000; Pintrich et al., 1991). Tseng,
Dörnyei, and Schmitt’s (2006) measurement for
self-regulated learning in vocabulary acquisition
(SRLvoc) was adapted to provide a measure for
926 The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
TABLE 1
Research Questions: Embedded Mixed Methods Study

Quasi-Experimental
Research Questions
Mixed Methods Research
Questions
Unit of Analysis
Students
RQ1. Do students using the ELP differ
significantly from those not using
the ELP on qualities associated with
autonomous learning?
RQ2. How do students’ ELP beliefs
relate to measures for self-regulated
learning?
RQ5. How do students perceive the
ELP?
RQ6. How do the qualitative findings
help explain the QUANTITATIVE
results?
Teachers
RQ3. Do teachers using the ELP have
significantly different pedagogical
beliefs than teachers not using
the ELP?
RQ4. How do teachers’ ELP beliefs
relate to measures for their
pedagogical beliefs?
RQ7. How do teachers perceive the
ELP?
RQ8. How do the qualitative findings
help explain the QUANTITATIVE
results?

the behavioral processes of self-regulated learn-
ers. The SRLvoc addresses commitment control
(e.g., I never give up before reaching my word-learning
goals), metacognitive control (e.g., I use special
methods so as not to lose my concentration when learning
words), satiation control (e.g., I am happy with how
I avoid boredom when learning words), emotional
control (e.g., I know how to reduce stress while
learning vocabulary), and environmental control
(e.g., When I learn new words, I look for a good place
to study). The reliability of these measures
(Cronbach’s alpha) is reported to be above .71
(Tseng et al., 2006). Together, the results were
averaged and are referred to as students’ self-
regulatory efficacy. Student questionnaires also
included two questions asking them to evaluate
their instructor (e.g., I think my teacher does his/her
job well).
For those students using the ELP, six items were
included to assess their evaluation of the ELP.
These six items consisted of two for efficacy in
using the ELP (e.g., I know how to use the ELP), two
for the task value of the ELP (e.g., The ELP is
important to me), and two for the learners’ self-
reactions to the ELP (e.g., I enjoy using the ELP).
The average of these six items constituted
students’ ELP evaluations.
All items were translated into the students’
native tongue (German) and administered along
a 5-point “smiley” assessment, whereby, on the
one side, signified “I completely agree” and
means “I completely disagree.” The “smiley”
system enabled all students (grades 4–9) to answer
the same questionnaire. Data were transferred to a
5-point Likert scale with 1 representing “I completely
disagree” and 5 representing “I completely agree”.
Findings were analyzed using a combination of
descriptive and inferential statistics.
Teacher Surveys. The teacher questionnaire
included items assessing teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs. Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were oper-
ationalized using Epstein’s (1987) TARGET
acronym for classroom structures that foster
mastery or performance goal orientation in
students. These items were informed by Ames’s
(1992) article investigating the effects of task,
evaluation, and grouping on student goal orien-
tation. Three items were developed for each task,
evaluation, and grouping for both classroom
structures fostering mastery goal orientation
and performance goal orientation. These items
were consistent with those included on the PALS
survey, which report reliability levels (Cronbach’s
alpha) above .7 (Midgley et al., 2000). The
average of these items composed the teachers’
mastery and performance orientations.
For teachers in the experimental group, items
were also included assessing the ELP. These were
very similar to those included on the student
evaluations. Teachers evaluated their efficacy
integrating the ELP, ELP task value, and their
perception of students’ self-reactions and re-
ported how frequently in one academic year
they integrate activities from the ELP designed to
help students plan, monitor, or reflect on
language learning. The average of these four
ELP items comprised their ELP evaluations. All
items were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale with
7 being “I completely agree” and 1 “I completely
disagree.” Findings were analyzed using a combi-
nation of descriptive and inferential statistics.
Nicholas Allan Ziegler
Mixed Methods
The constructs pertaining to perception of the
ELP (task value, efficacy, and self-reaction)
included in the quasi-experimental phase were
further investigated using semi-structured inter-
views designed to substantiate findings from the
quantitative phase. The transition from the
quantitative to the qualitative phases of the study
constitutes the first interaction between the
quantitative and the qualitative data sets as the
selection of the participants to be interviewed was
informed by the quantitative surveys.
Student and Teacher Interviews. To illustrate
the ELP’s effect on students, the researcher
selected the four teachers who had been using
the ELP the longest as participants for a deeper,
qualitative analysis of their ELP perception and
implementation. In these semi-structured inter-
views, teachers were asked a series of open-ended
questions designed to substantiate the surveys.
After receiving permission from the state of
Saxony, the directors of their schools (four
different schools), the teachers, the students,
and the students’ parents, a total of 21 students
were also selected for interviews. The selection of
the students was informed by the students’
responses to the questionnaires: In each class-
room, a student with a low assessment of the ELP,
an average assessment of the ELP, and a high
assessment was chosen. The researcher also
attempted to spread the selection of students
across the age groups included in the study: six
fourth graders, three fifth graders, three seventh
graders, six eighth graders, and three ninth
graders. Similar to the teacher interviews, student
interviews were designed to substantiate the
student questionnaires by asking students to
explain how they use the ELP (self-efficacy),
why they use the ELP (task value), and what they
like and dislike about learning with the ELP (self-
reaction). Interviews were transcribed and coded
to find emergent themes. Organizing the inter-
views around the constructs investigated in the
quantitative phase allows for inferences to be
drawn between the qualitative and quantitative
findings.
Drawing Inferences. The purpose of an explan-
atory mixed methods design is for the qualitative
findings to substantiate or explain the qualitative
findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This
requires the researcher to draw inferences
between the two data sets, enabling a more
complete understanding of a phenomenon.
Two analysis-level strategies for conveying the
927
interpretation of the two divergent data sets
together include joint displays and side-by-side
comparisons (Fetters et al., 2013).
Joint displays illustrate both the quantitative
and the qualitative findings in one matrix (as
shown in Table 6 of this article). This facilitates
data comparison, an analysis-level strategy for
generating meta-inferences (see Onwuegbuzie &
Teddlie, 2003), and allows a researcher to
concisely report the inferences drawn. The
construction of joint displays depends on the
type of mixed methods study conducted. This
embedded mixed methods study begins with a
quantitative phase, which includes a survey
investigating three aspects of student and teacher
perception of the European Language Portfolio.
Therefore, the joint display begins by naming and
illustrating the constructs investigated. Next, the
quantitative findings are reported, followed by
quotes from the qualitative interviews. Because
this study emphasizes quantitative findings, quan-
titative is abbreviated “QUAN” and qualitative is
abbreviated “qual.” The final column includes the
inferences drawn between the quantitative and
qualitative findings for each of the constructs
investigated.
This joint display is further explained using
side-by-side comparisons throughout the report-
ing of the mixed methods results. This lengthier,
textually based method for conveying the integra-
tion of the quantitative and qualitative findings
allows the researcher to present the inferences
that can be drawn in more depth (Fetters et al.,
2013). The construction of the side-by-side
comparison will also change depending on the
type of mixed methods study conducted. Because
this embedded mixed methods study begins with
a quantitative, quasi-experimental phase, the
quantitative findings are presented first, followed
by the qualitative. Next, the inferences drawn
from the integration of the two data sets are
included, with a focus on how the qualitative
findings help to explain the quantitative findings.
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Students
RQ1. Do students using the ELP differ significantly
from those not using the ELP on qualities
associated with autonomous learning?
Table 2 shows the estimated means (based on a
5-point Likert scale) and standard errors for the
variables measured on the student questionnaires
resulting from a MANOVA test using grade level
928 The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
TABLE 2
Quasi-Experimental Results: Student Self-Regulated Learning

MGO PGO TV ASE SB SRE IE

Experimental group mean (n ¼ 318) 4.08 3.24 4.08 3.98 3.51 3.34 4.17
Std. error .58 .75 .70 .63 .70 .65 .83
Control group mean (n ¼ 257) 3.88 3.21 3.85 3.78 3.48 3.04 3.96
Std. error .65 .79 .83 .68 .69 .55 .88
F 14.79 ns 12.14 13.67 ns 37.60 9.27
p < .001 ns < .001 < .001 ns < .001 .002
h2 .025 ns .021 .023 ns .062 .016
Note. MGO ¼ mastery goal orientation; PGO ¼ performance goal orientation; TV ¼ task value; ASE ¼ academic
self-efficacy; SB ¼ strategic belief; SRE ¼ self-regulatory efficacy; IE ¼ instructor evaluation; ns ¼ not significant.

as a covariate. Data met all assumptions of
inferential statistics. Cohen’s (1992) benchmarks
regard eta squared (h2) effect sizes as “small” at
.01, “medium” at .06, and “large” at .14. Students
in the ELP experimental group reported higher
mean mastery goal orientation (F ¼ 14.79,
p < .001, h2 ¼ .025), higher task value (F ¼ 12.14,
p < .001, h2 ¼ .021), higher academic self-efficacy
(F ¼ 13.67, p < .001, h2 ¼ .023), higher self-regula-
tory efficacy (F ¼ 37.60, p < .001, h2 ¼ .062), and
higher instructor evaluations (F ¼ 9.27, p ¼ .002,
h2 ¼ .016). Due to the small effect sizes (with
the exception of self-regulatory efficacy), it
was decided to further investigate the relation
between ELP use and the dependent variables.
Further examination of the experimental
group was enabled by teacher responses on
questionnaires as to how often they integrated
the ELP in an academic year. One group of
teachers reported using the ELP 0 to 1 times,
another 3 to 4 times, and a final group 7 and more
times. Table 3 shows student responses on
the questionnaires divided into the subgroups
according to ELP frequency. Based on Cohen’s
(1992) benchmarks for effect sizes, correlation
coefficients are considered “small” at .1,
“medium” at .3, and “large” at .5 and above.
There were positive correlations between the
frequency of ELP use and higher reported
mastery goal orientation (r ¼ .14, p ¼ .013),
task value (r ¼ .243, p < .001), self-regulatory
efficacy (r ¼ .241, p < .001), instructor evaluation
(r ¼ .281, p < .001), and ELP evaluation (r ¼ .54,
p < .001).
These modest correlations (with the exception
of students’ ELP evaluations) were further
substantiated through subsequent MANOVA
analysis, using grade level as a covariate and

TABLE 3
ELP Frequency and Student Self-Regulated Learning: Correlation and MANOVA Results

ELP Frequency MGO PGO TV ASE SB SRE ELP IE

0 to 1 mean (n ¼ 131) 3.98 3.16 3.92 3.94 3.50 3.22 2.84 3.91
Std. error .39 .69 .65 .61 .63 .61 .76 .91
3 to 4 mean (n ¼ 97) 4.14 3.21 4.06 3.95 3.61 3.26 3.23 4.26
Std. error .53 .71 .71 .60 .73 .58 .75 .71
7 or more mean (n ¼ 90) 4.17 3.37 4.36 4.08 3.42 3.60 4.07 4.45
Std. error .56 .87 .69 .71 .77 .67 .74 .65
r .140 ns .243 ns ns .241 .540 .281
p .013 ns < .001 ns ns < .001 < .001 < .001
F 3.64 ns 10.01 ns ns 11.59 68.47 13.50
p .027 ns < .001 ns ns < .001 < .001 < .001
h2 .023 ns .06 ns ns .069 .306 .080
1 to 4 ns ns ns ns ns ns .001 .003
1 to 7 .049 ns < .001 ns ns <.001 <.001 <.001
4 to 7 ns ns .023 ns ns .001 <.001 ns
Note. MGO ¼ mastery goal orientation; PGO ¼ performance goal orientation; TV ¼ task value; ASE ¼ academic
self-efficacy; SB ¼ strategic belief; SRE ¼ self-regulatory efficacy; ELP ¼ european language portfolio; IE ¼
instructor evaluation; ns ¼ not significant.
Nicholas Allan Ziegler
Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.
Data met all assumptions of inferential statistics.
There were significant differences among stu-
dents according to ELP frequency in reported
mastery goal orientation (F ¼ 3.65, p ¼ .027,
h2 ¼ .023), task value (F ¼ 10.01, p < .001, h2 ¼
.06), self-regulatory efficacy (F ¼ 11.59, p < .001,
h2 ¼ .069), instructor evaluations (F ¼ 13.50,
p < .001, h2 ¼ .080), and ELP evaluations
(F ¼ 68.47, p < .001, h2 ¼ .306).
Compared to students using the ELP 0 to 1
times per academic year, those using the ELP 7þ
times per academic year reported a higher mean
mastery goal orientation (mean difference ¼ .19,
p ¼ .048), task value (mean difference ¼ .415,
p < .001), self-regulatory efficacy (mean differ-
ence ¼ .380, p < .001), instructor evaluations
(mean difference ¼ .546, p < .001), and ELP
evaluations (mean difference ¼ 1.231, p < .001).
Compared to students using the ELP 0 to 1 times,
those using the ELP 3 to 4 times reported higher
instructor evaluations (mean difference ¼ .357,
p ¼ .003) and ELP evaluations (mean difference
¼ .389, p ¼ .001). Finally, compared to students
using the ELP 3 to 4 times, those using the ELP 7
or more times reported higher task value (mean
difference ¼ .271, p ¼ .021), higher self-regulatory
efficacy (mean difference ¼ .336, p ¼ .001), and
higher ELP evaluations (mean difference ¼ .842,
p < .001).
These findings show not only that there were
significant differences between the control group
not using the ELP and the experimental group
(mastery goal orientation, task value, academic
self-efficacy, self-regulatory efficacy, and instruc-
tor evaluations), but also that there were signifi-
cant differences within the experimental group
according to the frequency of ELP use in the
classroom. Strengthening the attribution of these
differences to ELP use, there were no significant
differences in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
among teachers using the ELP and teachers not
using the ELP.
Furthermore, significant linear correlation
between the frequency of ELP use and self-
TABLE 4
Students’ ELP Beliefs and Measures for Student Self-Regulated Learning
MGO PGO TV
r .292 .154 .326
p < .001 .006 < .001
Note. MGO ¼ mastery goal orientation; PGO ¼ performance goal orientation; TV ¼ task value; ASE ¼ academic
self-efficacy; SB ¼ strategic belief; SRE ¼ self-regulatory efficacy; ELP ¼ European Language Portfolio;
IE ¼ instructor evaluation; ns ¼ not significant.
929
regulated learning variables on the student
questionnaire (mastery goal orientation, instruc-
tor evaluation, task value, self-regulatory efficacy,
and student assessment of the ELP) was substan-
tiated through univariate tests revealing signifi-
cant differences between groups based on ELP
use. In other words, students using the ELP
exhibited traits more consistent with self-regulat-
ed learners than students not using the ELP, and
the more frequently teachers integrated the ELP,
the better.
RQ2. How do students’ ELP beliefs relate to
measures for self-regulated learning?
Table 4 shows correlations between student
average answers on ELP-specific items and the
measures for self-regulated learning. Due to the
significant correlation between grade level and
ELP beliefs (r ¼ .199, p < .001), partial correla-
tions were calculated controlling for students’
grade level. All p-values reported are products of
two-tailed significance tests. Compared to their
peers, students who liked the ELP the most also
tended to have higher mastery goal orientations
(r ¼ .292, p < .001), higher performance goal
orientations (r ¼ .154, p ¼ .006), valued learning
English more (r ¼ .326, p < .001), liked their
teacher more (r ¼ .267, p < .001), and had
a higher self-regulatory efficacy (r ¼ .385,
p < .001). The control group belief that effort
increases ability and the measure for academic
self-efficacy did not produce significant correla-
tions to ELP-specific items.
Teachers
RQ3. Do teachers using the ELP have significantly
different pedagogical beliefs than teachers
not using the ELP?
ANOVA tests were conducted for the mean
scores resulting from the teacher survey for both
beliefs fostering mastery orientation and perfor-
mance orientation. Teachers in the experimental
ASE SB SRE IE
.102 .048 .385 .267
ns ns < .001 < .001
930
group (mastery M ¼ 5.67, SD ¼ .74; performance
M ¼ 3.73, SD ¼ .74) did not report pedagogical
beliefs that were significantly different (mastery
F ¼ .41, p ¼ .530; performance F ¼ .30, p ¼ .589)
from those in the control group (mastery
M ¼ 5.82, SD ¼ .39; performance M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼
.92). Accounting for one of the environmental
factors that could influence students’ capacity for
self-regulated learning, this helps attribute differ-
ences among the student measures to the use of
the European Language Portfolio.
RQ4. How do teachers’ ELP beliefs relate to
measures for their pedagogical beliefs?
Table 5 provides the mean scores for the
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs that support a
mastery classroom goal orientation, beliefs that
support a performance classroom goal orienta-
tion, and how the teachers responded to the ELP-
specific questions.
While there was a correlation of .448 between
higher mastery goal orientation and higher ELP
assessments, suggesting that the two variables
share 20% of variance, this correlation produced
a p-value of only .072 (using a one-tailed signifi-
cance test). There was also a tentative quadratic
relationship (r ¼ .633, p ¼ .1) between the teach-
ers’ performance goal orientation and the
teachers’ ELP assessments. Teachers with low
and high performance goal orientations tended
to assess the ELP lower than those with an average
performance goal orientation. To further investi-
gate the relationship between mastery goal
orientation and performance goal orientation
as predictors of ELP assessments, the researcher
created a new variable using the following
equation: (Mastery–Performance Ratio ¼ Mastery
Goal Orientation  2|4  Performance Goal Ori-
entation|). This new variable significantly corre-
lated with the teachers’ ELP average assessments
(r ¼ .788, p ¼ .002), meaning that teachers who
had a high mastery goal orientation and an
average (not high or low) performance goal
TABLE 5
Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and ELP Beliefs
n ¼ 12 Master Perform ELPeff
M 5.81 3.63 5.51
SD .63 .75 1.73
Note. Master ¼ pedagogical beliefs that foster mastery classroom goal orientation; Perform ¼ pedagogical
beliefs that foster performance classroom goal orientation; ELPeff ¼ efficacy using the ELP; ELPtv ¼ ELP task
value belief; ELPsr ¼ perception of students’ self-reaction to the ELP; ELPfreq ¼ self-reported usage of the ELP
in one school year; ELPave ¼ average of ELPeff, ELPtv, ELPsr, and ELPfreq.
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
orientation had higher ELP assessments. It also
correlated strongly with the frequency with which
teachers chose to use the ELP (r ¼ .89, p ¼ .004).
More participants would have helped to further
investigate the relation between ELP assessments
and the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Also, a
longer term case study would help to discern
whether ELP use has helped shape teacher beliefs
toward this Mastery–Performance Ratio or if this
ratio is most conducive to ELP use.
MIXED METHODS RESULTS
Students
RQ5. How do students perceive the ELP?
RQ6. How do the qualitative findings help explain
the QUANTITATIVE results?
Table 6 is a joint display that illustrates both
the quantitative and the qualitative findings in
one table. To reiterate, the questionnaires used
5-point “smiley”-based scales: 5 ¼ ; 4¼ ,
3¼ ,2¼ ,1¼ . With an average response
across classes at 3.30, students had a favorable
assessment of the ELP. Partially due to the
exceptionally high mean ELP assessment from
the fourth graders, there was a negative corre-
lation between student perception of the ELP
across age groups of .199 (p < .001). This
correlation remained significant even after con-
trolling for the frequency of ELP use (r ¼ .115,
p ¼ .04).
ELP Efficacy. Students were most certain
about their ability to use the ELP correctly
(efficacy, M ¼ 3.55). During interviews, the two
most common responses to “How do you use
the ELP?” were: “I fill out self-assessments” and
“I reflect on my learning.” Of the four major
pedagogical purposes of the ELP (self-assess
ability, strategy building, goal-setting, and self-
reflection), only goal-setting was not mentioned
ELPtv ELPsr ELPfreq ELPave
4.38 4.45 4.38 4.68
1.68 1.21 2.50 1.43
Nicholas Allan Ziegler 931
TABLE 6
Joint Display: Student and Teacher Perception of the European Language Portfolio

Student (n ¼ 318, 21 Interviews)

Perception of the ELP QUAN Findings qual Findings Inferences Drawn
How qual explains
Construct Example Survey Item Mean Scores Interview Quotes QUAN
Task value The ELP helps me 3.12 I know what I have to Even younger learners
learn English. learn yet. can express the
I can see how well I purpose of the ELP.
speak English.
Efficacy I know how to use the 3.55 I fill out self- Students are aware of
ELP. assessments. ELP activities.
I reflect on my
learning.
Self-reaction I like working with the 3.23 It’s fun! Students enjoy using
ELP. I like it because it isn’t the ELP.
boring.

Teacher (n ¼ 12, 4 Interviews)

Perception of the ELP QUAN Findings qual Findings Inferences Drawn
How qual explains
Construct Example Survey Item Mean Scores Interview Quotes QUAN
Task value The ELP is an effective 4.38 It helps students Teachers can express
tool for helping evaluate their ability. the purpose of the
students learn foreign The ELP motivates my ELP.
languages. students.
Efficacy I am comfortable 5.51 I received sufficient Teacher training is
explaining the training on ELP paramount to success.
different sections of implementation.
the ELP to my I use one ELP section Best practices ¼ One
students. at a time. section at a time.
Self-reaction My students enjoy 4.78 It makes my students Positive impact grows
using the ELP. proud to look back on with time.
past work.
The more you The more frequent the
integrate it, the more use, the better.
relevant the students
find it.
Note.  Mean based on 5-point Likert scale; 
Mean based on 7-point Likert scale.

at all among the 21 students who participated in
the interviews. The qualitative findings illustrate
quantitative results showing that students are
aware of how to complete the varied ELP-related
tasks. Having purposefully chosen the interview-
ees based on results from the questionnaire
regarding student evaluation of the ELP (one
student with a high ELP evaluation, one with an
average, and one with a low ELP evaluation in
each of the seven classes), it was also possible to
dig deeper into why students reported lower
efficacy for using the ELP. Of the seven students
with low ELP evaluations, four reported having
recently moved into the school district and not
having had prior experience with the ELP. It was
not so much that they did not like using the ELP as
it was that they were not sure what it was.
ELP Self-Reaction. Self-reaction (M ¼ 3.23) rec-
eived the second highest mark from the student
surveys. Of the 21 students interviewed, 11 of
them simply responded, “It’s fun!” when asked
what they liked about learning with the ELP.
Similarly, three students responded that working
with the ELP was not boring (one of whom after
explicitly comparing ELP related activities to
normal class work). Integrating quantitative and
qualitative findings shows that generally students
932
enjoy working with the ELP, or that, at least
comparatively, working with the ELP is more
enjoyable than normal classroom activities.
ELP Task Value. Finally, students generally
found the ELP useful (task value, M ¼ 3.12).
When asked why they thought they use the ELP in
their English classes, the most common response
was so that “I know what I have to learn yet.” Even
the youngest participants were able to express why
they use the ELP. Referencing the purpose of self-
assessments, one fourth grader remarked, “I can
really see how well I speak.” When asked what
they didn’t like about ELP, the most frequent
response (10) was “nothing.” Four more res-
ponded that they wished they could do ELP-
related activities more frequently in class. These
remarks illustrate the quantitative findings that
the frequency of ELP use has a significant impact
on the students’ evaluation of the ELP. Two did
complain that the ELP is a little bit confusing and
that they weren’t certain what to include in the
different sections (Passport, Biography, Dossier)
of the ELP.
Teachers
RQ7. How do teachers perceive the ELP?
RQ8. How do the qualitative findings help explain
the QUANTITATIVE results?
Included in Table 6 is a joint display showing
how teachers perceive the ELP. These variables
reflect a 7-point Likert scale with 7 being high and
1 being low. The average of 4.68 for the ELP
reflects an overall positive assessment of the ELP.
The four teachers who had the most experience
implementing the ELP were selected for follow-
up interviews. Interestingly, length of use (aver-
age 7 years) did not directly correlate with their
evaluation of the ELP. Three of the four reported
the highest three evaluations; however the fourth
teacher’s values were well below average on
measures for task value and perceived student
response. This teacher was well above average in
her pedagogical beliefs supporting a perfor-
mance goal orientation in students, illustrating
the quantitative findings regarding the relation
between ELP beliefs and pedagogical beliefs.
ELP Efficacy. Teachers were generally most
confident in their ability to use the ELP effectively
(M ¼ 5.51). Using the interview results to help
explain the quantitative findings, two themes
emerged: (a) Training is paramount to success
and (b) it is best practice to implement one
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
section of the ELP at a time. The teachers
interviewed had participated in an extensive
2-year professional development program specifi-
cally dedicated to ELP implementation. Reflect-
ing on both her training for and experience with
using the ELP, one teacher emphasized the
importance of not overwhelming students with
more than one section of the ELP at a time.
ELP Self-Reaction. Teachers were also support-
ive of the idea that students like working with the
ELP (self-reaction, M ¼ 4.78). When asked to
explain whether or not they felt their students
liked working with the ELP, one common theme
was that students were proud of the work they
included in the Dossier section of the ELP. This
became clear to the researcher later when asking
student to explain the parts of the ELP. Especially
for students who had been using the ELP for 3 or
more years, the expressions on their faces as they
showed their past projects exuded pleasure. Two
of the teachers also explicitly discussed the
relationship between student satisfaction with
the ELP and their frequency of ELP use,
corroborating the quantitative data collected
from students. One simply stated, “The more
you use it, the more the students like it.” Another
teacher, addressing the perception of some of her
colleagues that ELP activities consumed too much
class time, concluded that the more you use the
ELP, the better students are at learning the
foreign language and the faster they are at
learning new concepts. Therefore, in her opin-
ion, any time you spend working with ELP
activities in your class comes back “10 times fold.”
ELP Task Value. Teachers also reported a
positive perception that the ELP is an effective
tool for helping students learn foreign languages
(task value, M ¼ 4.38). Every one of the teachers
interviewed expressed the belief that the ELP
helps motivate students to learn a foreign
language. Echoing student answers, and perhaps
reflecting the ELP activity they most frequently
used, three of the teachers said they felt working
with the ELP helped students better evaluate their
ability. Reflecting the lower mean score from the
quantitative interviews, there was some disso-
nance among teachers interviewed. When asked
how the ELP could be improved, there were two
important themes: the size of the ELP portfolio
itself and a frustration with the way the ELP is
distributed. These are interrelated. Since being
introduced in 2001 in Germany, the major
foreign language textbook publishers have devel-
oped proprietary ELPs that must be purchased
at an additional cost. While all teachers were
Nicholas Allan Ziegler
supportive of the ELP itself, they expressed
difficulty convincing parents that it was worth
paying for. They also found it limiting to only have
access to the ELP activities their specific publisher
had included in their ELP. Finally, the product
itself, a large binder (200 thick, without student
work included in the Dossier), required a large
area for storage and was not easily transported by
students.
DISCUSSION
As indicated at the outset of the article, theory
and research into instructional practices that foster
self-regulated learners suggest engaging students
in goal-setting, self-evaluation, explicit strategy
instruction, strategy planning, and self-reflection
on finished work. The European Language
Portfolio is an alternative, portfolio-based assess-
ment designed to integrate these components
directly into the foreign language classroom. The
findings reported here strongly support the use of
the European Language Portfolio as a valid means
to foster self-regulated learners.
Summary of Specific Findings
The European Language Portfolio Accomplishes its
Pedagogical Goal. Students in the experimental
group using the ELP reported attributes more
characteristic of self-regulated learners. These
students were more intrinsically motivated to
learn English as a foreign language (mastery goal
orientation). As such, learning English was more
important to them (task value) and they liked
their teachers more (instructor evaluations).
They had higher academic self-efficacy for
learning English, the belief that they would be
successful at learning English, and reported using
more effective learning strategies characteristic of
self-regulated learners (self-regulatory efficacy).
The More Frequently the European Language
Portfolio Is Implemented, the Better. Further sub-
stantiating this quasi-experimental, direct com-
parison of students using the ELP and students
not using the ELP, the group using the ELP was
divided into three subgroups according to how
often the teachers reported implementing the
ELP into the class in the academic year. The
frequency of ELP use significantly contributed
to success in fostering self-regulated learners.
Strongly supporting David Little’s suggestion in
the ELP’s teacher manual (Little & Perclová,
2001) to implement the ELP as frequently as
possible, in this study, more frequent use of the
933
ELP led to better effect on student learning.
Specifically, correlational and MANOVA analysis
showed students using the ELP more frequently
had significantly higher mastery goal orienta-
tions, task value evaluations, instructor evalua-
tions, and self-regulatory efficacy.
While overall students had favorable evalua-
tions of the ELP, they rated it higher the more
frequently they used it. Whereas students using
the ELP 0 to 1 times per academic year actually
had negative ELP evaluations, students using the
ELP 7 or more times had strongly positive ELP
evaluations. Student perception of the ELP is key
to accomplishing its pedagogical purpose of
fostering self-regulated learning. Without student
investment in the ELP, the activities can lose their
pedagogical value and be perceived as busywork.
The effect size that the frequency of ELP use has
on the student evaluation of the ELP, accounting
for 31% of the shared variance, emphasizes the
power that the frequency of integrating the ELP
has for students.
The Rich Get Richer. Higher ELP evaluations
positively correlated with stronger goal orienta-
tion (both mastery and performance), task value
for learning English, instructor evaluations, and
self-regulatory efficacy. In other words, those who
liked using the ELP the most were also compara-
tively more autonomous. With this in mind, it is
important to reiterate that the more frequently
students used the ELP, the better they liked it.
Qualitative analysis of student interviews further
illustrates the importance ELP frequency. When
asked what they don’t like about the ELP, the
second most common answer (after “nothing”)
was that they wished they could use the ELP more
often.
Students and Teachers Concur. Another factor
influencing student evaluations of the ELP was
the teacher evaluations of the ELP. The positive
correlation between the two reinforces the
importance of teacher perception for successful
ELP implementation. While overall teachers had
positive assessments of the ELP, they were most
concerned with ELP task value and students’ self-
reactions to the ELP. This study should assuage
their concerns as students using the ELP reported
characteristics consistent with self-regulated
learners (ELP task value) and the more the
students used the ELP, the stronger its effect and
higher the student ELP evaluations (students’
self-reactions to the ELP). Paraphrasing one of
the teachers interviewed, “The more you use the
ELP, the better.”
934
Concerns
Qualitative analysis of teacher interviews
revealed the importance of teacher training for
successful implementation. Teachers included in
the qualitative phase of this study had participated
in a 2-year professional development program
designed explicitly for successful ELP integration.
These findings support those of ELP pilot project
reports (see Päkkilä, 2003; Schärer, 2000).
Another significant concern revealed through
qualitative analysis related to the major textbooks
having copyrighted their respective versions of
the ELP. On the one hand, the teachers liked that
ELP activities were directly integrated into their
textbooks. On the other hand, teachers expressed
frustration that they were limited to the ELP
activities their specific publisher included. Also,
they found it sometimes difficult to convince
parents that it was worth the additional cost.
Investigation into teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
(mastery and performance) suggested that the
combination that led to the highest ELP evalua-
tions and highest ELP frequency of use was that of
a strong mastery belief and an average perfor-
mance belief (neither strong nor weak). However,
the generalizability of this finding is limited by
the small number (12) of participating teachers.
Comparing teachers in the experimental and
control groups, there was no significant differ-
ence found for teachers’ pedagogical beliefs.
Accounting for this important environmental
factor strengthens the attribution of the student
findings to the use of the ELP.
Methodological Strengths and Limitations
This study is an example of an embedded
mixed methods design. The preliminary quanti-
tative phase consisted of a quasi-experimental
study. The results informed the selection of a
purposeful sample of participants to substantiate
the quantitative findings with a qualitative follow-
up study. Findings from the quantitative and
qualitative phases were then integrated to provide
more insight into the ELP’s impact than either
the quantitative or the qualitative phases could
have alone. The inclusion of both quantitative
and qualitative methods significantly enriched
this study.
Consistent with cross-sectional investigations,
this research provides insight into the ELP’s effect
on students over time. For the purpose of this
study, grade level was used either as a covariate or
controlled for using partial correlations in order
to allow a more direct comparison between the
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
experimental group using the ELP and the
control group not using the ELP. A longitudinal,
experimental design would allow researchers to
more concretely attribute differences between the
control and experimental groups of students to
ELP use and more directly measure changes in
psychological measures over time.
It must be noted that, while statistically signifi-
cant, many of the effect sizes for both the
correlational and inferential statistics reported
were small. To maximize the positive impact of
the ELP, world language teachers must receive
ongoing professional development opportunities
on effective strategies for integrating the ELP into
their curriculum.
Another limitation of the current study is the
lack of proficiency or achievement data. While
there has been a link between goal setting
associated with LinguaFolio (the American equiv-
alent of the ELP) and language achievement
established (Moeller et al., 2012), the current
study does not further investigate this link.
CONCLUSION
The European Language Portfolio is designed
with the pedagogical purpose of increasing
students’ capacity for self-regulated learning
through the processes of self-assessments of
ability, strategy building, goal-setting, and self-
reflection. This study adds to the growing body
of research supporting the claim that the ELP
(and its American equivalent, the LinguaFolio)
meets this goal.
It is important to reiterate that the ELP is not a
curriculum. Rather, it is a set of activities designed
to guide students toward becoming more autono-
mous learners. Just as it can be adapted to any
foreign language curriculum, it could be adopted
by other content areas as well (Mansilla & Riejos,
2007). The process of adapting the ELP to other
content areas would not be overwhelming. The
skeletal structure would remain the same regard-
less of content area. The bones are the activities
included in the ELP that guide the cyclical process
of self-regulated learning: forethought before,
performance control during, and self-reflection
after. The flesh of the portfolio would change
according to the curricular demands of each
content area. Modifying the ELP to other content
areas could facilitate the creation of an academic
portfolio, resulting in an even greater potential
for fostering self-regulated learners.
Nicholas Allan Ziegler
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was made possible by the Fulbright
Program. A special thanks to Dr. Ali Moeller and
Dr. John Creswell of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
for their suggestions on previous drafts of this
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and
student motivation. Journal of Educational Psycholo-
gy, 84, 261–271.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice–Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy
and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 87–99.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement,
disengagement, coping and catastrophe. In A.
Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation (pp. 527–547). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Chang, M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language
learning through self-monitoring. Journal of Com-
puter-Assisted Learning, 23, 187–196.
Chemers, M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. (2001). Academic self-
efficacy and first-year college student performance
and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93, 55–64.
Cleary, T. J., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effective-
ness of the self-regulation empowerment program
with urban high school students. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 20, 70–107.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation
empowerment program: A school-based program
to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles
of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41,
537–550.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,
112, 155–159.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework
of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assess-
ment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing
and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Elliot, A. (2005). A conceptual history of the achieve-
ment goal construct. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 52–72). New York: The Guilford Press.
Epstein, J. L. (1987). TARGET: An examination of parallel
school and family structures that promote student
motivation and achievement. (Report No. 6.) Balti-
more, MD: Center for Research on Elementary
935
and Middle Schools. Accessed 6 October 2010 at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED291504.pdf
Fetters, M., Curry, L., & Creswell, J. (2013). Achieving
integration in mixed methods designs: Principles
and practices. Health Services Research, 48, 2134–
2156.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Pintrich, P., Elliot, A., &
Thrash, T. (2002). Revision of achievement goal
theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed
methods research: A research paradigm whose
time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
Kitsantas, A., Reiser, R., & Roster, J. (2004). Develop-
ing self-regulated learners: Goal setting, self-
evaluations and organizational signals during
acquisition of procedural skills. Journal of Experi-
mental Education, 72, 269–287.
Little, D. (2012). The European Language Portfolio:
History, key concerns, future prospects. In B.
Kühn & M. L. P. Cavana (Eds.), Perspectives from the
European Language Portfolio: Learner autonomy and
self-assessment (pp. 7–21). New York: Routledge.
Little, D., Gouillier, F., & Hughes, G. (2011). The
European Language Portfolio: The story so far (1991–
2011). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Little, D., & Perclová, R. (2001). European Language
Portfolio: Guide for teachers and teacher trainers.
Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Locke, E., & Lathan, G. (2002). Building a useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation. American
Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
Mansilla, P., & Riejos, A. (2007). The European
framework of languages: A piloting sample
of cross-curricular strategy. Higher Education in
Europe, 32, 193–202.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E.,
Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., … & Urdan, T.
(2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan.
Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting
and student achievement: A longitudinal study.
Modern Language Journal, 96, 153–169.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework
for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook
of mixed methods in social & behavioral research
(pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Päkkilä, T. (2003). The Finnish ELP pilot project for
upper secondary schools. In D. Little (Ed.), The
European Language Portfolio in use: Nine examples
(pp. 7–12). Strasbourg, France: Council of
Europe.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcı́a, T., & McKeachie,
W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivational
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).
Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research
to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and
Learning.
936
Schärer, R. (2000). Final report: A European Language
Portfolio pilot project phase 1998–2000. Strasbourg,
France: Council of Europe.
Schärer, R. (2008). European Language Portfolio. (Interim
report 2007). Strasbourg, France: Council of
Europe.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and
self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp.
125–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The
educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational
Psychologist, 40, 85–94.
Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to
practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tseng, W., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new
approach to assessing strategic learning: The case
The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)
of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 78–102.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution
perspective and the social psychology of perceived
competence. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73–84).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Ziegler, N., & Moeller, A. J. (2012). Increasing self-
regulated learning through the LinguaFolio.
Foreign Language Annals, 43, 330–348.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential
motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psycholo-
gy, 25, 82–91.
Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden
dimension of personal competence: Self-regulated
learning and practice. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 509–526). New York: The Guilford Press.

Position Announcement: Perspectives Editor for the MLJ

The Modern Language Journal is soliciting expressions of interest for the position of editor of its
Perspectives column. The column appears once a year, in the summer issue of the journal.

Working closely with the journal’s editorial board, the Perspectives editor has the following tasks:
- Determining the topic to be addressed in the column and choosing a suitable format (e.g., position
paper and responses; alternatively a group of commentaries on a topic);
- Securing suitable contributors (usually 5–7 contributors) to the column on the basis of letters of
invitation extended by the Perspectives editor;
- preparing a timeline for creation of the entire manuscript;
- assuring the timely submission of a first draft of the diverse contributions to the Perspectives column;
- providing editorial feedback to the contributing authors; this is done in close coordination with
designated members of the editorial board whose expertise is related to the chosen topic and who
provide feedback to the editor, and with the Journal Editor;
- monitoring the timely submission of the revised manuscripts;
- writing an introduction to the column;
- copyediting the final manuscript to journal specifications and submitting it to the editorial office
following the journal’s production schedule;
- proof reading the column.
The Perspectives editor is a member of the editorial board of the MLJ. The normal term of office is five
years. He/she receives a modest honorarium and a travel allowance for board meeting attendance. No
home institutional support (financial commitments, office space) is required for the position. The first
column to be created would be for the summer issue of 2016, MLJ,100,2.

Persons interested in applying should contact the editor of the journal, Heidi Byrnes, at
modlangjournal@georgetown.edu, highlighting editorial experience and links into the educational
policy scene. Please provide a current curriculum vitae; letters of recommendation are not necessary.
Application deadline: January 10; decision by February 15; term of appointment beginning July 1, 2015.
If possible, applicants should be available for attending the journal board meeting at the AAAL meeting
in Toronto, March 20, 2015.