PRIOR ACHIEVEMENT, APTITUDE, AND

USE OF LEARNING STRATEGIES

AS PREDICTORS OF COLLEGE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
LINDA S. GARAVALIA
Uniiversitv of Missouri-Kansas City
MARGARET E. GREDLER

University of South Carolina

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which

college students' learning strategies, prior achievement, and apti-
tude predicted course achievement. Students' final course grades
were regressed on the linear combination of reported use of four
self-regulated learning strategies, reliance on external sources for
learning guidance, cumulative grade-point-average. and aptitude.
Analyses indicated that each of the predictor variables was sig-
nificantly related to course achievement and the set of variables
accounted for 45%a of the variance in course achievement.
Because variables that are related to achievement typically are
also cotrelated with each other, identifying the unique contribu-
tions of predictor variables is important. In this study, three
variables, prior grades, Factor One of the scale (General Organi-
zation. and Planning strategies), and SAT score significantly
contributed to the explanation of achievement beyond that
accounted for by other variables, 13.66. 2.44, and 1.93%, respec-
tively. Of interest is that the unique contribution of General
Organization and Planning was greater than that of SAT score.
More importantly. organization and planning are teachable
processes and instruction in this self-regulatory skill may signif-
icantlv enhance stuident achievement.

Social-cognitive theory has identified
self-regulation of one's learning as a key
component of student achievement (Ban-
dura, 1986; Zimmerman, 1989). Briefly,
self-regulation is the active management by
students of their motivations, cognitions,
and behaviors to achieve their goals (Hofer,
Yu, & Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman, 1989).
Self-regulated learning requires that stu-
dents internalize learning and
task-management strategies and mobilize
and maintain them when necessary (Como.
1989, p. 112). That is, self-regulated learn-
ers "seek to accomplish academic goals
strategically and manage to overcome
obstacles using a battery of resources"
(Randi & Corno, 2000, p. 251).
Various studies have documented the
relationship between college students' self-
regulatory capabilities and achievement
(see, for example, Pajares, 1996; Isaacson
& Fujita, 2001; Schwartz & Gredler, 1997;
Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). Some
studies, however, indicate that not all stu-

616

dents actively guide and manage their
learning (Ley & Young, 1998; Vermunt,
1992, 1995; Weinstein, 2000). Although
some students with serious deficiencies in
self-regulatory skills may require special
programs (Ley & Young, 1998; Weinstein,
1996), others who are not underprepared
may not exercise the active management
and control of their learning (Rosenthal,
1990; Vermunt, 1992, 1995). Instead, they
are passive learners in that the surface fea-
tures of texts and lectures and general
statements of their instructors guide them.
Self-regulated learning is a deliberate,
judgmental, adaptive process in which the
learner continually makes decisions in the
areas of resource allocation, meaningful
practice, strategy selection, and one's effi-
cacy (Butler & Winne, 1995). In contrast,
learners in regular college classes who do
not engage in the internal control and man-
agement of their learning are referred to
variously as passive (Rosenthal, 1990),
reproduction-directed, or engaging in
external regulation (Vermunt, 1992, 1995).
Rosenthal (1990) characterizes these learn-
ers as doing only what teachers tell them
to do.
Classroom practices that contribute to
the development of passive learning
include requirements to determine "truth"
through teacher verification of the right
answer and teacher-directed instructive
methods ("chalk and talk") (Jackson,
1997). Further, the current metaphor of
defining students as educational consumers
also encourages a passive sense of enti-
tlement (Hartoonin, 1997). The result can
be learners who feel "more comfortable
following whatever the teacher decides is
best for them" (Rosenthal, 1990, p. 16).
Predictors of College Achieverment.../617
The designation of other-directed or
external regulation also describes the
behaviors enacted by passive leamers (Ver-
munt, 1992, 1995). Specifically, external
regulation refers to the learner's reliance on
other sources for sequencing and organiz-
ing his or her studies. Examples include
studying according to the sequence of
material as presented in the textbook or in
class, studying all the subject matter in the
same manner, and using the teacher's
instructions to know exactly what to do. In
other words, the student's learning behav-
iors are initiated by others.
These externally directed or passive
learning behaviors also are described as
reproduction-directed (Vermunt, 1992,
1995). That is, instead of taking a mean-
ing-directed approach to learning, the
student simply implements a surface
approach. For example, research on learn-
er control of involvement in computer
instruction indicated that students were
guided by surface features of the text and
consistently exited the screen premature-
ly (Steinberg, 1988; Yeo, Loss, Zadnick,
Harrison, & Treagust, 1998). Although
reminders to check all relevant materials
erhanced thoroughness for some students,
such reminders were simply further direc-
tion from an external source.
Prior studies have assessed external reg-
ulation in corporate training settings
(NMorris, Gredler, & Schwartz, 1998; van
Zuilichim & Vermunt, 1992). Hlowever,
re;,earch has yet to address the extent to
which college students may be externally-
regulated (other directed) or self- regulated
learners. The present study assessed com-
ponents of self-regulated learning validated
in a prior factor analysis (Gredler & Gar-
61 8/College Student Journal

avalia, 1997) and external regulation as demographic data indicated no major dif-
measured by Vermunt (1992, 1995; van ferences between the students with and
Zuilichim & Vermunt, 1992). Because the without SAT scores. The mean grade-point-
addition of new items to an instrument can averages for the two groups were 2.94 and
sometimes slightly alter the factor struc- 3.04 (on a 4-point scale), average course
ture, another factor analysis was conducted load was 15 and 14.22 quarter hours, and
as part of this study. In addition, the pre- job hours per week averaged 11-15 and
sent study examined the degree to which 16-20 hours, respectively. The SAT group
the scale factors, grade-point average, and was somewhat younger, with an average
aptitude predicted course achievement. age of 20 as compared to a mean of 24
years for the non-SAT students. Therefore,
Method we concluded that the students with SAT
scores did not differ from the remainder
Participants of the total sample in a manner that might
Students in 14 undergraduate psychol- affect the multiple regression analysis.
ogy classes at a southeastern university
participated in the study. The institution is Assessment of student regulation of learning
a regional state university that admits stu- The 35-item Likert scale addressed both
dents on evidence of academic self-regulated and other-directed learning.
performance, either high school grade- The instrument is an extension of the 24-
point average or Scholastic Assessment item Self-efficacy for Self-regulated
Test (SAT) score. Unlike larger research Learning (SESRL) Scale described by
universities, these students are not expect- Gredler and Schwartz (1997). The basis
ed to serve as subjects in research studies. for the SESRL was 9 of the 10 types of
Participation in the study was voluntary self-regulating behaviors derived from
and no incentives were provided. research and theory by Zimmerman and
Two-hundred fifty-six students with Martinez-Pons (1986). (The category
complete responses on the learning regu- labeled self-consequences was not includ-
lation scale (see the following section) ed on the scale). Of the 24 items, 11 were
served as the sample for the factor analy- developed by Bandura (1990; Zimmer-
sis of the instrument. Seventy-three percent man, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992),
of the sample were Euro-American and 5 were examples cited by students (Zim-
22% were African-American. Native merman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). and 8
American, Asian. and other were 3.0, 1.5, were developed by the researchers. Exam-
and 0.7% of the sample, respectively. ples of the items are "finish assignments
The sample for the identification of by deadlines" (goal setting and planning),
variables that predicted course achieve- "arrange a place to study without distrac-
ment consisted of 133 students from the tions" (environmental structuring), "plan
total sample for which SAT scores were my class work" (organizing and trans-
available. The mean SAT score for these forming), and "remember information
students was 929. An examination of the presented in class" (rehearsal and memo-

rizing). Items were anchored 1 (not at all)
and 7 (very well or very often). Explorato-
ry factor analysis with 235 undergraduates
indicated five factors. They were General
Organization and Planning (use appropri-
ate resources to get information for
assignments, plan my class work), Task
Preparation Strategies (reread the text in
preparation for tests), Environmental
Restructuring (remove distractions, find a
quiet place to study), Recall Ability
(remember information), and Typical Study
Strategies (take notes, study class notes)
(Gredler & Schwartz, 1997).
For the present study, 11 items were
added to the instrument. One item each
was written for three factors with less than
four items. Eight items, developed by Ver-
munt (1992) for a scale on learning styles,
addressed external regulation. Examples
include "deciding I have a command of
the subject matter based on my comple-
tion of all the instructor's assignments,"
"study according to the instructions pro-
vided by the instructor," and "study all the
subject matter in the same way."
Course achievement
The psychology department faculty
specified the range of earned course points
that translate into a particular grade (e.g.,
90 to 100% earns an A). Thus, each instruc-
tor converts students' earned points on
examinations and assignments in the
course into percentages as a preliminary
step in assigning grades. In other words,
the percentage of total course points earned
by a student, a more fine-grained indica-
tor than letter grades, indicates course
achievement.
Fredictors of College Achievement.. ./619
Procedures
One researcher administered the 35-
item instrument during the first week of
classes in the spring quarter. In addition to
the demographic information described in
the prior section, students also reported
tlheir cumulative grade-point averages. SAT
scores were obtained from university
records. At the end of the semester, instruc-
tors provided the percentage of total course
points earned by each student (course
achievement).
Results
Factoranalysis
External regulation, according to Ver-
rr[unt (1992, 1995) is not conducive to
meaningful comprehension of the subject
miatter. Consistent with Vermurit's analy-
sis, the eight items designated as external
regulation were reverse coded during scor-
inrg. For example, a score of 6 on "studying
all the subject matter in the same way" was
coded as 2, 1 was coded as 7, and so on.
The data were analyzed using princi-
pal methods factor analysis with oblique
rotation because analysis of the original
instrument indicated moderate correlations
atnong three factors (Gredler & Schwartz,
1'997). As is standard practice, ilems with
a correlation of greater than .40 with a par-
ticular factor were identified as loading on
that factor provided that the correlation
with other factors was low.
Examination of the data indicated that
a five-factor model provided the best fit.
Specifically, prior to rotation, five factors
ea.ch accounted for at least 5% of the com-
mon variance, for a total of 88%. Further,
the set of items correlating with each fac-
tor reflected a coherent identifiable
620/College Student Journal

Table I
Five Factor Model of the Augmented Self-efficacy for
Self-regulated Learning Scale
Factor

Genieral Org. Envir. Extemal Recall Typical Study

Items and Planning Restruct. Regulation Ability Strategies

1. finish assignnments by .61 -.12 -.14 -.(8 .(9

deadlines?
2. prepare for courses when there are .80 -.1 1 -.03 .02 -.17
other more interesting things to (lo?
3. concentrate on school subjects'? .83 -.(1 .09 .06 -.03
5. use appropriate resources to get .44 .00 .(0 .17 .07
information for class assignments?
6. plan your class work? .63 -.02 -.23 -.(3 .09
7. organize your class work'? .52 .02 -.19 .00 .19
I1. motivate yoursellfto do your .76 .13 .0)7 .00 -.03
assignments?
15. 13efore beginning a project, I get as .41 .03 -.14 .24 .0(4
much infomiation as possible concerning
the topic.
20. If I have problems wvithassignments. .42 .12 -.04 .01 .HI
I ask a teacher to help.
12. I turn off the TV/radio so l canl .07 .78 .07 -.12 .02
coitcentrate ott wltat I am doing.
27. I study for nty courses it a quiet room -.03 .89 .01 -.10 .21
or area.
32. 1 isolate msyself frotu anything that -(07 .87 -.01 .03 .06
distracts me.

Factor

General Org. Envir. External Recall Typical Study

Items and Planmiung Restruct. Regulation Ability Strategies

17. 1decide I have a cotnmaid ofthe -.20 -.05 .44 -.04 .07
subject matter based on my completion
of all he instructor's assignntents.
18. I study according to the instructionis -.04 .00 .60 .09 -.10
provided by the instructor.
25. I study the subject matter in the same .1)3 .()9 .48 -.(8 -.33
order as it is presented in class.
26. If I have problems with assignments, I -.11 -.09 -.47 -.04 .18
ask a friend for help.
28. I rely on the learning goals set by -.03 -.05 57 -.1)7 .06
instructors.
2'). 1consider introductions, objectives, atid -.20) -.
(2 .47 .05 -.05
iitstructions giveni by the instructor as
essential for nmystudies.
8. remember information presented in class? .15 -.17 .11 .67 .33
9. remember informatiolt presented in textbooks'? .31 -.0)2 .23 .59 .()6
35. I remeniber facts and ideas presented -.0)2 -.08 -.I0 .66 .26
in my coturses.
4. take notes in class. .18 .26 .13 .14 .49
19. 1take notes during lectures in my cour ses. -.()8 .06 -.20 .12 .61
23. When preparing for a test, I reread my .()8 .03 -.26 .01 .56
class notes.
 Predictors of College Achievement.. ./621

Factor

General Org. Envii. External Recall Typical Study

Items and Planning Restruct. Regulation Ability Strategies
10. arrange a place to study without .40 .39 .13 .07 .14
distractions?
13. 1 write things down that I want to .11 .29 -.14 .10 .17
remember.
14. 1 leam everything exactly as I find it -.12 -.14 .13 -.19 .00
in the text and other materials.
16. When preparing for a test, I reread .30 .11 -.08 .26 -.27
my textbook.
21. I use the instructions and course -.28 .06 .29 .01 -.01
objectives given by the instructor to know
exactly what to do.
22. 1study all the subject matter in the same way -.14 -.11 .33 .06 -.01
24. 1check over my work to make sure I do .22 .14 -.20 .10 .03
it right.
30. [plan what I am going to do before I begin .31 .10 -.42 .07 .05
a class project.
31. When preparing for a class meeting, I reread -.08 .35 -.27 .28 -.21
my class notes.
33. When preparing for a class meeting, I read .06 .37 -.08 .31 -.30
nmytextbook.
34. I paraphrase written information when I am -.12 .24 -.17 .40 .01
studying.

Note: Items 1-1I begin with "How well do you.."; items 12-35 begin witl "How often do you..."

criterion, an important requirement (Mar- Five of the eight items developed by

coulides & Hershberger, 1997).
The five factors were General Organi-
zation and Planning - Factor One (9 items),
Environmental Restructuring - Factor Two
(3 items), External Regulation - Factor
Three (6 items), Recall Ability - Factor
Four (3 items), and Typical Study Strate-
gies - Factor Five (3 items) (see Table 1).
That is, four of the factors identified for the
earlier version of the scale plus external
regulation emerged in the present analysis.
Inter-factor correlations ranged from -
.29 to .60 (see Table 2). Cronbach alpha
coefficients for the factors were .86 (Fac-
tor One), .87 (Factor Two), .54 (Factor
Three), .69 (Factor Four), and .70 (Factor
Five). The reliability of the factors one,
two, and four is further supported by the
number of factor loadings that are above
.60 (Stevens, 1996).
Vermunt loaded on External Regulation.
In addition, the item that addressed seek-
ing a friend's help when one has trouble
with an assignment loaded negatively on
that factor. Of the total set of it,ems, nine
did not correlate with any factor and two
items each correlated with two factors.
Therefore, these 11 items were omitted
from further analysis in the study.
Regression Analysis
The data were analyzed usinig bivari-
ate correlations and multiple regression.
Course achievement was regressed on the
linear cornbination of Factors one, two,
three, four, and five, grade-point average,
arid total SAT score (math and verbal com-
bined). Beta weights (standardized multiple
regression coefficients) and uniqueness
indices for the predictor variables were
 622/College Student Journal

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (N=133)

Intercorrelations

Variable Mean S.D. I 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Course achievemenit 79.24 10.98

2. Factor One 49.03 7.11 .43***

3. FactorTwo 14.38 4.46 .19* .41**

4. Factor Three 18.92 4.17 -.22* -.48*** -.445*

5. Factor Four 20.66 3.62 .28*' .60*** .32** -.29**

6. Factor Five 19.41 1.98 .20* 51*** .33*** -.38***

7. GPA 2.94 .63 .60#** .36*** .05 -.18* .21* .28*

8. SAT score 930.75 148.97 .39*** .11 -.03 .02 .10 .01 .46***

**1 p < .0001

0 02
** p < .
0 5
* p <.

reviewed to determine the relative impor- significant at the p < .001 level; the Beta
tance of the seven variables. weights for Factor One and SAT score were
Table 2 represents the rmeans, standard significant at the p < .05 level.
deviations, and Pearson product-moment Each uniqueness index indicates the
correlations for the variables. Although all amount of variance accounted for by a par-
of the predictor variables were significantly ticular variable beyond that accounted for
related to course achievement. only the by the other variables. As illustrated in
correlations for Factor One, grade-point- Table 3, grade-point-average uniquely
average, and SAT score were in the accounted for 13.66% of the variance in
moderate range. Further, SAT score and course achievement; Factor One and SAT
grade-point-average correlated moderate- score accounted for 2.44 and 1.93, respec-
ly (.46); however, grade-point-average was tively.
more strongly related to course achieve- One question that may be raised is
ment than SAT score (.60 versus .39). In whether GPA "masked" the influence of
addition, SAT score was not related to the factors two through five in the regression
components of self-regulation or to exter- analysis. In order for GPA to obscure the
nal regulation. influence of the other factors, the correla-
In the multiple-regression analysis, the tions between each scale factor and the
seven predictor variables accounted for criterion variable (course achievement)
45% of the variance in course score, F (7, and each scale factor and GPA would need
125) = 14.38, p < .001, adjusted R2 = 42. to be in the moderate range. The bivariate
Beta weights and uniqueness indices are correlations between each scale factor and
presented in Table 3. As illustrated, the course achievement were only .19 to .28
Beta weight for grade-point average was and the correlations between each factor
 Predictors of College Achievement .../623

Table 3 Beta weights and uniqueness indices obtained in multiple-regression analyses

predicting course achievement
Beta Weights' Uniqueness Indices'

Predictor Beta _' Uniqueness

Index Fd

I. Factor One .23 2.35' .0244 5.55S

2. Factor Two .09 1.14 .0058 1.32

3. Factor Three -.02 -0.22 .0002 0.05

4. Factor Four .04 0.49 .0010 0.23

5. Factor Five -.1 1 -1.29 .0074 1.68

6. GPA .46 5.55CCC .1366 31.05CC

7. SAT score .16 2.09* .0193 4.39'

I p K.05
.* p<.001
. p < .0001

and grade-point-average ranged from .05
to .28. Neither set of correlations is in the
moderate range. Moreover, additional
regression analyses conducted without
grade-point-average did not change the
findings.
Discussion
The results of the study support the
multi-dimensional nature of student regu-
lation of learning in college students. The
findings support the four components of
self-regulation identified in a prior factor
analysis and provided tentative support for
external regulation as a construct. The four
self-regulatory factors were General Orga-
nization and Planning, Environment
Restructuring, Recall Ability, and Typical
Study Strategies. Identification of the five
factors suggests the potential utility of the
scale in the college classroom where time
for diagnostic activities is limited. That is,
the instrument efficiently obtains data on
a variety of academic regulatory behav-
icrs. Factor scores may be used in any of
several ways, such as comparisons with
grades or student logs to pinpoint students'
misperceptions in different areas. That is,
a student may be taking and reviewing
notes (Typical study strategies) fairly well,
but fail to implement organization and
planning skills.
Inclusion of external regulation items in
the assessment of college student percep-
tions provides an opportunity to identify
passive learner behaviors. In the present
sthdy, some respondents indicated that they
decide they have a command of the sub-
ject matter based on completion of all the
instructor's assignments, study all the sub-
ject matter in the same order as it is
presented in class, and study according to
the instructions provided by the instruc-
tor.
624/College Student Journal
External regulation is important in this
role because assessments of cognitive skills
and self-regulation are not helpful in iden-
tifying low-achieving students (Ley &
Young, 1998). These students may be only
vaguely aware of their own learning
processes. However, when prompted with
a statement ot a potential self-regulatory
behavior, they believe they execute it more
frequently than they actually do (p. 47).
One goal of this study was to determine
the viability of external regulation as oper-
ationally defined by Vermunt (1992, 1995).
Therefore, items were not altered or omit-
ted for the present study. Two of the items
that involve the instructor indicate that the
student is following or relying on what the
instructor says (in contrast to determining
what 1, the student, should do to mean-
ingfully understand the material).
However, one item, "consider introduc-
tions. objectives, and instructions given by
the instructor as essential for my studies",
is problematic. The term "consider" allows
for a variety of interpretations and this item
should be eliminated fromn future itnple-
mentations of the scale.
Finally, of importance is that the pre-
dictor variables in the present study
accounted for 45'S. of the variance in
course achievement. Moreover, multiple
regression, unlike other methods of ana-
lyzing achievement variance. identifies the
unique contribution of a variable to the
explanation of outcome variance beyond
that accounted for by other variables. For
example. student perceptions of their gen-
eral organization/planning strategies and
grade-point-average correlated with each
other and both correlated with course
achievement. However, general organiza-
tion/planning contributed to the explana-
tion of achievement variance beyond that
explained by the other variables, including
prior grades. Further, unlike prior grades,
organization and planning can be manip-
ulated. That is, students can be taught to
plan and organize their work. As such, col-
lege instructors may serve students well
by supplementing their subject-matter
instruction with learning strategy instruc-
tion.
References
Butler, D.L. & Winne. PH. (1995). Feedback and
self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthe-
sis. Review of Educational Research. 65,
245-281.
Corno. L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A voli-
tional analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theory. research, and
practice (pp. 11 1-140). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Gredler. M.E., & Schwartz. L.S. (1997). Factorial
structure of the Self-efficacy for Self-regulat-
ed Learning Scale. Psycholonical Reports. 81.
51-57.
Hartooniani. M. (1997). Education is about pro-
ducing not consuming. Social Education. 61
(6). 365-366.
Hoter. B.K.. Yu, S., &Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Teach-
ing college students to be self-regulated
learners. In DlH. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching
to self-reflective practice (pp. 57-85). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Isaacson. R.M., & Fujita. F. (2001). The effects of
goals. expectations. and self-efficacy on self-
regulation and performance in college
students. Paper presented at the 2001 annual
meetin- of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle. WA.
Jackson, M. (1997). But learners learn more. HigL
er Education Research and Development. 16,
1(1-1(9.
 Predictors of College Achieverment.../625

Lee, Y.B., & Lehman, J.D. (1993). Instructional Conference on Research on Developmental
cuing in hypermedia: A study with active and Education, Charlotte, NC.
passive learners. Journal of Educational Mul-
timedia and Hypermedia, 2 (11), 25-37. Yeo, S., Loss, R., Zadnick, M., Harrison, A.. &
Treagust, D. (1988). Interactive rnulti-media:
Ley. K., & Young, D.B. (1998). Self-regulation What do students really learn? In B. Black &
behaviors in underprepared (developmental) N. Stanley (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in
and regular admission students. Contemporary Changing Times. Proceedings of the 7th Annu-
Educational Psychology. 23, 42-64. al Teaching and Learning Forum (pp.
Marcoulides, G.A., & Hershberger, S.L. (1997). 341-347). The University of Western Australia,
Multivariate statistical methods. Mahwah, NJ: February.1998, Puth: UWA.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view
Morris, D.R., Gredler, M.E., & Schwartz, L.S. of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educa-
(1998). The role of self-regulated learning in tional Psychology. 81, 329-339.
an industrial training environment. Paper pre- Zimmerman, B.J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact
sented at the annual meeting of the American of self-regulatory influences on writilg course
Educational Research Association, San Diego. attainment. American Educational Research
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in acade- Journal. 3 1, 845-862.
mic settings. Review of Educational Research.
66 (4), 543-578.
Randi. J., & Corno. L. (2000). Teacher innovations
in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekarts, P.R.
Pintrich. & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation (pp. 651-685). San Diego: Aca-
demic Press.
Rosenthal, N. (1990). Active learning/empowered
learning. Adult Learning. 1(5), 16-18.
Steinberg. E.R. (1989). Cognition and learner con-
trol: A literature review, 1977-1988. Journal of
Computer-based Instruction. 16, 117-121.
Stevens. J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics
for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahaw, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Zuilichim, J., & Vermunt, J. (1992). Learning
and training styles in corporate training. Paper
presented at the European Conference in Edu-
cational Research at the University of Twente.
Vermunt, J. (1992). Learning styles and reyulation
of learning in higher education: Toward
process-oriented instruction in autonomous
thinking. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
Vermunt, J. (1995). Process-oriented instruction
in learning and thinking strategies. European
Journal of Psychology of Education. 10, 325-
349.
Weinstein, C.E. (1986). Teaching strate2ic learn-
ing. Paper presented at the meeting of the 2nd
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Prior Achievement, Aptitude, and Use of Learning

Strategies as Predictors of College Student Achievement
SOURCE: Coll Stud J 36 no4 D 2002
WN: 0233503829013

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2003 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.