Article

Psychology Learning & Teaching

Implicit Theory of Writing 0(0) 1–17
! The Author(s) 2016
Ability: Relationship to Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Metacognitive Strategy DOI: 10.1177/1475725716682887

plat.sagepub.com

Knowledge and Strategy

Use in Academic Writing
Yves Karlen and Miriam Compagnoni
University of Zurich

Abstract
Implicit theories about the nature of human attributes as either malleable or fixed influence how
people perceive knowledge and approach different tasks. Two studies explored the relationship
between implicit theory of writing ability, metacognitive strategy knowledge (MSK), and strategy use
in the context of academic writing. The pre-study with N ¼ 51 university students revealed a significant
correlation between students’ implicit theories and their MSK. Self-reported quality and diversity of
strategy use, assessed by open-ended questions, were not significantly associated with students’ impli-
cit theories. Expanding strategy use measures, study 2 (N ¼ 133) found significant correlations between
a more malleable theory and more frequent use of metacognitive strategies. Confirming the results of
the pre-study, the results of study 2 showed that a more malleable theory of writing ability was directly
associated with higher MSK. In sum, the results illustrate the importance of linking implicit theories to
self-regulated learning.

Keywords
Academic writing, implicit theory, metacognitive strategy knowledge, strategy use

Introduction
Writing academic papers is a common learning situation at university. Writing not only
requires knowledge about grammar, genre, and vocabulary but also the ability to self-
regulate one’s own learning (Graham & Harris, 2000; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
Individuals have to plan, initiate, monitor, and evaluate their writing process, stay focused
and motivated, and manage the learning environment (e.g., work in an environment where it
is possible to concentrate on writing). Metacognition and appropriate strategy use have been

Corresponding author:
Yves Karlen, University of Zurich, Institute of Education, Freiestrasse 36, Zurich 8032, Switzerland.
Email: ykarlen@ife.uzh.ch
2 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

identified as important success factors for skilful writing and are at the same time key
components of self-regulated learning (SRL) (Boekaerts & Rozendaal, 2007; Graham &
Harris, 2000; Hacker, Keener, & Kircher, 2009). In the last few years, researchers have
discussed several factors (e.g., intelligence, and instructional settings) that influence students’
writing and SRL (Harris et al., 2012; Karlen, Maag Merki, & Ramseier, 2014); one potential
factor is whether students’ implicit theories of human attributes (e.g., intelligence, and
abilities) are fixed or malleable. Research has shown that if students believe that attributes
are malleable, they embrace challenging tasks, persist in the face of difficulties, and try
different strategies (Chen & Pajares, 2010; Dweck & Master, 2008; Job, Walton,
Bernecker, & Dweck, 2015). The relationship between implicit theories of intelligence and
self-regulation competencies is well documented (Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, &
Finkel, 2013; Dweck & Master, 2008), but research in the domain of academic writing is still
rare. The aim of this study was to examine if and how individuals’ domain-specific implicit
theories about the nature of their writing ability are related to metacognitive strategy know-
ledge (MSK) and strategy use in academic writing.

Writing and SRL

Following different empirical traditions and perspectives, researchers have stressed diverse
aspects of SRL. As a result, there are various definitions of SRL (Dinsmore, Alexander, &
Loughlin, 2008; Winne & Perry, 2000). Overall, SRL can be described as an active, situ-
ational, and task-specific process whereby individuals plan, execute, and evaluate their learn-
ing (Boekaerts, 1999; Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, the competence of SRL is multi-layered and
involves the activation and use of metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral
competences (e.g., ability to plan and monitor learning, use strategies to process informa-
tion, and avoid distractions) to reach learning goals (Wirth & Leutner, 2008). Writing an
academic essay is a complex and multidimensional process that requires the activation and
use of different SRL components (Harris, Santangelo, & Graham, 2010). Writing can be
subdivided into three different recursive phases that require several SRL competences:
during a pre-action phase individuals plan their writing, set goals, and become motivated
to start writing; during the action phase ideas are translated into written text, and actions are
monitored and regulated; and in a revision phase the written text is evaluated and conclu-
sions are drawn (Sitko, 1998; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
Appropriate strategy use and MSK have been identified as key components of successful
SRL and writing (Beauvais, Olive, & Passerault, 2011; Hacker et al., 2009). Strategies can be
defined as ‘‘any thoughts, behaviours, beliefs, or emotions that facilitate the acquisition,
understanding, or later transfer of new knowledge and skills’’ (Weinstein, Husman, &
Dierking, 2000, p. 727). In more detail, strategies help writers to structure and adjust the
processing of information, maintain and summarize new knowledge, stay focused and moti-
vated, regulate emotions, and verify whether the goals have been achieved (Boekaerts, 1999).
The literature has provided a large number of conceptual frameworks for assessing and
classifying strategies. A widely used classification and taxonomy in cognitive psychology
divides strategies into three main categories: cognitive, metacognitive, and resource manage-
ment strategies (e.g., Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Wild & Schiefele, 1994;
Wolters, 1999). Cognitive strategies refer to the direct processing of information and include
processes such as the rehearsal, elaboration, and organization of information (e.g., pulling
together information from different sources, and outlining the material to organize
Karlen and Compagnoni 3

thoughts). Metacognitive strategies are higher-order strategies that regulate the learning
process. Metacognitive strategies refer to the planning, monitoring, and evaluating of the
learning process (e.g., making a plan about what to do during the writing process, and
thinking about whether what was written is correct). Resource management strategies
involve strategies for managing and regulating internal resources (motivational regulation,
emotional regulation, attention regulation, and effort regulation) and external resources
(peer learning, help seeking, and learning environment). As writing is a complex process,
students have to use different strategies to overcome different problems, regulate and evalu-
ate their writing process successfully, and stay focused. Skilful writers are highly engaged
metacognitively, so as to regulate the higher-order processes that underlie academic writing
through the use of different strategies (Harris et al., 2010). The use of strategies is strongly
linked to students’ available strategy repertoire and MSK (Borkowski, Chan, &
Muthukrishna, 2000; Karlen, 2015).
Metacognitive strategy knowledge refers to the knowledge component of metacognition
(Flavell, 1979) and describes verbalizable knowledge and awareness of memory, comprehen-
sion, and learning processes. It includes understanding task demands and characteristics as
well as having knowledge about the quality and characteristics of strategies. This knowledge
allows individuals to determine the relative benefit of one strategy over another (Borkowski
et al., 2000; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). MSK thus enables students to determine the
appropriateness of a variety of specific strategies for different tasks. Moreover, it positively
influences decisions on what strategy to use in specific learning situations (Luwel, Torbeyns,
& Verschaffel, 2003; Vrugt & Oort, 2008). In the context of writing, individuals’ MSK affects
how students analyze the specific writing task, determine the best strategies to solve the task,
and when and why to employ various strategies (e.g., Harris & Graham, 2009; Harris,
Graham, Brindle, & Sandmel, 2009).

Implicit Theory and SRL

Students’ implicit theories of the nature of human attributes (e.g., intelligence, personality,
and abilities) as being either fixed or malleable are conceptualized as frameworks through
which students interpret their domain-specific experiences. The theories play a significant role
in the ways that they behave, are motivated, and perceive knowledge and themselves (for an
overview, see Dweck, 2006). ‘Implicit’ means that students are most often not explicitly aware
of their beliefs about the nature of their attributes; however, individuals are able to recognize
their beliefs when they are asked to respond to items that make those beliefs explicit (Job
et al., 2015). Students’ implicit theories lie along a continuum, ranging from a theory that
attributes are fixed and that some human attributes are unchangeable and related to given
talent, to a theory that some attributes are malleable, changeable, and hence can be developed
with learning and effort. Empirical studies have found that domain-general implicit theories
(e.g., theory of intelligence) are associated with cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and
behavioral components of SRL (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Burnette et al.,
2013; Chen & Pajares, 2010; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Kaplan, Lichtinger, & Gorodetsky,
2009; Ommundsen, Haugen, & Lund, 2005; Yan, Thai, & Bjork, 2014). Individuals with a
theory of intelligence as malleable saw challenges and setbacks as learning opportunities were
mastery oriented, persisted when faced with difficulties, and used more successful strategies.
Students who viewed intelligence as malleable were more likely to be metacognitive sophis-
ticated learners; they valued the benefits of self-testing and restudied old course material more
4 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

often than students with a fixed theory did. Although implicit theories have been assessed
mostly in a domain-general way for attributes, such as intelligence (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin,
& Wan, 1999; Spinath, 2001) or willpower (Job et al., 2015), evidence suggests that individ-
uals can hold differing implicit theories regarding specific domains such as health (Schroder,
Dawood, Yalch, Donnellan, & Moser, 2016), mathematics ability (Rattan, Good, & Dweck,
2012), or writing (Limpo & Alves, 2014). Studies show that although there is a relation to the
overall implicit theory, domain-specific implicit theories are better predictors of domain-
specific behavior (Schroder et al., 2016; Scott & Ghinea, 2014).
In the domain of writing, researchers have focused on the relationship between different
implicit beliefs and SRL and have mainly examined the relation between SRL and epis-
temological beliefs (beliefs about knowledge and knowing) or transmission versus trans-
action beliefs (e.g., information must be transmitted from the author to the readers’ mind
versus meaning exists in the mind of the reader and can be constructed from the text)
(Mateos et al., 2011; White & Bruning, 2005); however, studies have rarely investigated
domain-specific implicit theories regarding academic writing in the sense used by Dweck
(2006), who distinguishes between a fixed or malleable theory. In an early study, Palmquist
and Young (1992) found that university students who did not believe that writing is a gift
(operationalized as the belief that writing can be learned or taught, in the sense of holding
a malleable theory) had higher levels of confidence in achieving proficiency in writing,
lower levels of writing apprehension, and higher self-assessments of their prior writing
ability. Students who had a more fixed theory about writing had lower self-assessments
of their writing skills and abilities. Palmquist and Young (1992) concluded that students’
implicit theories influence how they approach writing. In line with that, Hammann (2005)
found a relationship between implicit theories of writing and components of SRL.
Domain-general MSK was positively related to a malleable theory. Hammann (2005)
wondered whether students with a fixed theory are not aware of their own thinking
processes or if they just do not believe that they can self-regulate their learning and
thus may not try to become aware of their own cognition. In line with Hammann’s
(2005) findings, the first author of the current studies found in a sample of university
students that a malleable theory of academic writing ability was positively associated with
self-reported cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, MSK, and motivational beliefs. In a
writing strategy-instruction intervention study, Limpo and Alves (2014) found that stu-
dents with a malleable theory of their writing ability improved the quality of their texts
more than students with a more fixed theory did. They assumed that the effect might be
mediated by higher SRL competences or a higher willingness to improve writing skills
through strategic behaviors; however, the hypothesis was not tested empirically, so future
researchers should look closer at the relationship between metacognitive and self-regula-
tory factors and an implicit theory of writing. In sum, the available research on implicit
theories of ability as fixed or malleable provides an initial indication that it is associated
with different SRL components, but the literature underlines the importance of conducting
studies that look more closely at the under-examined effect of the implicit theory of
writing on domain-specific MSK and strategy use in the context of academic writing.

The Present Research

Drawing on research and theory describing writing as a complex recursive process that
requires the activation and use of different SRL components, we were interested in the
Karlen and Compagnoni 5

relationship between implicit theories of writing abilities and SRL in the context of academic
writing. This study builds on the work of researchers who found that implicit theories
influence students’ SRL and aimed to extend existing measures of implicit theories and
SRL to a further domain-specific context, namely, academic writing at university. Our
assumptions are guided by studies (e.g., Dweck, 2000; Hammann, 2005, Palmquist &
Young, 1992) which found that students with a malleable theory are more willing to try
different strategies and learn more about the appropriate use of strategies than students with
a fixed theory are. Further, some studies have indicated that throughout their learning
history, individuals with a malleable theory may have acquired more MSK and used more
strategies than peers with a fixed theory have (Burnette et al., 2013; Dweck, 2000). This
might lead not only to better writing performance but also to higher MSK and thus have a
positive effect on the choice and quality of strategy used (Borkowski et al., 2000). Our
hypotheses are the following.
1. Students with a malleable implicit theory of writing ability show greater diversity, qual-
ity, and quantity of self-regulated strategies than students with a fixed implicit theory.
2. Students with a malleable implicit theory of writing ability show greater MSK than
students with a fixed implicit theory.
3. Students with higher MSK show higher quality and frequency in strategy use than
students with lower MSK.

Pre-study (Study 1)
In this pre-study we aimed to examine the relationship between implicit theories of writing
ability, MSK, and the quality and diversity of strategy use in academic writing. Students’
implicit theory was assessed with a questionnaire with multiple-choice format. To assess
students’ self-reported task-specific quality and diversity of strategy use, three open-ended
questions related to the three writing phases were used. Finally, to assess students’ MSK
about writing essays, a scenario-based instrument was used. Correlational analyses in SPSS
were run to test the relationships among implicit theory, MSK, and strategy use.

Methods
Participants and Design
Participants were 51 students (mean age (Mage) ¼ 26 years, standard deviation (SD) ¼ 6.82)
in two different degree programmes in education (52% in Bachelor’s degree programs, and
48% in Master’s degree programs) at a university in Switzerland. Gender distribution (88%
women) was representative for education students; two participants did not report gender.
Students in both programs were given time to fill in the online questionnaire. The online
questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes (range: 10–18 minutes) to complete.

Materials
Strategy use. The online questionnaire included three open-ended questions, taking the recur-
sive three phases of the writing process into account. The first question regarding the pre-
action phase (‘‘What do you do before you start writing an academic essay?’’) aimed to
identify students’ strategic behavior before starting to write. The next question (‘‘What kinds
6 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

of things do you do to stay on track while writing your academic essay?’’) focused on
students’ strategic behavior during the action phase. The last question (‘‘How do you pro-
ceed when you revise your academic essay?’’) focused on students’ strategies to successfully
finish their academic essay in the post-action phase. To obtain strategy use measures, stu-
dents’ open-ended answers were coded based on existing strategies taxonomies (e.g., Pintrich
et al., 1993; Wild & Schiefele, 1994). To represent students’ reported strategies as accurately
as possible, the coding scheme was continuously expanded out of the empirical data in an
iterative process (Mayring, 2010). The final coding scheme resulted in 18 different task-
specific strategy categories that can be assigned to cognitive, metacognitive, and resource
management strategies. Two trained raters coded all students’ answers based on this final
coding scheme. Interrater reliability was good (k ¼ 0.87) as determined by Cohen’s kappa.
To measure the diversity of strategy use, the number of different strategies was counted for
each of the three questions. The final diversity of strategy score was built as mean score of
the average number of different strategies for all three questions. Students reported on
average 0 to 7 different strategies (see Table 1).
The quality of strategy use was rated on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (very low quality)
to 6 (very high quality). The coding scheme to rate quality was developed based on theor-
etical and empirical assumptions about successful strategic behavior for each phase in aca-
demic writing. Two raters were trained to rate the quality of strategy use based on the coding
scheme developed. Interrater reliability was good for all three open-ended questions (intra-
class correlation coefficient ¼ 0.78–0.91). The final quality of strategy use score was built as a
mean score of the average quality value for all three questions (see Table 1).

Metacognitive strategy knowledge about writing an essay. To measure student’s MSK a short ver-
sion of the metacognitive achievement test for writing an essay was used (Maag Merki,
Ramseier, & Karlen, 2013). This test contained three different scenarios related to the con-
text of writing an essay: becoming familiar with the topic; finishing up the task; and drawing
conclusions regarding similar tasks in the future. In each scenario, seven to eight different
strategies were presented that varied in their degree of effectiveness for the given scenario
(see Figure 1). Students had to rate the usefulness of each strategy in relation to the require-
ments of the given scenario on a six-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all useful) to 6 (very
useful). Maag Merki et al. (2013) asked experts to provide their judgments on the appro-
priateness of each strategy for the given scenario. Experts’ ratings were used to determine the
relation between the strategies (e.g., strategy A is more useful than strategy B) and to build

Table 1 Scale Names, Number of Items or Subscales, Item Total Correlations, Reliabilities, and
Descriptive Statistics of all Scales

No. of items/ Standard

subscales r-it  N Mean Deviation

Implicit theory about writing ability 3 0.37 – 0.86 0.68 51 3.28a 0.50
Metacognitive strategy knowledge 3 0.49 – 0.64 0.72 49 0.62b 0.25
Diversity of strategy use 3 51 2.13c 0.62
Quality of strategy use 3 – – 51 3.75d 0.68

r-it ¼ item total correlation; a ¼ Cronbach’s alpha; a range: 1–4; b

range: 0–1; c range: 0–7; d
range: 0–6.
Karlen and Compagnoni 7

pair comparisons (A > B). This expert rating was used as an objective scoring procedure for
students’ responses. Students’ estimated relation between two strategies (¼ one pair) was
compared with the experts’ rating. For every estimated item pair that corresponded to the
experts’ item pair, one point was given. For every non-correspondence with the experts’
rating, zero points were given; the final mean scores of the MSK test ranged from 0 (low
MSK, no correspondence to the experts) to 1 (high MSK, high correspondence to the
experts). The internal consistency of the scale was satisfactory (see Table 1).

Implicit theories of writing ability. Students’ implicit theory of the learnability of academic writ-
ing at university was assessed with an adjusted scale based on Palmquist and Young (1992).
Three items (e.g., ‘‘The ability to write good academic texts can be learned.’’) were used.
Each item was assessed on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very
true). High scores indicate a malleable theory, and low scores indicate a fixed theory. The
internal consistency was satisfactory (see Table 1).

Results and Discussion

Correlation analyses in Table 2 show, implicit theories were not associated with the quality
or the diversity of strategy use. However, there was a significant association between implicit
theories and MSK (r ¼ 0.42, p < 0.01). This means that the more academic writing is seen as
an ability that can be learned and taught at university (malleable theory), the higher the
students’ MSK. MSK was positively correlated with the quality of strategy use (r ¼ 0.31,
p < 0.05). In contrast, the results showed no significant correlation between MSK and the

Imagine that you need to take a lot of literature into consideration for a
paper. We asked students how they familiarize themselves with the Usefulness
topic after they have gathered a lot of literature: In your opinion, how
useful are the following strategies? 1 2 3 4 5 6
First I read a book or article that provides a general introduction to the
topic

First I skim through a book, and then I start writing.

I narrow down the topic and weed out readings that are not relevant to
the topic.

I mainly read the tables of contents of books or the titles of articles.

I read all of the books and articles through once.

I try to logically order and relate the central concepts, so that I

understand the whole topic and its relationships.
I decide in advance how many hours per week I will spend on reading
and analyzing the literature.
First I decide exactly what topics are important for my essay, and then
I go through the readings.

Figure 1 Example scenario from the metacognitive strategy knowledge test. The 6-point response scale
ranged from 1 (not at all useful) to 6 (very useful).
8 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

Table 2 Intercorrelations between Implicit Theory about Writing Ability, Metacognitive Strategy
Knowledge (MSK), Quality of Strategy Use, and Diversity of Strategy Use

1 2 3 4

1. Implicit theory about writing ability 

2. MSK 0.42** 
3. Diversity of strategy use 0.09 0.18 
4. Quality of strategy use 0.02 0.31* 0.65*** 

***p > 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

number of different strategies used by students. Finally, the results indicated a significant
medium correlation of r ¼ 0.65 (p < 0.001) between quality and diversity of strategy use.
Simple linear regression analyses were used to further examine the relationship between
implicit theories of writing ability, MSK, and strategy use. Implicit theories had no signifi-
cant effects on students’ quality of strategy use (F(1, 49) ¼ .004, not significant (n.s.)) or on
students’ diversity of strategy use (F(1, 49) ¼ .006, n.s.). Students’ implicit theories had a
positive effect on students’ MSK (b ¼ 0.219, F(1, 47) ¼ 10,253, p < 0.01); 18% of the variance
of students’ MSK was explained by students’ implicit theories of writing ability. With a b
coefficient of 0.383 (F(1, 47) ¼ 4,867, p < 0.05), MSK explained 10% of the variance of
students’ quality of strategy use. MSK had no effect on student’s self-reported diversity of
strategy use (F(1, 47) ¼ .327, n.s.).
Contrary to our initial expectation, we found no significant association between implicit
theories and quality of strategy use. Further, the results also showed no correlation between
implicit theories and diversity of strategy use. However, this result can be interpreted in a
positive way, since it is not more strategies but rather the more appropriate fit between
strategy and task and the appropriate use of a strategy that are important for successful
learning (Paris et al., 1983). In this pre-study it was found that students with a more mal-
leable theory had higher MSK than their peers holding a more fixed theory, which was in line
with our second expectation. Students with higher MSK did not report a higher diversity of
strategy use than students with lower MSK. We suspect that students with higher MSK
might have realized that for successful writing, it is not greater variety of strategies that is
important but rather the match between specific strategies and task requirements. In line
with this assumption, the results confirmed the expected positive correlation between MSK
and quality of strategy use. MSK might support students in selecting appropriate strategies
and applying those strategies successfully. This is relevant, as high quality of strategy use
plays an important role in successful writing (Graham & Harris, 2000; Harris et al., 2010).
However, the results of this pre-study have to be interpreted carefully, as there are several
limitations. The results are limited by methodological issues that might have influenced the
results, especially regarding associations between implicit theories and strategy use. First, the
assessment of students’ strategy use with open-ended questions may have been influenced by
students’ motivation and linguistic competencies (Spörer & Brunstein, 2006). Therefore, the
validity of the assessed quality and diversity of strategy use can be questioned, and other
methods of measuring strategy use might be more adequate. Second, the quality and diver-
sity of strategy use was assessed in a general way. A meta-analytic review on the relation
between implicit theories of intelligence and self-regulation found that there are different
Karlen and Compagnoni 9

effect sizes for goal setting, operating, and monitoring (Burnette et al., 2013). Therefore, the
relationship between implicit theories and strategy use should be examined further by dis-
tinguishing between different strategy dimensions. Finally, due to the small sample size,
robustness of the results is not given. The findings should therefore be investigated in further
studies with larger samples.

Study 2
The aim of study 2 was to confirm the results of the pre-study (study 1) with a larger sample
and involve further measurement methods. Instead of open-ended questions, we applied a
commonly used questionnaire to measure habitual use of strategies in writing (Kaplan et al.,
2009). Further, the assessment of implicit theories and MSK was more strongly tied to the
domain of academic writing. A path model was run in Mplus 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–
2012) to investigate multivariate relations between implicit theories of writing ability, MSK,
and habitual metacognitive strategy use.

Method
Participants and Design
Participants were 113 students (Mage ¼ 26.00 years, SD ¼ 6.82) at a university in Switzerland.
Students were sampled out from degree programs in education and were therefore mainly
women (82%). Students attended either the Bachelor’s degree programme (70%) or the
Master’s degree programme (30%). On average, students were in their third semester
(mean ¼ 3.07, SD ¼ 1.56) at the university. All students were given time to complete the
online questionnaire during the course.

Materials
Metacognitive strategy use. To assess self-reported metacognitive strategy use in academic
writing, we used three different sub-scales adapted from Kaplan et al. (2009).
Metacognitive strategies are represented by five planning strategies (e.g., ‘‘Before I start
writing, I plan an outline of what I’d be writing about’’), five monitoring strategies (e.g.,
‘‘During writing, I check to see if what I was writing fit’’), and four evaluation strategies
(e.g., ‘‘After finishing writing a section or part of it, I think about whether what I had written
was connected with what I wrote before’’). The response scale for all items ranged from 1
(not true at all) to 4 (very true). All three sub-scales showed appropriate Cronbach’s alpha,
with values between 0.63 and 0.74.

Metacognitive strategy knowledge about academic writing. MSK was measured by a scenario-based
test as described in the pre-study above. The test includes three scenarios that are allocated
to the three phases of self-regulated academic writing: finding an idea; monitoring the writ-
ing process; and evaluating the writing process (more details are available from the second
author of the current studies). The different strategies listed in the scenarios refer to the
strategies that students reported in the pre-study. Thus, the MSK achievement test is related
to students’ strategic writing behavior as accurately as possible. For the scoring procedure,
experts’ rating of the relative usefulness of the presented strategies (e.g., strategy A is more
useful than strategy B) was used. If students’ judgment on a strategy pair was in line with the
10 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

Table 3 Intercorrelations between Implicit Theory about Writing Ability, Metacognitive Strategy
Knowledge (MSK), and Metacognitive Strategies

1 2 3 4 5

1. Implicit theory of writing –

2. MSK 0.34*** 
3. Planning strategies 0.21* 0.29*** 
4. Monitoring strategies 0.20* 0.26** 0.50*** 
5. Evaluation strategies 0.12 0.27** 0.60*** 0.57*** 

***p > 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

expert rating, they received one point. If their judgment was contrary to the experts’ rating,
they received zero points. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74 and appropriate.

Implicit theories of writing ability. Students’ implicit theory of writing ability was assessed with
an adjusted scale based on Dweck (2006). The scale includes three items (e.g., ‘‘I can learn
new things, but I cannot improve my abilities in academic writing’’), which were assessed on
a four-point Likert scale (from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true)). High scores indicate a
more malleable theory, and low scores indicate a more fixed theory of writing ability. With a
Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.80, the internal consistency of the scale was good.

Results and Discussion

Table 3 shows the correlations between all measured variables. Implicit theory was positively
related to MSK (r ¼ 0.34, p < 0.001). Different significant correlations were also found
between implicit theory and metacognitive strategy use. Planning strategies (r ¼ 0.21,
p < 0.05) and monitoring strategies (r ¼ 0.20, p < 0.05) were positively associated with impli-
cit theory, but no association was found between evaluation strategies and implicit theory.
Similar patterns were found for the correlations between MSK and metacognitive strategy
use; the lowest correlation was between MSK and monitoring (r ¼ 0.26, p < 0.01), and the
highest correlation was between MSK and planning (r ¼ 0.29, p < 0.001). With correlations
between r ¼ 0.50 and r ¼ 0.60, all three metacognitive strategies are moderately associated
with each other.
A path model with two manifest factors (implicit theories, MSK) and metacognitive
strategy use as a latent factor immediately fit the data appropriately ( ¼ 4.052, df ¼ 4,
n.s., /df ¼ 1.013, root mean square error of approximation ¼ 0.010, Comparative Fit
Index ¼ 1.00). Therefore, no modifications were made. All three factors (planning, monitor-
ing, and evaluation) for the latent metacognitive strategy construct showed high factor
loadings from 0.67 to 0.76 and were significant (p < 0.001). As shown in Figure 2, two
paths were significant. Implicit theories had a positive direct effect of b ¼ 0.34 (p < 0.001)
on MSK. The path from MSK to metacognitive strategy use indicates a positive effect of
b ¼ 0.31 (p < 0.01). The path between implicit theories and metacognitive strategy use was
not significant. However, implicit theories were indirectly positively related to metacognitive
strategy use via MSK (b ¼ 0.11, p < 0.05). The path model also allowed examination of the
variance in MSK and metacognitive strategy use. The proportion of explained variance in
Karlen and Compagnoni 11

Figure 2 A path model of the relationships between implicit theories, metacognitive strategy know-
ledge, and metacognitive strategies.
Note. Standardized b-coefficients are presented. *** ¼ p < 0.001; ** ¼ p < 0.01.

MSK was R2 ¼ 0.12 (p < 0.05). For metacognitive strategy use the proportion of explained
variance was R2 ¼ 0.13 (p < 0.05).
The results of this study showed that implicit theories were partially related to students’
self-reported metacognitive strategy use. In detail, students with a more malleable theory of
writing ability reported using planning and monitoring strategies more than peers who
endorsed a fixed theory of writing ability. No correlation was found between implicit the-
ories and evaluation strategies. However, the results revealed an indirect effect of implicit
theories on the use of metacognitive strategies in general. The results of study 2 confirmed
the relationship between implicit theories and MSK found in the pre-study. Implicit theories
predicted students’ MSK. Students with a more malleable theory of writing had higher MSK
scores than students with a fixed theory. These results are in line with previous research that
showed the importance of implicit theories on students’ metacognitive competences (e.g.,
first author of the current studies; Burnette et al., 2013; Ommundsen, 2003; Yan et al., 2014).
Based on our results, we assume that even at universities, a malleable theory of writing
ability could be fruitful for students with regard to putting effort into and using strategic
behavior in their academic writing assignments. A malleable theory facilitates the use of
MSK and metacognitive strategies like planning and monitoring. In sum, the implicit theory
that a specific ability can be improved might lead to a belief in personal control over one’s
own learning and thus keep up students’ metacognitive engagement. Students with a more
malleable theory of writing ability might believe that they are able to learn more by moni-
toring and regulating their writing process.

General Discussion
Past research suggested that implicit theories of ability as either fixed or malleable play a
significant role in the ways that students self-regulate their learning, use strategies, and show
effort and persistence when dealing with challenging tasks. The present research aimed to
extend existing domain-general measures of implicit theories as either malleable or fixed to
the domain of academic writing. We therefore expected students with a malleable theory of
academic writing to show greater quality, diversity, and frequency of self-regulated strategies
than students with a fixed implicit theory. We focused on domain-specific implicit theories of
writing ability in the context of academic writing.
Our research produced mixed results regarding the link between students’ implicit theories
of writing ability and self-reported strategy use. Whereas in the pre-study no correlation
between students’ implicit theories and the quality and diversity of strategies use was found,
12 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

the second study found significant correlations between implicit theories and habitual use of
planning and monitoring strategies. However, there was no correlation between implicit
theories and evaluation strategies. Further, the results revealed an indirect effect of implicit
theories on self-reported habitual metacognitive strategy use via MSK. Overall, the results
indicate that implicit theories might affect only the use of certain strategies or only certain
phases of the recursive writing process. Students with a fixed theory see effort as a sign of low
ability (Dweck & Master, 2008). They might perceive planning and monitoring strategies –
strategies that are used in the pre-action and action phase – as useless effort and as a sign of
less talent. They might not believe in the necessity for self-regulating during the writing
process, in contrast to students with a malleable theory, who see effort as the path to mas-
tery. A glance at the literature shows that positive correlation patterns are found mainly
between a malleable theory and strategies, which are related to the pre-action and the action
phase (e.g., goal setting and goal operating; Burnette et al., 2013). We assessed evaluation
strategies mainly through items on superficial revision strategies. We suppose that independ-
ent of students’ implicit theories, the importance of revising academic papers is seen as a
necessary task after the writing process. Further studies are needed that take the whole
writing process into consideration in order to understand more precisely the effect of implicit
theories on the use of certain strategies in different phases. Especially, the post-action phase
needs further attention.
The results of both studies confirmed our second hypothesis that students who endorse a
malleable theory show higher MSK than their peers who endorsed a theory of incremental
writing ability. Previous studies have shown that students with a malleable theory of ability
are willing to put effort in SRL in order to learn more and be more successful (Yan et al.,
2014). Students with a fixed theory might have less optimism about succeeding in writing and
may have a sense of lack of personal control over the learning process. This pessimism may
block their metacognitive engagement through the use of MSK, and planning and monitor-
ing strategies (Ommundsen, 2003). Further, students with a fixed theory might not believe in
the necessity for self-regulating the writing process and may be at the same time less aware of
their own thinking process (Hammann, 2005). When faced with challenges and difficulties
during the writing process, students endorsing fixed theories may give up faster than students
holding malleable theories (Dweck & Master, 2008; Ommundsen, 2003). As discussed in the
literature, different implicit theories lead to different strategic engagement patterns, which
may be a further explanation for the differences in MSK and metacognitive engagement
(Limpo & Alves, 2014). Thus, students with a malleable theory of writing ability might have
acquired higher MSK through their higher engagement in strategic learning and a higher
awareness of metacognitive processes through their previous writing experience (Dweck &
Master, 2008; Hammann, 2005).
Although it was not the main focus, the results of both studies provide information on the
relationship between MSK and strategy use. The findings show that MSK is related to the
general quality of strategy use and to the self-reported habitual use of metacognitive stra-
tegies. No correlation was found between MSK and reported diversity of strategy use. These
results indicate that students’ MSK about academic writing affects how they plan their
writing, use literature, transform information, and monitor and evaluate their writing
(Harris et al., 2010). Moreover, students with higher MSK might be more aware of their
strengths and weaknesses with regard to a task than students holding a fixed theory (Paris
et al., 1998); thus students with higher MSK might be able to identify effective strategies
rather than use many but less effective strategies (Karlen, 2015). As reported in the literature,
Karlen and Compagnoni 13

MSK affects how students analyze the specific writing task and determine the best
strategies to solve the task (e.g., Harris & Graham, 2009; Harris et al., 2009). MSK plays
an important role in students’ understanding of the purpose of writing and higher-order
processes that underlie skilful writing (Harris et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2007; Zimmerman &
Risemberg, 1997). Bringing all results together, for highly skilled writing it might be import-
ant that students hold a malleable theory of writing ability and have high MSK. Both these
factors might lead to high and successful strategic engagement (Blackwell et al, 2007; Harris
et al., 2010).

Limitations and Future Directions

The present studies have several limitations. First, the samples in both studies were recruited
from degree programmes in education, a field of study in which more women than men tend
to enrol. The participants were primarily female students, which limits the generalizability of
the results to other groups and study domains. Second, although we included different
procedures to measure strategy use using multiple-choice and open-ended questions, the
measures relied on self-reports – with all the advantages and disadvantages of such measures
(for an overview, see Wirth & Leutner, 2008). We therefore recommend that the results of
the two studies be verified by complementing the measurement instruments used. Finally,
both studies are limited due to their cross-sectional design, which does not allow exploration
of causal relations or long-term effects. In future, it could be interesting to design longitu-
dinal studies for a more precise understanding of the development of implicit theories of
writing ability as well as to gain further knowledge about the relationship among implicit
theories and MSK. It could also be interesting to combine measures of implicit theories,
MSK, and achievement as both implicit theories as well as MSK are related to achievement
(Blackwell et al, 2007; Maag Merki et al., 2013).
Despite these limitations, the results provide support for the influence of an implicit
theory of writing ability on SRL, especially for metacognition. These findings are note-
worthy for future theoretical, empirical, and practical work, and may guide researchers
interested in the development of MSK. The results of our studies emphasize the necessity
for teachers’ awareness of the influence of students’ implicit theories on SRL. Teachers
should take students’ implicit theories into account, if they want to foster students’ meta-
cognitive writing abilities. Teachers should modify writing instructions and training pro-
grams in order to emphasize a more malleable theory of writing. Research on praise
(Gunderson et al., 2013) and comfort statements (Rattan et al., 2012) indicates that if
teachers focused their feedback on effort and strategies (rather than on writing ability),
they could foster a malleable implicit theory in their students. Statements such as ‘‘You
are a born writer’’ or ‘‘To some writing comes naturally, others have to work hard for it’’,
even with the best intentions in mind, might backfire, especially for students who think that
they are not good at writing (Schloz & Dresel, 2011). Therefore, teachers should encourage
students by stressing that successful academic writing can be learned as well as improved,
and is not a gift. Teachers might also encourage students to examine their implicit theories of
writing, and the relationship between these beliefs and their strategic behaviors. Further,
teachers should guide students’ self-reflections to encourage attribution to their own effort
and appropriate strategy use. This could help students develop a malleable theory of their
writing ability (Blackwell et al., 2007).
14 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

Apart from students’ implicit theories, MSK plays an important part in the quality of
strategy use in academic writing. Students who know how to use strategies effectively may be
able to attribute their writing difficulties to inappropriate strategy use or lack of effort rather
than to a lack of writing talent. It may be that some students believe that writing is a gift, and
therefore do not put effort into self-regulating their writing process and applying appropriate
strategies to overcome difficulties. Those students might need to be encouraged to self-
regulate their writing and to be strongly supported by teachers. Teachers might consider
fostering writing strategies, MSK, and implicit theory of writing simultaneously. For this,
teachers will have to have a clear understanding of their own as well as their students’
implicit theories of writing. Finally, teachers must have an understanding of their students’
SRL competencies. This knowledge could help teachers to provide more specific instructions
about appropriate strategy use in writing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J.-M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not?
Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103, 415–428. doi:10.1037/a0022545
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achieve-
ment across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development,
78, 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational
Research, 31, 445–457.
Boekaerts, M., & Rozendaal, J. S. (2007). New insights into the self-regulation of writing skills in
secondary vocational education. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215, 164–173.
doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.3.164
Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacog-
nition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.),
Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–41). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurement.
Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets
matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
655–701. doi:10.1037/A0029531
Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: Relation to
epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 35, 75–87. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.003
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on meta-
cognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories their role in motivation, personality, and development. Lillington, NC:
Psychology Press.
Karlen and Compagnoni 15

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Dweck, C., & Master, A. (2008). Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B.
J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 31–51). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development
inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and
writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3501_2
Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C.
(2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3-year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later.
Child Development, 84, 1526–1541. doi:10.1111/cdev.12064
Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D.
J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education
(pp. 154–172). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hammann, L. (2005). Self-regulation in academic writing tasks. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 15–26.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated stratgey development in writing: Premises, evolu-
tion, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 113–135.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2009). Metacognition and children‘s writing.
In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education
(pp. 131–153). New York, NY: Routledge.
Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., . . . Schatschneider,
C. (2012). Practice-based professional development for self-regulated strategies development in
writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 103–119. doi:10.1177/
0022487111429005
Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and strategies instruction in
writing. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction
(pp. 226–256). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about
knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1),
88–140.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions,
and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.77.3.588
Job, V., Walton, G., Bernecker, K., & Dweck, C. (2015). Implicit theories about willpower predict self-
regulation and grades in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 637–647.
doi:10.1037/pspp0000014
Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientations and self-regula-
tion in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 51–69.
doi:10.1037/A0013200
Karlen, Y. (2015). Nutzungshäufigkeit von Lernstrategien und metakognitives Strategiewissen in der
Oberstufe des Gymnasiums: Entwicklung und Zusammenhänge [Frequency of use of learning
strategies and metacognitive strategies in the upper secondary school: Development and interrela-
tions]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 5, 159–175. doi:10.1007/s35834-015-0123-2
Karlen, Y., Maag Merki, K., & Ramseier, E. (2014). The effect of individual differences in the devel-
opment of metacognitive strategy knowledge. Instructional Science, 42, 777–794. doi:10.1007/
s11251-014-9314-9
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students’ response to a
SRSD intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 571–590. doi:10.1111/Bjep.12042
16 Psychology Learning & Teaching 0(0)

Lin, S. -J. C., Monroe, B. W., & Troia, G. A. (2007). Development of writing knowledge in grades 2–8:
A comparison of typically developing writers and their struggling peers. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 23(3), 207–230.
Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). The relation between metastrategic knowledge,
strategy use and task performance: Findings and reflections from a numerosity judgement task.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 425–447.
Maag Merki, K., Ramseier, E., & Karlen, Y. (2013). Reliability and validity analyses of a newly
developed test to assess learning strategy knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Education and
Psychology, 12, 391–408. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.391
Mateos, M., Cuevas, I., Martin, E., Martin, A., Echeita, G., & Luna, M. (2011). Reading to write an
argumentation: The role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs. Journal of Research in
Reading, 34(3), 281–297.
Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und techniken [Qualitative content analysis:
fundamentals and techniques]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén
& Muthén. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/Mplus%20user%
20guide%20Ver_7_r3_web.pdf
Ommundsen, Y. (2003). Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation strategies in physical education
classes. Educational Psychology, 23, 141–157. doi:10.1080/01443410303224
Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability,
and self-regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 461–474.
doi:10.1080/00313830500267838
Palmquist, M., & Young, R. (1992). The notion of giftedness and student expectations about writing.
Written Communication, 9, 137–168. doi:10.1177/0741088392009001004
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316. doi:10.1016/0361-476x(83)90018-8
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. (2012). ‘‘It’s ok – Not everyone can be good at math’’: Instructors
with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48, 731–737. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012
Schloz, C., & Dresel, M. (2011). Implizite fähigkeitstheorien und fähigkeitsselbstkonzepte im
grundschulalter [Implicit ability theories and ability self-concepts in elementary school]. In F.
Hellmich (Ed.), Selbstkonzepte im Grundschulalter Modelle, empirische Ergebnisse, pädagogische
Konsequenzen [Self-concepts in primary school: Models, empirical results, educational conse-
quences] (pp. 81–99). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Schroder, H. S., Dawood, S., Yalch, M. M., Donnellan, M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2016). Evaluating the
domain specificity of mental health-related mind-Sets. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 7,
508–520. doi:10.1177/1948550616644657
Scott, M. J., & Ghinea, G. (2014). On the domain-specificity of mindsets: The relationship between
aptitude beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57, 169–174.
doi:10.1109/Te.2013.2288700
Sitko, B. M. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. J. Hacker,
J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93–116).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spinath, B. (2001). Implizite theorien über die veränderbarkeit von intelligenz und begabung als bedingun-
gen von motivation und leistung [Implicit theories about the variability of intelligence and talent as
conditions of motivation and performance]. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
Karlen and Compagnoni 17

Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2006). Erfassung selbstregulierten Lernens mit Selbstberichtsverfahren
[Self-regulated learning with self-report procedures]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 20,
147–160. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.20.3.147
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic
achievement: pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 123–146. doi:10.1007/
s11409-008-9022-4
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on
learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 727—747). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
White, M. J., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality.
Contemporary educational psychology, 30(2), 166–189.
Wild, K. -P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium: Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und
Reliabilitt eines neuen Fragebogens [Learning strategies in study: Results of factor and relability
analyses of a new questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15(4),
185–200.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich
& M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–568). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning as a competence: Implications of theoretical
models for assessment methods. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 216, 102–110.
doi:10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.102
Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation and their use
of leaerning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 3(3),
281–299.
Yan, V. X., Thai, K.-P., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated learning:
Do they vary with mindset? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 140–152.
doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.003
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.
R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive per-
spective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.

Author biographies
Yves Karlen, PhD, studied pedagogical psychology. Since 2015 he has been a postdoc and
lecturer at the Institute of Education at the University of Zurich. His research interests
concern self-regulated learning in school and higher education, the examination of prerequis-
ites of self-regulated learning and achievement, and the development of new instrument to
assess metacognition.

Miriam Compagnoni received her diploma in psychology at the University of Zürich in 2014.
She now is a PhD researcher and lecturer at the Institute of Education at the University of
Zurich, whose interests lie in the field of motivation and learning. Her research interests
include focus on self-concepts as motivational prerequisites of self-regulated learning in
kindergarten and higher education.