Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2748–2752

WCES-2011

The analysis of using self-regulated learning strategies according to

gender factor
3Õnar FettahlÕR÷lua*
a
Gazi Üniversity education faculty of Gazi science education department teknik okullar, ankara 06500, TurkÕye

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine science teacher candidates’ self regulation learning strategies that are used for the
domain of science and examine the impact of gender factor on using of self regulation strategies. Descriptive method was used in
this study. The sample consists of total 223 science teacher candidates studying in Gazi University in Ankara. At the end of the
study, findings revealed that there is no meaningful correlation between the genders of the candidates and types of their learning
strategies. Among the learning strategies, strategy of repetition includes candidates in the most “strongly developed” level.
© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Academic Effective Learning, Learning Strategies, Self Regulation Learning Strategies, Class, Gender

1. Introduction

Self regulation learning strategies is one of the effective learning strategies that are used in education process.
In general, self regulation is defined as the interaction of personal, behavioral and environmental processes by
Bandura (1986). In this context, self regulated learning is defined as motivational, behavioral and cognitive
capabilities of individuals participating in the learning process (Zimmerman, 1986). Students that are confident
about their abilities to learn not only have many intellectual interests but also are dedicated to acquire new
knowledge and skills themselves. While these students are working in the learning environment, they are also in
cooperation with other students. This situation is a situation that keeps the work on the stability of student as active
(Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). As it can be understood from the expression stated, self regulated learning has a
cyclical process (Zimmerman, 1998). This cycle is shown in Figure.1.

* PÕnar FettahlÕR÷lu. Tel.: +90 312 202 891 09 ; fax: +90 312 222 84 83.
E-mail address: pinardnz@gmail.com.

1877–0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.182
 Pınar Fettahlıoğlu / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2748–2752 2749

Figure 1. Phases of Self Regulated (Zimmerman,1998).

In the phase of forethought of learning based on self-regulation, individuals prepare themselves in terms of
judicial beliefs and thoughts. In this sense, sub-dimensions of the forethought are expressed as determining a target,
tactical planning, self-efficacy belief and internal interest (Bembenutty & Zimmerman, 2003). The second phase is
the volition or performance phase. The performance control phase processes occur during efforts of learning and
affect concentration and performance. These processes include attention focusing, self-instruction or verbalization,
and self monitoring. Self instruction is the learners’ way of guiding themselves through a learning task. Guided self-
instruction could serve as a means of concentrating attention, establishing sequential steps, or praising oneself to
enhance motivation to continue learning. In the process of self-monitoring, individuals collect from data about
products they have achieved in the learning process. In other words, in this process, learners realize good or bad
aspects of their performances in the learning process. Third phase of self regulated learning is reflection. At the end
of this phase, individuals evaluate their performances. In this sense, phase of self-reflection includes the following
actions: self evaluation, attributions, self-reactions, and adaptively (Zimmerman, 2002). If individuals gained in self-
regulation strategies and skills, they could edit self regulated phases. These strategies spontaneously develop for
some individuals. But some individuals need support on this issue. So, it is important that students' self-regulation
learning strategies must be determined and should be aware of this strategy in education.
When the literature on self-regulation is scanned, it is seen that there are a lot of research on self-regulation in
abroad (Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Paterson, 1996; Wolters, 1998). On the other hand,
when examining the national studies in this area, not also it is seen very little study but also it is seen that these
studies were carried out on elementary and high school students (AlÕFÕ & Altun, 2007; Üredi & Üredi, 2005). But, it
was not found that the study related to identifying pre-service science teachers’ self-regulation learning strategies.
However, when considering that purpose of learning strategies is to improve the quality of education, it can be said
that studies related to determining science teacher candidates’ self regulation learning strategies and examining
factors influencing learning strategies will make contribution to the domain.
In this context, the purpose of this study is to determine science teacher candidates’ self regulation learning
strategies that are used for the domain of science and to examine the impact of gender factor on using of self
regulation strategies. In this sense, the following questions were asked.

¾ How is the general distribution of the science teacher candidates’ self regulated learning strategies?
¾ Do the science teacher candidates’ self regulated learning strategies differ according to the gender variable
meaningfully?

2. Method

2.1. Participants
Since the purpose of this study is to examine the learning strategies based on self-regulation of Science teacher
candidates, descriptive model was used in the study. Working group of this study was composed of 222 students in
total, 184 (%82.51) female and 39 (%17.49) male teacher candidates of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth
grades studying in Gazi University Faculty of Education Department of Science Education.

2.2. Data Collection Tool

Data collection medium was “Learning Strategies Scale (LSS)” that was developed by Pitrinch & De Groot (1990)
and translated into Turkish by Büyüköztürk, Akgün, Özkahveci, & Demirel (2005). Evaluation was conducted
2750 Pınar Fettahlıoğlu / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2748–2752

according to 7 degrees designated between the end points of “completely suits me” and “doesn’t suit me at all” in
LSS that is composed of 50 items and 9 sub dimensions. When the LSS was examined for the cronbach alfa
reliability values in this research, the scale as general was calculated as r = .82. The highest score obtained in any of
the scale shows that student has a high level of the mentioned factor related to a feature. In this context, respondents
may take up to 7 points and at least 1 point (Büyüköztürk, Akgün, Özkahveci, & Demirel, 2005).

2.3. Analysis of Data

It used to gap width Formula: the width of the array/ the number of groups in order to analyze data obtained from
learning strategies scale (Tekin, 1993). In this context, arithmetic average weights used for the evaluation of the
findings are as follows:
Table 2.3.1. Arithmetic average weights used for the evaluation

Score Ranges Evaluation criteria Score Ranges Evaluation criteria

1.00–1.85 Strongly undeveloped 4.45-5.30 Middle-level advanced
186– 2.72 No development 5.31-6.16 Advanced
2.73–3.58 No part of development 6.17-7.00 Very well developed
3.59-4.44 Partially developed

To analyze data, independent-samples t-test and descriptive analysis were chosen. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was calculated in order to establish reliabilities of the instruments. SPSS-17 package programme was used during
these analyses.

3. Findings

3.1. The General Distribution Of Science Teacher Candidates’ Using Self Regulated Learning Strategies
The science teacher candidates’ general distribution of the points they took from the scale of self regulated
learning strategies as general and its sub-dimensions was given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. The General Distribution Of Science Teacher Candidates’ Using Self Regulated Learning Strategies

Learning Lowest Use of Highest Use of Average Use of

Strategies N Learning N % Learning Strategy / N % Learning Strategy / N %
Strategy / Score Score Score
Repetition 223 2 1 4 7.00 2 9 4.65 41 18.4
(undeveloped) (advanced) (Middle-level
advanced)
Regulation 223 2.25 1 4 7.00 13 5.8 5.14 22 9.9
(undeveloped) (Very well (Middle-level
developed) advanced)
Explication 223 2.00 1 4 7.00 12 5.4 5.02 12 5.4
(undeveloped) (Very well (Middle-level
developed) advanced)
Critical 223 1.00 (strongly 1 4 7.00 8 3.6 4.91 29 13
thinking undeveloped) (Very well (Middle-level
developed) advanced)
Help Search 223 2.00 1 4 7.00 5 2.2 4.72 23 10.3
(undeveloped) (Very well (Middle-level
developed) advanced)
Peer 223 1.00 2 9 7.00 4 1.8 4.37 25 11.2
collaboration (undeveloped) (Very well (Partially
developed) developed)
Metacognitive 223 2.75 (No part of 1 4 7.00 4 1.8 4.88 7 3.1
development) (Very well (Middle-level
developed) advanced)
Effort 223 1.00 (strongly 1 4 7.00 5 2.2 4.57 27 12.1
management undeveloped) (Very well (Middle-level
developed) advanced)
Time and study 223 1.00 (strongly 1 4 6.88 1 4 4.68 24 10.8
environment undeveloped) (Very well (Middle-level
developed) advanced)
 Pınar Fettahlıoğlu / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2748–2752 2751

When Table 1 was examined, it is seen that there are science teacher candidates who has a high level of using of
learning strategies in each learning strategy. On the other hand, it is seen that there are many teachers which has a
high level of use of learning strategy in the regulation and explication learning strategies. Also, it is determined that
there are science teacher candidates who has low-level of use of learning strategies in the peer collaboration, critical
thinking, effort management and time and study environment learning strategies. Finally, it is seen that there are
many teacher candidates who has a moderate use of learning strategy in each learning strategy.

3.2. T-Test Results of The Science Teacher Candidates’ Self- Regulated Learning Strategies According To The
Gender Variable

T-test results of the science teacher candidates’ self- regulated leraning strategies according to the gender
variable are given in Table 3.2.

Tablo 3.2. T-Test Results of The Science Teacher Candidates’ Self- Regulated Leraning Strategies According to The Gender Variable

Learning strategies Gender N x S df t p

Repetition Male 184 4.71 1.006 221 2.082 0.38
Female 39 4.35 .908
Regulation Male 184 5.18 1.076 221 1.232 .219
Female 39 4.94 1.102
Explication Male 184 5.04 .972 221 .575 .566
Female 39 4.94 1.140
Critical Male 184 4.90 1.021 221 .410 .682
Thinking Female 39 4.97 .971
Help Search Male 184 4.71 .954 221 .113 .910
Female 39 4.73 .760
Peer Collaboration Male 184 4.35 1.185 221 .695 .488
Female 39 4.49 1.139
Metacognitive Male 184 4.92 .848 221 1.605 .110
Female 39 4.68 .787
Effort Management Male 184 4.61 1.022 221 1.424 .156
Female 39 4.36 .929
Time And Study Environment Male 184 4.71 .848 221 1.112 .264
Female 39 4.54 .859

When Table 2 was examined, male’s scores are higher than female’s scores in the regulation, explication, meta
cognitive, effort management and time and study environment learning strategies. But, it is seen that female’s
scores are higher than male’s scores in the repetition, critical thinking and peer collaboration learning strategies.
Independent samples t test was applied in order to understand whether there is a significant difference between these
points. The Independent samples t-test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in favour of
females’ scores in the Repetition learning strategies [t (221)=2.082, p<.05]. On the other hand, there was not a
statistically significant difference between scores in the other learning strategies. [regulation : t(221)=1.232,
Explication: t(221)= .575, Critical Thinking : t(221)= .410, Help Search: t(221)= .113, Metacognitive: t(221)= 1.605, Effort
Management: t(221)=1.424, Time And Study Environment: t(221)=1.112, p<.05].

4. Results
The purpose of this study is to determine science teacher candidates’ self regulation learning strategies that are
used for the domain of science and examine the impact of gender factor on using of self regulation strategies. At the
end of this study, it was determined that in the domain of science, among the learning strategy, Repetition learning
strategies includes the most “strongly developed” level candidates. On the other hand, Peer Collaboration learning
strategy includes the most “strongly undeveloped” level candidates. According to Pitrinch (2000), self-regulation is
a context-oriented activity that may vary depending on the context of the subject. In this sense, teacher candidates
can apply different strategies of self-regulation in each context and may have different motivational beliefs. Also, at
the end of this study, it was determined that male teacher candidates in the repetition learning strategies. A
meaningful difference has not been found between genders in using other strategies.
2752 Pınar Fettahlıoğlu / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2748–2752

References

Ablard, K, Lipschultz, R. (1998). Self regulated learning in high-achieving students: relations to advanced reasoning achievement goals and
gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1, 94-101.
AlÕFÕ, B, Altun, S. (2007). Are high school students’ self regulation and metacognition skills towards mathematics vary according to gender, class
and department? Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 16, 1, 33-44.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 3, 523-535.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bembenutty, H. & Zimmerman, B.J. (2003). The relationship of motivational beliefs and self regulatory process to homework completyion and
academic achievement. This one was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Büyükozturk, ù., Akgun, O. E., Ozkahveci, O. ve Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Science Theory & Practice, 4,2, 210-239.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Paterson, C., (1996). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement of senior biology students. Australian Science Teachers Journal. 42,2,
48-52.
Pintrich, P.R. & De Groot E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 1, 33-50.
Pintrich, R. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R., Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of
self- regulation (pp. 451-501), San Diego, CA: Academic Press
Tekin, H.(1993). Educational Measurement and Evaluation. Ankara: YargÕ Publications
Üredi, I., Üredi, L. (2005). The predictive power of self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs on mathematics achievement of primary
school 8th grade students. Mersin University Faculty of Education, 1, 2, 250–260.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college student’s regulation of motivation. Journal of Education Pyschology, 90, 2, 224-235.
Zimmereman, B.J. (2002). Becoming self regulated learner an overview. Theory into Practice. Spring-Autumn.
Zimmerman, B. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-
313.
Zimmerman, B. (1998). Self-regulated learning: from teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press