This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Diego]

On: 02 June 2015, At: 11:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching of Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htop20

Teaching Self-Regulated Learning Through a "Learning

to Learn" Course
Barbara K. Hofer & Shirley L. Yu
Published online: 20 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Barbara K. Hofer & Shirley L. Yu (2003) Teaching Self-Regulated Learning Through a "Learning to Learn"
Course, Teaching of Psychology, 30:1, 30-33, DOI: 10.1207/S15328023TOP3001_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3001_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
Teaching Self-Regulated Learning Through
a “Learning to Learn” Course
Barbara K. Hofer
Middlebury College
Shirley L. Yu
University of Houston
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:22 02 June 2015
This study addressed the impact of a semester-long course called
Learning to Learn, an undergraduate psychology course designed
to teach college students to be self-regulated learners. Results of
pretesting and posttesting of 78 students with the Motivated Strat-
egies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &
McKeachie, 1993) provided support for the intervention. Mean
differences and correlational results suggest that students increased
in their mastery orientation to learning and their self-efficacy for
learning, increased in their valuing of the course and in cognitive
strategy use, and declined in test anxiety over the term. These find-
ings suggest that an intervention that targets a range of cognitive
and motivational components can have utility for college students
and that there is value to a stand-alone course in learning to learn
at the college level.
Self-regulated learning is an important aspect of student ac-
ademic performance and achievement, yet it is seldom an ex-
plicit goal of classroom instruction at the college level. There
are various models of self-regulated learning (see Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1994b), but all share the assumption that stu-
dents can actively regulate their cognition, motivation, or be-
havior and, through these processes, enhance performance
and achieve educational goals (Zimmerman, 1989). However,
many college students do not become self-regulated learners,
and psychologists know too little about how self-regulated
learning develops or the effects of formal interventions to in-
crease it (Schneider & Pressley, 1989; Schunk & Zimmerman,
1994a). Although there is some evidence that formal attempts
to teach students to be self-regulated learners can be successful
(Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996; Simpson, Hynd, Nist, & Bur-
rell, 1997), there are still many unresolved issues regarding the
teaching of cognitive and self-regulatory strategies, particu-
larly at the postsecondary level.
In this study we addressed the impact of a course called
Learning to Learn, designed to teach college students to be
self-regulated learners. This undergraduate course integrates
theoretical and conceptual issues related to learning and mo-
tivation from cognitive, social, and educational psychology.
A central component of the course is a weekly laboratory in
which students apply course constructs to their learning. Is-
sues we have addressed in the design of this course include
scope of the course, content, and time frame (for a more thor-
30
ough description of the course design, see Hofer, Yu, &
Pintrich, 1998). The attention to general cognitive,
metacognitive, and motivational strategies (e.g., adaptive at-
tributions) is in line with research on the importance of con-
sidering both motivation and cognition in models of
self-regulated learning (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich &
De Groot, 1990; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996).
Previous research on the course (McKeachie, Pintrich, &
Lin, 1985) did not include attention to motivational factors.
In that study, students enrolled in Learning to Learn, in con-
trast to students in comparison groups, decreased in test anx-
iety and increased in their expectancy of success and need for
cognition, as measured by the Learning and Study Strategies
Inventory (Weinstein, 1982). The researchers concluded
that further research was needed to examine the role that
motivational factors play in a course that targets the fostering
of self-regulated learning. In recent years, knowledge about
students’ motivation and cognition has helped refine both
the conceptual model and the course design. Research about
the effects of this intervention on motivation and cognition
may be of value to others planning similar courses.
Course Description
Learning to Learn is an introductory level course offered
through the Department of Psychology at the University of
Michigan since 1982. The course, which has no prerequisites
for enrollment, is targeted to first- and second-year students
who have experienced difficulty in coursework, who are dis-
appointed in their academic performance, or who simply wish
to become better learners. Demand usually exceeds enroll-
ment, and students enroll from all majors. The course in-
volves 4 hr of class time weekly, 2 hr in lecture and 2 hr in a
laboratory/discussion format. The instructor presents princi-
ples, concepts, and research findings in the lectures. The lab-
oratories, led by graduate student instructors, provide the
link between concepts and students’ learning, with demon-
strations, group work, and activities that enhance application
and practice in self-regulated learning.
The first goal of this course is to teach students concepts of
cognitive and motivational psychology. We attempt to help
Teaching of Psychology
 students understand the mental processes involved in learn-
ing, memory, and problem solving and to help them build
conditional knowledge about why and when to use various
strategies. The second goal is to increase students’ effective-
ness as learners by developing a repertoire of learning strate-
gies. Given the importance of lifelong learning, we believe
that good teaching involves teaching students how to learn,
how to remember and think, and how to motivate themselves
(Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).
Course Materials and Requirements
Students purchase two textbooks, a cognitive psychology
text and a practical study skills book. Assessment includes
two short quizzes, two unit tests, and a final examination.
Students also work in small groups to develop and conduct an
empirical research project focused on learning and studying
issues. These projects provide experience in conducting and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:22 02 June 2015
reporting psychological research, help students elaborate and
apply ideas from the course, generate data that help students
understand more about learning strategies, and give students
practice in learning to work cooperatively in a situation in
which instructors give explicit attention to skills necessary
for effective groupwork. In addition, students keep a journal
with responses to questions that prompt reflection on read-
ings, lecture, and laboratory, and that require them to inte-
grate course material with their experiences as learners. An
additional journal task is to report on learning and motiva-
tion in a “target course,” identified by students as a course in
which they will deliberately apply new strategies and reflect
on their progress in doing so.
Purpose of This Study
In this study we examined whether students in the Learning
to Learn course showed changes in motivation and cognition.
Based on the goals and design of the course, and on suggestions
of earlier researchers that motivation may be an important fac-
tor in this course, we were interested in two main questions: (a)
What changes occur in motivation and cognition from the be-
ginning of the course to the end? and (b)What is the relation
between motivation and cognition over time?
Method
Participants
We conducted this study during one term of the course,
with 78 students enrolled in three laboratory sections; 70 stu-
dents voluntarily completed both the precourse and
postcourse measures. Of the 78 students, 55% were women,
and 73% were first- or second-year students.
Measures
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993) is a
Vol. 30 No. 1, 2003
self-report questionnaire that consists of 72 items on student
motivation and strategy use. Students respond to items on a
5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5
(very true of me) in reference to a particular course. For pur-
poses of this research, we identified six motivational scales
and seven cognitive scales as most theoretically relevant to
the self-regulated learning goals of this course. Alphas ranged
from .62 to .93 for the motivational scales and from .64 to .80
for the cognitive scales. We also examined academic perfor-
mance, as measured by final course grade, scored on a 0 to 4.0
scale (4.0 = A).
Motivational constructs from the MSLQ included Intrin-
sic Goal Orientation, reflecting a concern with learning and
mastery, and Extrinsic Goal Orientation, focusing on a con-
cern with grades and getting the highest grades in the class.
We also included Interest, representing the intrinsic interest
in the course material; Utility, concerning beliefs about the
usefulness of the course content; Self-Efficacy, reflecting per-
ceptions of the capability to learn and understand course ma-
terial; and Test Anxiety, concerning feelings of worry and
anxiety over doing well on tests.
Cognitive constructs from the MSLQ included Memoriza-
tion, use of basic rehearsal and memory strategies; Elabora-
tion, use of paraphrasing or summarizing strategies;
Organization, use of networking or outlining strategies;
Planning, goal setting and task analysis; and Monitoring,
such as tracking attention when reading. In addition, we
summed elaboration and organization to create a composite
scale of Deep Processing; similarly, we summed planning and
monitoring to create a composite for Metacognition.
Procedure
Students completed the MSLQ during the first and last
class period. This instrument also provided students with a
motivational and cognitive strategy profile relevant to this
course, which we discussed immediately after they completed
the instrument on the first day of class.
Results
The first research question concerned changes in motiva-
tion and cognition from the beginning of the course (Time 1)
to the end (Time 2). With an alpha level set at .003 based on a
Bonferroni adjustment to control for Type I error, paired t tests
showed significant increases in three motivational variables
(see Table 1 for statistical values): intrinsic goal orientation,
utility, and self-efficacy. Test anxiety decreased significantly.
In regard to cognitive variables, there were significant in-
creases in reported use of memorization, elaboration, organiza-
tion, deep processing, planning, and metacognition.
The second research question concerned the relations
among motivational and cognitive variables (see Table 2).
Most notably at Time 1, intrinsic goal orientation was posi-
tively correlated with deep processing, r(75) = .26, p < .05;
planning, r(75) = .34, p < .01; monitoring, r(75) = .37, p <
.01; and metacognition, r(75) = .42, p < .05. Extrinsic goal
orientation was also correlated with planning, r(75) = .24, p
< .05; monitoring, r(75) = .24, p < .01; and metacognition,
31
 Table 1. Summary Statistics for Motivation and Cognition Over Time

Pretest Posttest Change

Variable M SD M SD t p

Motivation
Intrinsic goal 3.80 0.79 4.03 0.83 –3.20 .002
Extrinsic goal 3.24 0.93 3.21 1.11 0.75 ns
Interest 3.81 0.73 3.67 0.85 1.70 ns
Utility 4.34 0.72 3.96 1.11 3.15 .002
Self-efficacy 4.02 0.78 4.43 0.65 –4.55 .001
Test anxiety 2.86 1.15 2.48 0.99 3.46 .001
Cognition
Memorization 3.77 0.79 4.15 0.78 –4.23 .001
Elaboration 3.28 0.70 3.67 0.79 –4.75 .001
Organization 3.62 0.63 3.96 0.70 –3.89 .001
Deep processing 3.46 0.54 3.82 0.67 –5.11 .001
Planning 3.46 0.63 3.84 0.72 –3.96 .001
Monitoring 3.47 0.84 3.62 0.92 –1.21 ns
Metacognition 3.47 0.63 3.73 0.76 –2.61 .01
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:22 02 June 2015

Note. N = 70. Degrees of freedom range from 70 to 78.

Table 2. Zero-Order Correlations Between Motivation and Cognition at Time 1 and Time 2

Motivation Time 1 Motivation Time 2

Intrinsic Extrinsic Self- Test Intrinsic Extrinsic Self- Test

Variable Goal Goal Interest Utility Efficacy Anxiety Goal Goal Interest Utility Efficacy Anxiety

Cognition (Time 1)
Memorization –.07 .27* .27* .21 .22 .17 –.21 .30** –.05 –.01 .08 –.01
Elaboration .22 .11 .11 .07 .11 –.23* .19 –.07 .17 .02 .12 –.16
Organization .20 .17 .40*** .12 .42*** –.01 .12 .03 .05 .09 .43*** –.06
Deep
processing .26* .17 .30** .12 .32** –.17 .19 –.03 .13 .07 .33** –.14
Planning .34** .24* .21 –.03 .15 –.14 .16 .08 .01 –.06 .30** –.12
Monitoring .37** .24* .13 .04 .11 –.25* .14 .16 –.01 –.22 –.03 –.13
Metacognition .42*** .28* .19 .01 .15 –.24* .17 .15 –.01 –.17 .14 –.15
Cognition (Time 2)
Memorization .12 .32** .41*** .14 .21 .17 .14 .05 .38*** .33** .23 .08
Elaboration .22 .08 .48*** .28* .04 .00 .37*** –.34** .51*** .40*** .24* –.09
Organization .26* .20 .51*** .27* .01 .18 .38*** –.19 .57*** .37** .35** –.01
Deep
processing .27* .15 .54*** .31** .03 .10 .42*** –.30* .59** .43*** .32** –.05
Planning .31** .20 .44*** .24* –.14 .14 .33** –.14 .57** .32** .19 .11
Monitoring –.25* .19 .27* .37** –.02 .12 .34** –.22 .54** .44*** .24* .05
Metacognition .30* .21 .37** .34** –.08 .14 .37** –.20 .60** .42*** .23* .08
Final grade .15 .25* .10 .07 –.12 .22 .21 –.03 .17 .05 .25* –.02

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

r(75) = .28, p < .05, as well as memorization strategies, r(75)
= .27, p < .05; but not with deep processing. Both interest
and self-efficacy were correlated with organization, r(75) =
.40, p < .001, and r(75) = .42, p < .001; and deep processing
r(75) = .30, p < .01, r(75) = .32, p < .01. Finally, test anxi-
ety showed a significant negative correlation with elabora-
tion, r(75) = –.23, p < .05; monitoring, r(75) = –.25, p <
.05; and metacognition, r(75) = –.24, p < .05.
Correlations of Time 1 motivation variables with Time 2
cognitive variables indicated that intrinsic goal orientation at
the start of the course was positively correlated with the same
four cognitive variables at the end of the course as at the be-
ginning, as well as with organization, r(70) = .26, p < . 05,
whereas extrinsic goal orientation at the outset of the semes-
ter was correlated only with the use of memorization strate-
gies by course conclusion, r(70) = .32, p < .01. Interest in the
course showed a significant correlation with all end-of-term
cognitive strategy variables, and utility with all but memori-
zation. Final grade in the course was positively correlated
with only one pretest motivational variable, extrinsic motiva-
tion, r(73) = .25, p < .01.
We also examined correlations between motivational and
cognitive variables within Time 2. At the course’s conclu-
sion, intrinsic goal orientation was positively correlated with
all cognitive strategy variables except memorization, whereas
interest and utility were correlated with reported use of all six
cognitive strategies and self-efficacy with all except memori-
zation and planning. Extrinsic orientation correlated with
only elaboration and deep processing, and test anxiety
showed no significant correlations. The only end-of-term
motivational variable significantly correlated with final grade
was self-efficacy, r(73) = .25, p < .05.

32 Teaching of Psychology
 Discussion
The mean differences and correlational results suggest
that students in the Learning to Learn course increased in
mastery orientation and self-efficacy for learning, increased
in their valuing of the course, and declined in test anxiety.
Students also increased their cognitive strategy use in one
term. Moreover, at the end of the term, motivational beliefs
and strategy use were positively correlated for most of the
constructs of interest in the expected direction and in line
with previous research in this area (Pintrich & Schrauben,
1992). Although we cannot make strong inferential claims
without a control group, this one-term course intervention
appeared to have positive effects in developing motivation
and strategy skills for self-regulated learning.
These findings both parallel and supplement earlier re-
search on the course (McKeachie et al., 1985). The needed re-
search on motivational components such as intrinsic
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:22 02 June 2015
motivation, interest, value, and self-efficacy, as suggested in
McKeachie et al., was conducted in this study with the use of
the MSLQ. These findings add further support for a model that
incorporates motivational components into self-regulated
learning. Furthermore, the increase in self-efficacy and the
correlation between self-efficacy and cognition suggested by
this study support the importance of self-efficacy in cognitive
engagement and its possible mediational role in performance
(Pajares, 1996; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
Further work is needed to assess the degree to which stu-
dents are able to effectively transfer these motivational
changes and cognitive strategies to other courses. These
changes suggest that students are developing a more
self-reflective approach to their learning, but more research is
needed to assess the degree to which they sustain this change
over time. Changes in the course, such as the inclusion of more
domain-specific strategies, may also be necessary to better sup-
port both transfer and sustained change. Additional research
is also needed in the area of epistemological beliefs (see Hofer
& Pintrich, 1997) to examine how students’ beliefs about
knowledge may constrain the use of deeper processing strate-
gies. Perhaps it is not only that college students do not know
how and when to use strategies, but that they have beliefs
about knowledge that limit their use of strategies. For example,
thinking that knowledge is a collection of facts may restrict
students to the use of memorization as a study strategy. If stu-
dents hold such beliefs, then effective interventions might
need to target these beliefs.
Overall, our findings suggest that an intervention that ad-
dresses a range of cognitive and motivational components
can have utility for college students. Results suggest that mo-
tivational components are an important part of students’
self-regulation and can help to facilitate students’ use of vari-
ous cognitive and self-regulatory strategies. These findings
also indicate that there is value to a stand-alone course in
learning to learn at the college level, as college instructors
may be unlikely to teach general learning and self-regulatory
strategies in their discipline-specific courses.
References
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cog-
nition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and
Vol. 30 No. 1, 2003
self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educa-
tional applications (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills in-
terventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 66, 99–136.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of
epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and
their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L, & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college stu-
dents to be self-regulated learners. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to
self-reflective practice (pp. 57–85). New York: Guilford.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y.-G. (1985). Teaching
learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 20, 153–160.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review
of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and
self-regulated learning components of classroom academic perfor-
mance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational be-
liefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom tasks. In D. H.
Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom:
Causes and consequences (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J.
(1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strat-
egies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Memory development between
2 and 20. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994a). Self-regulation in edu-
cation: Retrospect and prospect. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Is-
sues and educational applications (pp. 305–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994b). Self-regulation of learn-
ing and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Simpson, M., Hynd, C., Nist, S., & Burrell, K. (1997). College aca-
demic assistance programs and practices. Educational Psychology
Review, 9, 39–87.
Weinstein, C. E. (1982). LASSI user’s manual for those administering
the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning
strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between
goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated
learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated
academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Notes
1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Boston, August 1999.
2. This course was developed by Wilbert J. McKeachie, to whom we
are indebted for providing us the opportunity to teach the course
and the encouragement to conduct research on its effects. We
also appreciate the continued collaboration of Paul Pintrich in re-
fining this model of self-regulated learning and the assistance of
Yi-Guang Lin with early analyses of the data.
3. Send correspondence to Barbara K. Hofer, Psychology Depart-
ment, Bicentennial Hall, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT
05753; e-mail: bhofer@middlebury.edu.
33