See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232425151

Assessing Students’ Motivation and Learning Strategies in the Classroom

Context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Article · January 1996

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-0657-3_12

CITATIONS READS

153 12,472

2 authors, including:

Teresa Duncan
Deacon Hill Research Associates LLC
20 PUBLICATIONS   8,299 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Teresa Duncan on 27 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
1

Assessing Students’ Motivation and Learning Strategies in the Classroom Context:

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Teresa Garcia

Department of Educational Psychology

University of Texas at Austin

Austin, Texas USA

Paul R. Pintrich

Combined Program in Education and Psychology

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan USA

To appear in M. Birenbaum & F. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements,

learning processes, and prior knowledge, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
2
Assessing Students' Motivation and Learning Strategies in the Classroom Context:

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Current research on student classroom learning stresses the importance of considering

both motivational and cognitive components of academic performance (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994;

Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Motivational components include students’ perceptions of the

classroom environment as well as their self-related beliefs such as personal goals, self-efficacy,

interest, and value beliefs. Cognitive components include students’ content knowledge as well as

various cognitive learning strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration, and organization, and

metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring, and regulating learning (Garcia &

Pintrich, 1994). Research in both experimental and field settings has consistently shown that

positive motivational beliefs such as perceptions of high self-efficacy, a focus on mastery goals,

high value and interest in the task or content, and low levels of test anxiety are positively related

to greater cognitive engagement in terms of the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies as

well as actual academic performance (see Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992 for a review).

Given that both motivational and cognitive components are important for classroom

learning, how can we assess them in the classroom context? Of course, in laboratory studies

there are a number of techniques that can be used, including reaction time or think-aloud

protocols to measure strategy use, and actual experimental manipulations to induce certain types

of motivational goals (cf. Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Graham & Golan, 1991). Although these

types of techniques can provide good construct validity and high internal validity, they do

sacrifice some external validity and generalizability to the classroom setting. For example,

students have self-efficacy beliefs for most academic tasks based on their past history of success

and failure with similar tasks, while the laboratory task may be relatively unfamiliar to them.

Students also have differing levels of personal interest and value for classroom academic tasks.

In contrast, most laboratory tasks probably have low value for the typical student, as the

artificiality of certain tasks (e.g., ring-tossing; puzzle completion) may make the activity seem
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
3
unimportant or not meaningful to "real" life (however, the novelty of certain laboratory tasks can

make them very interesting to students). Accordingly, if students’ motivational beliefs for

laboratory tasks may be qualitatively different from their motivational beliefs for classroom

academic work, and if experimental settings may not adequately tap into the complex and

multifaceted nature of students' beliefs regarding their classroom academic work, how might we

realistically assess these beliefs in the classroom and link them to students’ cognitive and

metacognitive learning strategies? For researchers who aspire to study the interaction of

motivation and cognition in a classroom setting, this presents a serious problem with no one

“correct” solution, just tradeoffs among the strengths and weaknesses of various methods.

Assessing motivation and learning strategies in the classroom

In terms of methods that can be used in a classroom setting, reaction time and think-aloud

protocols are rather difficult to use in terms of pragmatic concerns and may also limit ecological

validity. However, observations, stimulated recall, interviews, and questionnaires can all be used

in classroom settings. Of course, observations (both high and low inference quantitative

observational schemes as well as more qualitative and ethnographic techniques) can be used to

assess students’ motivation and cognition. In fact, many indicators of motivation are behavioral

in nature, such as choice of tasks, level of effort on tasks, and persistence at tasks. These three

behaviors are all good indicators of a student who is motivated for the task. However, in most
current motivational models, simple observation of the behaviors of choice, effort, and

persistence is considered inadequate for characterizing student motivation. Both attribution

theory (Weiner, 1986) and goal theory (Ames, 1992) suggest that students' perceptions of the task

and themselves, as well as their achievement behaviors, have implications for future cognition,

motivation, and affect. For example, in goal theory, two students may both demonstrate high

levels of effort and persistence on an academic tasks, but if one is mastery-oriented and the other

is performance-oriented, then these qualitative differences in goal orientation can have a dramatic

effect on subsequent cognitions, attributions, motivation, and affect (Ames, 1992).

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
4
Accordingly, from this general constructivist perspective, it is very important to also

collect data on students’ perceptions and beliefs about the task and their behavior, not just the

behavioral indices that can be generated from observational data. Of course, if the observational

data include student speech and discourse in the classroom, the actual statements could be coded

for indicators of student motivation (e.g., Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1991) or actual strategy use

(e.g., Corno, 1989). However, this type of observational data is not easy to collect or use. The

collection and transcription of this type of data is very time-consuming. Moreover, the coding of

the data is fraught with reliability and validity issues. In particular, it is not clear how to

characterize the representativeness of the discourse and codes for other students or classrooms

besides the ones actually in the sample (Carter, 1993).

Stimulated recall methods can provide the same type of rich descriptive data that is

generated by observational methods, and can also supply measures of students’ beliefs and

perceptions of their behavior. By having students respond to a videotaped replay of their

behavior from an earlier classroom session, researchers can ground students’ self reports of their

motivation and cognition in actual classroom behavior. This approach assists in limiting some of

the validity problems with self-report data, provided that the time lag between actual behavior

and stimulated recall of the behavior is not too lengthy (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). In particular,

stimulated recalls may allow the researcher to assess students’ beliefs and cognitions at a fairly

small “grain size” (Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993), thereby providing data about microlevel

cognitive and motivational processes that influence learning. Additionally, stimulated recall

techniques can be used as classroom events unfold over time, unlike think-aloud protocols which

could not be used in an actual classroom setting during instruction. Stimulated recall techniques

also can be used with large numbers of students, although data collection is time-consuming.

Stimulated recall methods may provide the best data in terms of reliability and validity, but have

the disadvantages of being expensive, time-consuming, and impractical for researchers with

limited resources.
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
5
Self-report measures in the classroom

Other self-report methods such as interviews and questionnaires are often the most

practical and easy to use in classroom settings. They can be administered relatively easily, and in

the case of self-report questionnaires with closed-ended items, scored and prepared for complex

data analyses fairly quickly. Most importantly, given their ease of use, questionnaires can be

used with large and diverse samples which can increase the generalizability of the findings. Of

course, there are reliability and validity problems with these types of self-report instruments as

well.

Reliability of self-reports. In terms of reliability over time, Assor and Connell (1992) suggest

that students’ self-assessments of their competence may not be stable when they are quite young

because in fact, children's perceptions of competence are changing quite rapidly as a function of

development and experience. Nevertheless, these researchers note that children’s perceptions of

competence can show moderate stability, enough to meet basic psychometric requirements that

allow for valid assessment (Assor & Connell, 1992). Indeed, this general issue of stability is

pertinent not only to competence beliefs, but also to other motivational factors and to the use of

cognitive strategies for learning. That is, it may be that the most adaptive or self-regulated

learners do modify and change their beliefs and strategies as a function of the task or context. In

this case, traditional estimates of stability over time are difficult to use.

Besides the stability issue, other researchers suggest that the internal consistency or

coherence of factor structures generated from self-report questionnaires may vary with age

(Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). For example, in our own work,

somewhat different factor structures emerge from our questionnaire data with junior high school

and college students (cf., Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie,

1993), but the results still fit within our general conceptual model. Future research needs to

address whether these developmental differences in factor structures are a function of method

variance or actually reflect developmental differences in cognition and motivation. Although

these types of developmental differences make for interesting problems in building and
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
6
elaborating theoretical models, they do not necessarily invalidate the use of self-report

instruments as long as developmentally and methodologically appropriate factor structures are

used.

Validity of self-reports. Besides these reliability issues, the overall validity of self-report

questionnaires or interviews have been questioned throughout the history of empirical

psychology. There are often concerns about the social desirability of students’ responses.

Although this is always a concern to keep in mind when using questionnaires or interviews, in

our own work, when we have included measures of social desirability (e.g., the Crown-Marlowe

social desirability scale), these measures of response bias did not account for any significant

amount of variance and did not change our final results. In terms of motivational beliefs, there

also is concern abut the inaccuracy of competence beliefs, in particular that students often

overestimate their competence. However, Assor and Connell (1992) suggest that, although these

beliefs may not reflect “reality” in terms of agreement with grades or achievement test scores,

their longitudinal data shows that two years later, these inflated perceptions of competence

actually do relate to achievement. Hence, these “overestimates” of competence are adaptive and

help students who are not doing that well cope with the demands of the tasks and maintain their

effort. In general, if one adopts a constructivist perspective regarding student motivation, then it

is crucial to assess students’ perceptions of their own motivation, not just “objective” measures

of motivation such as observations and teachers’ or parents’ reports.

The validity of self-reports of cognitive strategy use is not so easily resolved, however. In

this case, students’ self-reports from interviews or questionnaires may not reflect actual strategy

use. Actual observations or some behavioral indicator of strategy use provide better construct

validity. In addition, these behavioral measures can be used to assess the smaller “grain size” of

the more basic or microlevel cognitive processes that make up cognitive and metacognitive

strategy use (Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993). These measures are very useful in helping us

understand which of the many possible cognitive processes or strategies contribute most to self-

regulated learning. However, at the larger “grain size” of more global indicators of strategy use
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
7
or metacognition, self-reports such as interviews or questionnaires can be quite useful. These

more global measures can help us decide if any cognitive or metacognitive strategy use is taking

place. For example, in our own work with the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

(MSLQ), we have found over and over again that the three general aspects of metacognition-

planning, monitoring, and regulating, do not load into separate factors in a factor analyses, but

just load into one factor. From this questionnaire data, we would not want to conclude that the

theoretical distinctions between planning, monitoring, and regulating are not useful. We would

leave the explication of the relations between the three aspects to more experimental studies

where the processes could be examining in more microlevel detail. However, our results do

suggest that when students engage in some aspects of metacognition, they tend to report doing all

three aspects and they also do better in terms of actual achievement, which is in line with our

general assumptions about self-regulated learning.

In addition, self-reports of strategy use can be improved when students are asked to report

on concrete “behaviors” that they could engage in, not abstract cognitive operations.

Accordingly, in our instrument development, we try to have items that ask students about actual

behaviors they might use as they study their course material. For example, we ask students if

they outline their course material or write short summaries of their readings and lecture notes to

assess their use of cognitive strategies. For metacognition, we ask them if they reread course

material when they can’t understand it, not if they “monitor and regulate” their reading

comprehension (see Appendix). Of course, some of our items are more global than those, but

most students should be able to report if they engage in certain types of behaviors. However,

there may be a lower developmental limit to young children’s ability to use these type of self-

report items. We have had success with the MSLQ with children as young as fifth and sixth

grade, but in the early elementary grades these items may be difficult for them. It may be that

they are not able to understand the items or lack the metacognitive awareness to even report on

their own behavior. At the same time, it may not be just developmental, it may be that the nature

of the context and the types of academic tasks in the early elementary grades do not provide
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
8
affordances for the use of these strategies. In this case, lacking the opportunities to develop

strategies, we would not expect young children to be able to report on their use of strategies very

well.

In any event, carefully designed self-report instruments can probably be used with

students in the upper elementary grades and beyond. They can provide a relatively efficient and

practical measure of students’ motivation and use of learning strategies. In addition, depending

on how they are constructed, they can be used to assess motivation and learning strategies in a

manner that is ecologically valid for the classroom setting. In the remainder of this paper, we

outline the development of one such instrument - the Motivated Strategies for Learning

Questionnaire. We discuss the development of the questionnaire, present some data on the

reliability and validity of the scales, and discuss how we have used it in our own research

program on motivation and cognition in the classroom.

Description and Development of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) is a self-report instrument

designed to assess college students’ motivational orientation and their use of different learning

strategies for a college course. The MSLQ is based on a general social-cognitive view of

motivation and learning strategies, with the student represented as an active processor of

information whose beliefs and cognitions are important mediators of instructional input and task
characteristics. By focusing on the roles of both motivation and cognition in the classroom, the

MSLQ also addresses recent advances in self-regulated learning, which emphasizes the interface

between motivation and cognition (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989).

This theoretical framework distinguishes the MSLQ from many of the older study skill

inventories (e.g., Brown & Holtzman, 1967; Christensen, 1968; Goldman & Warren, 1973),

which have been criticized for being atheoretical (e.g., Weinstein & Underwood, 1985), and

measures of learning styles, which proceed from an individual differences framework (e.g.,

Lockhart and Schmeck, 1984; Torrance, Reynolds, Riegel, & Ball, 1977). In contrast to another

widely used self-report instrument, the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (the LASSI,
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
9
Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987), the MSLQ takes a more detailed view of the motivational

processes involved in self-regulated learning, and contextualizes motivation and learning

strategies by assessing them at the course level, rather than at a general level.

The MSLQ has been under development formally since 1986 when the National Center

for Research on improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL) at the University

of Michigan was funded and informally since 1982. During 1982-1986, self-report instruments

to assess students’ motivation and use of learning strategies (varying from 50 to 140 items) were

used to evaluate the effectiveness of the “Learning to Learn” course offered at the University of

Michigan (see McKeachie, Pintrich & Lin, 1985; Pintrich, McKeachie & Lin, 1987). These

measures were used with over 1000 University of Michigan undergraduates enrolled in the

course. These early instruments were subjected to the usual statistical and psychometric

analyses, including internal reliability coefficient computation, factor analysis, and correlations

with academic performance and aptitude measures (e.g., SAT scores). The items have undergone

continuous revisions on the basis of these results.

The formal development of the MSLQ began in earnest when NCRIPTAL was founded

in 1986. NCRIPTAL was funded for research on college populations excluding major research

institutions like the University of Michigan. Accordingly, the MSLQ was administered at three

collaborating institutions in the Midwest: a 4-year public, comprehensive university; a small

liberal arts college; and a community college. There were three major waves of data collection

with previous versions of the MSLQ used with students from these three institutions: 1986,

1987, and 1988. The items on these previous versions of the MSLQ also underwent the usual

statistical and psychometric analyses including internal reliability coefficient computation, factor

analyses, and correlations with academic performance measures. The first wave of data collected

in 1986 included 326 students; the second wave in 1987 included 687 students; and the third

wave in 1988 included 758 students. After each of these waves the data were analyzed and items

revised as the conceptual model underlying the instrument was refined.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
10
The final version of the MSLQ presented in this paper reflects the past dozen years of

work on these various waves of data collection (see the Appendix for a copy of the most current

version of the MSLQ). The instrument is designed to be given in class and takes approximately

20-30 minutes to administer. There are two sections to the MSLQ, a motivation section and a

learning strategies section. The 81 items on this version of the MSLQ are scored on a 7-point

Likert scale, from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). The motivation section consists

of 31 items that assess students’ goals and value beliefs for a course, their beliefs about their

skills to succeed in a course, and their anxiety about tests in a course (see Figure 1). The learning

strategy section includes 50 questions: 31 items regarding students’ use of different cognitive and

metacognitive strategies and 19 items concerning student management of different learning

resources (see Figure 2).

The questionnaire as a whole and all items are designed to be answered in terms of the

students’ motivation and use of learning strategies for a specific course. Students usually take

the questionnaire during the actual meeting time of the class and are asked to respond about their

motivation and use of learning strategies for that specific course. By having them respond to the

MSLQ while physically sitting in the classroom for the course with the instructor, the other

students, and course books and materials actually present, we hope that these cues will stimulate

the respondents to think about their actual beliefs and behavior for that course, thereby increasing

accuracy. In addition, our theoretical model assumes that students’ motivation and learning

strategies are contextualized and situation-specific, not generalized individual differences or

learning styles. Accordingly, we did not operationalize the MSLQ at the general level of having

students respond in terms of their general approach to all learning situations or all classroom

learning (cf. the LASSI, Weinstein, Zimmerman & Palmer, 1988). We assume that students’

motivation varies for different courses (e.g., more interest or value in an elective course vs. a

required course; more efficacy for an easier course in psychology in comparison to a difficult

math or physics course) and that their strategy use might vary as well depending on the nature of

the academic tasks (e.g., multiple choice vs. essay exams). At the same time, in terms of
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
11
practical utility, we did not think it useful to operationalize the questionnaire items in terms of all

the various tasks and situations that a student might confront in one course (e.g., studying for a

test; trying to understand one lecture; reading one chapter in a textbook; writing a final paper or

studying for the comprehensive final exam). We chose the course level as an appropriate level

for our items as a reasonable compromise between the very general and global level of all

learning situations and the impractical and unwieldy level of every specific situation within one

course.

Scale scores are constructed by taking the mean of the items that make up that scale. For

example, intrinsic goal orientation has four items (see Table 1 and Appendix). An individual’s

score for intrinsic goal orientation would be computed by summing the four items and taking the

average. There are some negatively worded items and the ratings should be reversed before an

individual’s score is computed, so that the statistics reported represent the positive wording of all

the items and that higher scores indicate greater levels of the construct of interest. The 15

different scales on the MSLQ can be used together or singly. The scales are designed to be

modular and can be used to fit the needs of the researcher or instructor.

The motivational scales are based on a broad social-cognitive model of motivation that

proposes three general motivational constructs (Pintrich, 1988a, 1988b, 1989): expectancy;

value; and affect. Expectancy components refer to students’ beliefs that they can accomplish a

task, and two MLSQ subscales are directed towards assessing perceptions of self-efficacy and

control beliefs for learning. Our definition and measurement of self-efficacy is a bit broader than

other measures (e.g., the LASSI, Weinstein, Zimmerman & Palmer, 1988), in that both

expectancy for success (which are specific to task performance) and judgments of one’s ability to

accomplish a task and confidence in one’s skills to perform a task are collapsed within the

general term “self-efficacy.” Control beliefs for learning refer to students’ beliefs that outcomes

are contingent upon one’s own effort, rather than external factors such as the teacher or luck.

Value components focus on the reasons why students engage in an academic task. Three

subscales are included in the MSLQ to measure value beliefs: intrinsic goal orientation (a focus
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
12
on learning and mastery); extrinsic goal orientation (a focus on grades and approval from others);

and task value beliefs (judgments of how interesting, useful, and important the course content is

to the student). The third general motivational construct is affect, and has been operationalized

in terms of responses to the test anxiety scale, which taps into students’ worry and concern over

taking exams.

The learning strategies section of the instrument is based on a general cognitive model of

learning and information processing (see Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). There are three general

types of scales: cognitive; metacognitive; and resource management. Cognitive strategies

include students’ use of basic and complex strategies for the processing of information from texts

and lectures. The most basic cognitive strategy subscale provides a measure of the use of

rehearsal by students (e.g., repeating the words over and over to oneself to help in the recall of

information). The use of more complex strategies are measured by two subscales concerning the

use of elaboration strategies (e.g., paraphrasing, summarizing) and organization strategies (e.g.,

outlining, creating tables). In addition, a subscale on critical thinking is included, which refers

student’s use of strategies to apply previous knowledge to new situations or make critical

evaluations of ideas. The second general category is metacognitive control strategies, which is

measured by one large subscale concerning the use of strategies that help students control and

regulate their own cognition. This subscale includes planning (setting goals), monitoring (of

one’s comprehension), and regulating (e.g., adjusting reading speed depending on the task). The

third general strategy category is resource management, which includes four subscales on

students’ regulatory strategies for controlling other resources besides their cognition. These

strategies include managing one's time and study environment (e.g., using one's time well, having

an appropriate place to study), as well as regulation of one's effort (e.g., persisting in the face of

difficult or boring tasks). Finally, the remaining two subscales, peer learning (e.g., using a study

group or friends to help learn) and help-seeking (e.g., seeking help from peers or instructors

when needed) focus on the use of others in learning.

Psychometric Properties of the MSLQ

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
13
Construct Validity. In order to test the utility of the theoretical model and its operationalization

in the final version of the MSLQ scales, we used data gathered from 380 Midwestern college

students enrolled in 37 classrooms (spanning 14 subject domains and five disciplines: natural

science, humanities, social science, computer science, and foreign language) to perform two

confirmatory factor analyses: one for the set of motivation items and another for the set of

cognitive and metacognitive strategy items (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993).

Structural equation modeling was used to estimate parameters and test the models. In contrast to

exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis requires the identification of which items

(indicators) should fall onto which factors (latent variables). Parameter estimates for the model

specified were generated using maximum likelihood, and tests for goodness-of-fit were made.

The goodness-of-fit tests assessed how well correlations that were reproduced, given the model

specified, “matched up” with the input set of correlations.

In other words, confirmatory factor analysis allowed for a quantitative test of the

theoretical model. For example, we have four items that are assumed to be indicators of a

construct called Intrinsic Goal Orientation. The confirmatory factor analysis tested how closely

the input correlations could be reproduced given the constraints that Items 1, 16, 22, and 24 all

onto one specific factor (Intrinsic Goal Orientation); that Items 7, 11, 13, and 30 fall onto another

factor (Extrinsic Goal Orientation); that Items 4, 10, 17, 23, 26, and 27 fall onto another (Task

Value) and so forth. Each item on the MSLQ was constrained to fall on one specific latent

factor. The 31 motivation items were tested to see how well they fit six correlated latent factors:

(1) intrinsic goal orientation, (2) extrinsic goal orientation, (3) task value, (4) control beliefs

about learning, (5) self-efficacy for learning and performance, and (6) test anxiety (see Figure 1

for the measurement model). The 50 cognitive strategy items were tested to see how well they fit

nine correlated latent factors: (1) rehearsal, (2) elaboration, (3) organization, (4) critical thinking,

(5) metacognitive self-regulation, (6) time and study environment management, (7) effort

regulation, (8) peer learning, and (9) help seeking (see Figure 2 for the measurement model).
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
14
Therefore, the measurement models tested in the analyses followed the theoretical framework,

and the structural models freely estimated the covariances between the latent constructs.

The goodness of fit indices generated by the LISREL program suggested that the general

model of motivational components with six scales and the general model of cognitive

components with nine scales were indeed reasonable representations of the data (Pintrich et al.,

1993; cf. Garcia & Pintrich, 1991). Several omnibus fit statistics were calculated: the chi-square

to degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df); the goodness-of-fit and adjusted goodness-of-fit indices (GFI

and AGFI); and the root mean residual (RMR). A χ2/df ratio of less than 5 is considered to be

indicative of a good fit between the observed and reproduced correlation matrices (Hayduk,

1987); a GFI or AGFI of .9 or greater and an RMR of .05 or less are heuristic values that indicate

that the model "fits" the input data well. The motivation model (see Figure 1) resulted in a GFI

of .77, an AGFI of .73, an RMR of .07, and generated a χ2/df ratio of 3.49 (Pintrich et. al., 1993).

The six correlated latent factors model appears to be the best fitting representation of the input

data, as the largest modification index provided by LISREL VI was 50.2, and making the

modification did not substantively "improve" the overall fit indices for the motivation model

(e.g., the GFI increased from .773 to .784; the RMR decreased from .074 to .072). Constraining

the 50 learning strategies items to fall onto nine correlated latent factors generated a χ2/df ratio

of 2.26, a GFI of .78, an AGFI of .75, and an RMR of .08. The nine correlated latent factors

model appears to be the best fitting representation of the input data, as the largest modification

index provided by LISREL VI was 91.59, and modifying the model did not substantively

"improve" the overall fit indices for the learning strategies model (e.g., the GFI increased from

.779 to .789; the RMR decreased from .078 to .076). These results provide support for the

soundness of the measurement and theoretical models for the two sections of the MSLQ.

On a more basic level, the correlations among the MSLQ scales suggest that the scales are

valid measures of the motivational and cognitive constructs. The value and expectancy scales,

intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, and

self-efficacy were all positively correlated with one another, with rs ranging from .14 to .68 (see
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
15
Table 2). Test anxiety was modestly correlated with the value and expectancy scales in the

expected directions. Test anxiety was negatively correlated with the “positive” motivational

beliefs of intrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, and self-efficacy as

would be expected theoretically. It was positively correlated with extrinsic goal orientation, a

motivational belief that focuses on getting good grades and performing well, so it is not

surprising that students who are concerned about grades would show more test anxiety (Garcia &

Pintrich, 1991; Pintrich et al., 1993). As expected, all the cognitive strategy and resource

management scales were positively related to one another, with rs ranging from .10 to .70 (see

Table 2). Peer learning and help-seeking were generally more weakly correlated with the other

scales: their correlations with cognitive strategies and other resource management strategies

range from .10 to .28. Finally, the motivational and learning strategies scales were correlated in

the expected directions. The positive motivational beliefs of intrinsic goal orientation, task

value, self-efficacy, and control of learning were positively associated with the use of cognitive,

metacognitive, and resource management strategies. At the same time, test anxiety was

negatively related to the use of cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies.

Although some of the correlations are low, as a whole the relationships between the constructs

are in the directions predicted by theory. Indeed, the low correlations may be interpreted as

evidence for the orthogonality of these constructs: that the motivation scales are measuring

different aspects of motivation, and that the learning strategies scales are measuring different

classroom learning tactics.

With regard to the interface between motivation and cognition, we have found consistent

patterns of relationships between students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement.

Self-efficacy, task value, and an intrinsic goal orientation are typically the motivational factors

most highly correlated with higher-order strategies such as elaboration, organization, critical

thinking and metacognitive regulation (average r = .39), as well as strategies involving the

management of one’s time, study space, and effort (average r = .38). These three factors are less

strongly related to the use of rehearsal strategies (average r = .10) and to peer learning or help-
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
16
seeking (average r = .09). The weak relationships to rehearsal strategies may be due to the

widespread use of memorization across college courses (i.e., so that students at all levels of

motivation would use rehearsal strategies to the same extent). In terms of the peer learning or

help-seeking, the low correlations to self-efficacy, task value, and intrinsic goal orientation may

be due to students’ lack of opportunities to engage in collaboration with their peers, and to a

commonly-seen reluctance to seek assistance for college-level courses. An extrinsic goal

orientation and internal control beliefs for learning are less strongly related to cognitive

engagement (average r = .12), but are in the expected directions. Finally, we have found that test

anxiety is consistently negatively related to higher-order strategies such as elaboration,

organization, critical thinking, and metacognitive regulation, as well as to the management of

one’s time, study space and effort (average r = .15). In contrast, test anxiety is positively related

(albeit weakly) to the use of rehearsal strategies, peer learning, and help seeking (average r =

.10). As a whole, these patterns of correlations indicate that positive, more desirable

motivational beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy, task value, intrinsic goal orientation) are related to higher

levels of cognitive engagement, whereas less desirable motivational beliefs (e.g., extrinsic goal

orientation, test anxiety) are either weakly or negatively related to cognitive engagement.

Internal Consistency and Reliability. Internal consistency estimates of reliability (coefficient

alphas) lend additional support for the strength of the psychometric properties of the MSLQ
subscales (see Table 1). The coefficient alphas for the motivational scales are robust,

demonstrating good internal consistency (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &

McKeachie, 1991; Pintrich et al., 1993). Task value beliefs concerning students’ ratings about

how interesting, useful, and important the course material is to them typically have a very high

alpha (averaging .90 across our datasets), as do students’ judgments of their self-efficacy for

learning (averaging .93). The Test Anxiety and Intrinsic Goal Orientation subscales yielded good

internal consistency estimates (generally .80 and .74 respectively). Extrinsic goal orientation and

control of learning beliefs tend to show more variability in students’ responses, with coefficient

alphas averaging at about .65. Similarly, the alphas for the learning strategies scales are
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
17
reasonable, with most of the coefficient alphas averaging above .70. However, help-seeking

typically has the lowest alpha (below .60). This scale asks about seeking help from both peers

and instructors and it may be that students tend to seek help from only one of these sources.

Taken together, however, the confirmatory factor analyses discussed above and alphas of each of

the fifteen scales suggest that the general model of motivational components with six scales and

cognitive components with nine scales are a reasonable representation of the data.

Predictive Validity. We have examined predictive validity in terms of the relations between the

MSLQ scales and standardized course grades (course grades were standardized to control for

instructor grading differences). The motivational subscales showed significant correlations with

final grade, and were in the expected directions, adding to the validity of the scales. Students

who approached their course with an intrinsic goal for learning, who believed that the material

was interesting and important, who had high self-efficacy beliefs for accomplishing the tasks,

and who rated themselves as in control of their learning were more likely to do well in terms of

course grade (average r = .29). At the same time, students who reported being anxious about test

overall were less likely to do well in the course (average r = -.26; e.g., Pintrich & Garcia, 1991;

Pintrich et al., 1993).

Most of the learning strategy subscales also showed the expected correlations with course

grade. Students who relied on deeper processing strategies like elaboration, organization, critical
thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation were more likely to receive higher grades in the

course (average r = .21). Students who successfully managed their own time and study
environment, as well as their own efforts (persistence at difficult tasks) were more likely to

perform better in their courses (average r = .30). Surprisingly, the use of rehearsal, peer learning

and help-seeking strategies are not significantly related to grades; this may be due to the fact that

both high and low achieving students engage in these strategies to the same extent.

Multivariate analyses have lent further support for the predictive utility of the MSLQ.

For students in the computer and natural sciences, the fifteen subscales accounted for a total of

39% of the variance in final course grade; self-efficacy and time and study environment
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
18
management were the strongest predictors, with betas of .35 and .49, respectively. For students

in the social sciences, humanities, and foreign language classes, the fifteen subscales accounted

for a total of 17% of the variance in final course grade; however, the two strongest predictors,

test anxiety and effort management, were only marginally significant (p < .10), with betas of -.12

and .16, respectively. In other studies (e.g., Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) we found that a subset of

these variables accounted for 22% of the variance in final course grade. Given that many factors

can account for the variance in the grades that teachers assign, these modest amounts of

explained variance seem reasonable.

Practical Utility. It has been our policy to provide students feedback on the MSLQ as a form of

compensation for their participation in our studies. We have chosen nine scales of the MSLQ

(Task Value, Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance, Test Anxiety, Rehearsal, Elaboration,

Organization, Metacognition, Time and Study Environment Management, and Effort Regulation)

on which to give students feedback. The student’s individual scores, the class’ scale means, and

quartile information for that class are included in the feedback form. We provide descriptions of

each scale and also offer suggestions to students on how to increase their levels of motivation

and strategy use. Although we have not done any formal research on the effects of this feedback

on students’ motivation, use of learning strategies, and performance, students do tell us that they

find the feedback quite helpful and informative. We have also provided instructors with

feedback on their course’s motivation and use of learning strategies (at the group level, not the

individual student level), and instructors too have found this information helpful in adapting the

content and pace of the class. Of course, the amount of and type of feedback may be adapted to

the researcher’s or instructor’s needs.

We have not provided norms for the MSLQ and have no plans to do so given our

theoretical assumptions of situation-specificity. It is designed to be used at the course level. As

noted previously, we assume that students’ responses to the items might vary as a function of

different courses, so that the same individual might report different levels of motivation or

strategy use depending on the course. If the user desires norms for comparative purposes over
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
19
time, we suggest the development of local norms for the different courses or instructors at the

local institution.

The 15 different scales on the MSLQ can be used together or singly. The scales are

designed to be modular and can be used to fit the needs of the researcher or instructor. The

instrument is designed to be given in class and takes approximately 20-30 minutes to administer.

Because of its modularity, flexibility, ease of administration, and sound psychometric properties,

the MSLQ has shown to be a practical and useful means for assessing college students’

motivation and learning strategies.

Conclusions

Although the validity of self-report measures has been questioned (e.g., Nisbett &

Wilson, 1977), the criticisms made are themselves flawed, as the critiques stem from data on

respondents’ misattributions (inaccurate ascriptions to “why did X happen?”) rather than

respondents’ reports about their behaviors (e.g., “I do X when I study”) or attitudes (Ericsson &

Simon, 1993). That is, direct articulation of information stored in memory (such as a behavior in

which one engages or an attitude which one holds) has been shown to be accurate and veridical,

whereas verbalizations which are products of intermediate processing, such as abstractions,

inferences, or attributions, are more subject to distortion (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). According

to Ericsson & Simon (1993), the issue for researchers then becomes one of methodology, and
they provide ample evidence for the utility of verbal reports as data. Similarly, survey

researchers, who use self-report methods almost exclusively, have an entire literature on

question-writing (e.g., Converse & Presser, 1986) and response effects (e.g., Bradburn, 1983;

Wentland & Smith, 1993). This body of work suggests that while certain information may be

unavailable in memory, the degree of response accuracy and consistency (even to sensitive

questions) vary according to specific attributes of questions such as wording or length, indicating

that particular conditions and stimuli facilitate information retrieval (Wentland & Smith, 1993).

Admittedly, the use of self-report questionnaires does trade some internal validity for external
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
20
validity, but we are confident that given careful construction of questions and conscientious

administration of the instrument, relatively high levels of accuracy may be maintained.

The results suggest that the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire has

relatively good reliability in terms of internal consistency. The general theoretical framework

and the scales that measure it seem to be valid given the results of the two confirmatory factor

analyses. The six motivational subscales and the nine learning strategies subscales represent a

coherent conceptual and empirically validated framework for assessing student motivation and

use for learning strategies in the college classroom (Pintrich et al., 1993). The six motivational

scales measure three general components of college student motivation that seem to be distinct

factors. In addition, the learning strategy scales represent an array of different cognitive,

metacognitive, and resource management strategies that can be reliably distinguished from one

another on both conceptual and empirical grounds. Finally, the subscales seem to show

reasonable predictive validity. The motivational scales were related to academic performance in

the expected directions. In the same fashion, the learning strategies scales were positively related

to course grade. These significant, albeit modest relations with course grade are reasonable,

given the many other factors that are related to college course grade that are not measured by the

MSLQ (individual course grades themselves are not very reliable measures of performance or

learning). The MSLQ seems to represent a useful, reliable, and valid means for assessing college

students’ motivation and use of learning strategies in the classroom.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
21
References

Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Assor, A., & Connell, J. (1992). The validity of students’ self-reports as measures of

performance affecting self-appraisals. In D.H. Schunk & J. Meece, (Eds.), Student perceptions in

the classroom (pp. 25-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bradburn, N. (1983). Response effects. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson

(Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 289-328). New York: Academic Press.

Brown, W., & Holtzman, W. (1967). Survey of study habits and attitudes. New York:

Psychological Corporation.

Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education.

Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5-12.

Christensen, F. A. (1968). College adjustment and study skills inventory. Berea, OH:

Personal Growth Press.

Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized

questionnaire. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman &

D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 111-141). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data

(revised edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1991, April). Student motivation and self-regulated

learning: A LISREL model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the

classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H. Schunk & B.J.
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
22
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational

applications (127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldman, R., & Warren, R. (1973). Discriminant analysis of study strategies connected

with college grade success in different major fields. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10,

39-47.

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task

involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 83, 187-194.

Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and

advances. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Howard-Rose, D., Winne, P. (1993). Measuring component and sets of cognitive

processes in self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 591-604.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural

relationships by the method of maximum likelihood: User’s guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific

Software, Inc.

Lockhart, D, & Schmeck, R. (1984). Learning styles and classroom evaluation methods:

Different strokes for different folks. College Student Journal, 17, 94-100.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y. G. (1985). Teaching learning strategies.
Educational Psychologist, 20, 153-160.
Pintrich, P. R. (1988a). A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In

J. Stark and L. Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research: New directions

for institutional research (Vol. 57, pp. 65-79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pintrich, P. R. (1988b). Student learning and college teaching. In R. E. Young and K. E.

Eble (Eds.), College teaching and learning: Preparing for new commitments. New directions for

teaching and learning (Vol. 33, pp. 71-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the

college classroom. In C. Ames and M.L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
23
achievement: Motivation-enhancing environments (Vol. 6, pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the

college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and

achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Pintrich, P. R., McKeachie, J. W., & Lin, Y. G. (1987). Teaching g as a course in

learning to learn. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 81-86.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the

use of the motivated strategies questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,

National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

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.

Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance:

Issues and educational application. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thorkildsen, T., & Nicholls, J. (1991). Students’ critiques as motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 26, 347-368.

Torrance, E. P., Reynolds, C. R., Riegel, T., & Ball, O. (1977). Your style of learning

and thinking: Forms A and B. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 563-573.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.

Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learning and study strategies

inventory. Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
24
Weinstein, C. E., & Underwood, V. L. (1985). Learning strategies: The how of learning.

In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Relating

instruction to research (Vol. 1, pp. 241-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weinstein, C. E., Zimmerman, S. A., & Palmer, D. R. (1988). Assessing learning

strategies: The design and development of the LASSI. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A.

Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation

(pp. 25-40). New York: Academic Press.

Wentland, E. J., & Smith, K. W. (1993). Survey responses: An evaluation of their

validity. New York: Academic Press.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A

theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk D.H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic

achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
25
Table 1

Coefficient alphas and items comprising the fifteen MSLQ scales

Scale Items Comprising the Scale Alpha

Motivation Scales

Intrinsic Goal Orientation 1, 16, 22, 24 .74

Extrinsic Goal Orientation 7, 11, 13, 30 .62

Task Value 4, 10, 17, 23, 26, 27 .90

Control of Learning Beliefs 2, 9, 18, 25 .68

Self-Efficacy for Learning & Performance 5, 6, 12, 15, 20, 21, 29, 31 .93

Test Anxiety 3, 8, 14, 19, 28 .80

Learning Strategies Scales

Rehearsal 39, 46, 59, 72 .69

Elaboration 53, 62, 64, 67, 69, 81 .75

Organization 32, 42, 49, 63 .64

Critical Thinking 38, 47, 51, 66, 71 .80

Metacognitive Self-Regulation 33r, 36, 41, 44, 54, 55, 56, 57r,

61, 76, 78, 79 .79

Time & Study Environment Management 35, 43, 52r, 65, 70, 73, 77r, 80r .76

Effort Regulation 37r, 48, 60r, 74 .69

Peer Learning 34, 45, 50 .76

Help-Seeking 40r, 58, 68, 75 .52

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
26
Table 2

Correlations among MSLQ scales

Intr Extr Tskv Cont Slfef Tanx Reh Elab Org Crit Mcg Tstdy Efft Prlrn

Extr .15

Tskv .68 .18

Cont .29 .14 .30

Slfef .59 .15 .51 .44

Tanx -.15 .23 -.14 -.10 -.37

Reh .10 .23 .12 .02 .10 .11

Elab .48 .13 .44 .22 .35 -.13 .36

Org .27 .09 .19 .02 .21 -.05 .49 .52

Crit .58 .06 .39 .18 .42 -.11 .15 .57 .31

Mcg .50 .07 .45 .17 .46 -.24 .39 .67 .55 .53

Tstdy .32 .13 .37 .00 .32 -.17 .38 .44 .44 .25 .58

Efft .43 .11 .47 .07 .44 -.21 .26 .44 .36 .25 .61 .70

Prlrn .13 .20 .09 -.03 .05 .10 .21 .19 .23 .25 .15 .10 .05

Hsk .10 .08 .16 .00 .08 .08 .18 .28 .22 .19 .25 .21 .18 .55

Note. Intr: Intrinsic Goal Orientation; Extr: Extrinsic Goal Orientation; Tskv: Task Value;
Cont: Control of Learning Beliefs; Slfef: Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance; Tanx:

Test Anxiety; Reh: Rehearsal; Elab: Elaboration; Org: Organization; Crit: Critical Thinking;

Mcg: Metacognitive Self-Regulation; Tstdy: Time and Study Environment Management; Efft:

Effort Regulation; Prlrn: Peer Learning; Hsk: Help-Seeking.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
27
Figure Caption

Figure 1. Measurement model of student motivation based on the MSLQ (from Pintrich et al.,

1993). Note: the numbers on the arrows represent the lambda-ksi estimates of the standardized

solution.
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
28
Figure Caption

Figure 2. Measurement model of student learning strategies based on the MSLQ (from Pintrich

et al., 1993). Note: the numbers on the arrows represent the lambda-ksi estimates of the

standardized solution.
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
29
Appendix

Part A. Motivation

1. In a class like this, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn new things.

2. If I study in appropriate ways, then I will be able to learn the material in this course.

3.When I take a test I think about how poorly I am doing compared with other students.

4. I think I will be able to use what I learn in this course in other courses.

5. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class.

6. I'm certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings for this

course.

7. Getting a good grade in this class is the most satisfying thing for me right now.

8. When I take a test I think about items on other parts of the test I can't answer.

9. It is my own fault if I don't learn the material in this course.

10. It is important for me to learn the course material in this class.

11. The most important thing for me right now is improving my overall grade point average, so

my main concern in this class is getting a good grade.

12. I'm confident I can learn the basic concepts taught in this course.

13. If I can, I want to get better grades in this class than most of the other students.

14. When I take tests I think of the consequences of failing.

15. I'm confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the instructor in this

course.

16. In a class like this, I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to

learn.

17. I am very interested in the content area of this course.

18. If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course material.

19. I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take an exam.

20. I'm confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and tests in this course.

21. I expect to do well in this class.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
30
22. The most satisfying thing for me in this course is trying to understand the content as

thoroughly as possible.

23. I think the course material in this class is useful for me to learn.

24. When I have the opportunity in this class, I choose course assignments that I can learn from

even if they don't guarantee a good grade.

25. If I don't understand the course material, it is because I didn't try hard enough.

26. I like the subject matter of this course.

27. Understanding the subject matter of this course is very important to me.

28. I feel my heart beating fast when I take an exam.

29. I'm certain I can master the skills being taught in this class.

30. I want to do well in this class because it is important to show my ability to my family,

friends, employer, or others.

31. Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will do well in

this class.

Part B. Learning Strategies

32. When I study the readings for this course, I outline the material to help me organize my
thoughts.

33. During class time I often miss important points because I'm thinking of other things.

(REVERSED)

34. When studying for this course, I often try to explain the material to a classmate or friend.

35. I usually study in a place where I can concentrate on my course work.

36. When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading.

37. I often feel so lazy or bored when I study for this class that I quit before I finish what I

planned to do. (REVERSED)

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
31
38. I often find myself questioning things I hear or read in this course to decide if I find them

convincing.

39. When I study for this class, I practice saying the material to myself over and over.

40. Even if I have trouble learning the material in this class, I try to do the work on my own,

without help from anyone. (REVERSED)

41. When I become confused about something I'm reading for this class, I go back and try to

figure it out.

42. When I study for this course, I go through the readings and my class notes and try to find the

most important ideas.

43. I make good use of my study time for this course.

44. If course readings are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material.

45. I try to work with other students from this class to complete the course assignments.

46. When studying for this course, I read my class notes and the course readings over and over

again.

47. When a theory, interpretation, or conclusion is presented in class or in the readings, I try to

decide if there is good supporting evidence.

48. I work hard to do well in this class even if I don't like what we are doing.

49. I make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help me organize course material.

50. When studying for this course, I often set aside time to discuss course material with a group

of students from the class.

51. I treat the course material as a starting point and try to develop my own ideas about it.

52. I find it hard to stick to a study schedule. (REVERSED)

53. When I study for this class, I pull together information from different sources, such as

lectures, readings, and discussions.

54. Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often skim it to see how it is organized.

55. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying in this

class.
 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
32
56. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and the instructor's

teaching style.

57. I often find that I have been reading for this class but don't know what it was all about.

(REVERSED)

58. I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don't understand well.

59. I memorize key words to remind me of important concepts in this class.

60. When course work is difficult, I either give up or only study the easy parts. (REVERSED)

61. I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather than just

reading it over when studying for this course.

62. I try to relate ideas in this subject to those in other courses whenever possible.

63. When I study for this course, I go over my class notes and make an outline of important

concepts.

64. When reading for this class, I try to relate the material to what I already know.

65. I have a regular place set aside for studying.

66. I try to play around with ideas of my own related to what I am learning in this course.

67. When I study for this course, I write brief summaries of the main ideas from the readings and

my class notes.

68. When I can't understand the material in this course, I ask another student in this class for

help.

69. I try to understand the material in this class by making connections between the readings and

the concepts from the lectures.

70. I make sure that I keep up with the weekly readings and assignments for this course.

71. Whenever I read or hear an assertion or conclusion in this class, I think about possible

alternatives.

72. I make lists of important items for this course and memorize the lists.

73. I attend this class regularly.

 Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies
33
74. Even when course materials are dull and uninteresting, I manage to keep working until I

finish.

75. I try to identify students in this class whom I can ask for help if necessary.

76. When studying for this course I try to determine which concepts I don't understand well.

77. I often find that I don't spend very much time on this course because of other activities.

(REVERSED)

78. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in each

study period.

79. If I get confused taking notes in class, I make sure I sort it out afterwards.

80. I rarely find time to review my notes or readings before an exam. (REVERSED)

81. I try to apply ideas from course readings in other class activities such as lecture and

discussion.

View publication stats