This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]

On: 05 December 2014, At: 04:56

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

Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Teacher self‐regulation: examining a

multidimensional construct
a a a
Yesim Capa‐Aydin , Semra Sungur & Esen Uzuntiryaki
a
Middle East Technical University , Ankara, Turkey
Published online: 18 May 2009.

To cite this article: Yesim Capa‐Aydin , Semra Sungur & Esen Uzuntiryaki (2009) Teacher
self‐regulation: examining a multidimensional construct, Educational Psychology: An International
Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 29:3, 345-356, DOI: 10.1080/01443410902927825

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410902927825

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
 Educational Psychology
Vol. 29, No. 3, May 2009, 345–356

Teacher self-regulation: examining a multidimensional construct

Yesim Capa-Aydin*, Semra Sungur and Esen Uzuntiryaki

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

(Received 14 January 2009; final version received 27 March 2009)
Taylor and Francis
CEDP_A_392954.sgm

Educational
10.1080/01443410902927825
0144-3410
Original
Taylor
02009
00
Dr.
capa@metu.edu.tr
000002009
Yesim
&Article
Francis
CapaAydin
(print)/1469-5820
Psychology (online)
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

This study aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess the

multidimensional nature of teacher self-regulation. A nine-factor structure was
proposed: goal setting, intrinsic interest, performance goal orientation, mastery
goal orientation, self-instruction, emotional control, self-evaluation, self-reaction,
and help-seeking. Through a series of confirmatory factor analyses with different
samples, this nine-factor structure was supported. Reliability estimates were also
satisfactory. Further validation evidence was provided through canonical
correlation analysis between teacher self-regulation and teachers’ sense of
efficacy. Results indicated that the Teacher Self-Regulation Scale can be utilised
as a valid and reliable instrument to assess teachers’ self-regulatory strategies.
Keywords: teacher self-regulation; teaching efficacy; confirmatory factor analysis

Introduction
Social cognitive theory explains human behaviour as the result of a triadic reciprocal
interaction of personal, behavioural, and environmental factors. In other words, people
function as contributors to their own motivation, beliefs, and behaviour within a
network of reciprocally interacting factors. Bandura (1986) labelled this theory
‘cognitive’ to stress the important influence of cognition in people’s capability to
encode information, self-regulate, and perform behaviours. Accordingly, from this
perspective, instincts or external stimuli are limited in terms of explaining the
complex nature of human behaviour. Rather, human behaviour can be characterised
by some basic capabilities such as symbolising capability, forethought capability,
vicarious capability, self-regulatory capability, and self-reflective capability.
Among these human capabilities, self-regulation can be defined as ‘self-generated
thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment
of personal goals’ (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 14). In other words, people set goals, make
plans, decide on strategies to attain these goals, and self-evaluate their performance.
They benefit from these experiences in their future performance.
In the field of education, there has been a recently increasing body of literature about
self-regulation showing that self-regulation is highly correlated with academic achieve-
ment (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Yumusak, Sungur, & Cakiroglu,
2007; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). As self-regulation helps students to take
responsibility in their own learning, it can be expected also to assist teachers in their
own professional development. It should be emphasised that throughout this paper

*Corresponding author. Email: capa@metu.edu.tr

ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01443410902927825
http://www.informaworld.com
 346 Y. Cape-Aydin et al.

‘teacher self-regulation’ will refer to teachers’ own self-regulated strategies executed

in their teaching environment. Accordingly, teacher self-regulation can be viewed as
an active process through which teachers direct and maintain their metacognition, moti-
vation, and strategies for effective instruction. This definition reflects Zimmerman’s
model of self-regulation.
Zimmerman’s (1989, 2000) model of self-regulation assumes that self-regulatory
processes consist of three cyclical phases: forethought, performance (volitional)
control, and self-reflection.
The forethought phase includes processes necessary for preparation for action
such as goal setting, strategic planning, and self-motivation beliefs. Teachers in
this phase set specific goals to be achieved at the end of a lesson. Based on the
objectives and considering the nature of subject matter, student characteristics, and
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

available resources, teachers choose appropriate instructional methods. These

processes are affected by a set of motivational beliefs such as goal orientation,
intrinsic interest, and self-efficacy. Among these motivational beliefs, goal orienta-
tion is defined as ‘different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to
achievement-type activities’ (Ames, 1992, p. 261); orientation is classified as
mastery goal or performance goal. Teachers with a mastery goal focus on develop-
ing new skills, improving competence, gaining insight into their work, and master-
ing the task against self-set standards. In contrast, those with performance goals
focus doing better than others and the judgment of their abilities by others; they
value public recognition based on normative standards. For example, teachers with
performance goals are likely to work hard mainly for promotion, whereas teachers
with mastery goals are likely to work hard for self-improvement. Based on studies
with students (Butler, 1987; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992),
teachers with mastery goals are expected to prefer challenging tasks and spend more
time on their work, which may lead to a higher quality of instruction. Another
closely related self-motivational belief, intrinsic value, refers to pleasure and subjec-
tive interest in performing a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Teachers with intrinsic
value enjoy working with students and show enthusiasm towards the teaching
profession. Highly efficacious teachers learn and use new approaches and strategies
for teaching, use management techniques that enhance student autonomy, and persist
in the face of student failure. In addition, teacher efficacy, which can be defined as
teachers’ belief in their ability to perform teaching tasks effectively, has been
found to be correlated with student achievement and motivation (Tschannen-Moran,
Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
The performance (or volitional) control phase includes processes that occur during
an action. These processes are categorised as self-control or self-observation. Self-
control processes help learners direct their attention to the task and optimise their
effort. Self-observation refers to monitoring one’s own performance, considering the
surrounding conditions and consequences of performance (Zimmerman, 2000). In
addition, emotional control is fundamental to the self-control and self-observation
processes: it maintains concentration and effort in the face of distractions (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002). In terms of teacher self-regulation, teachers try to use a variety of
teaching strategies during instruction and change strategies when needed. They try to
remain calm when they encounter problems. These teacher characteristics are
expected to improve the quality of instruction.
Finally, the self-reflection phase includes self-judgment and self-reaction
processes. Self-judgment involves self-evaluation – comparison of self-monitored
 Educational Psychology 347

performance with a standard or goal. Self-reaction, on the other hand, refers to

satisfaction/dissatisfaction and affect following a performance (Zimmerman, 2002).
Self-regulated teachers evaluate instructional effectiveness based on comparison with
their previous performance, student feedback, and whether the goals set at the begin-
ning of lesson are achieved or not. As a result of these evaluation processes, they
develop behavioural, cognitive, and affective responses. More specifically, they
appreciate themselves for performing well or get upset with a poor performance.
These self-reflection processes have an influence on forethought processes and future
actions in a cyclical way.
Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to test this model. However,
these studies have dealt with the self-regulatory learning strategies of students (Neber
& Schommer-Aikins, 2002; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998;
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

Yumusak et al., 2007; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). There has been little
research into teachers’ self-regulatory processes, and almost all of those studies that
have been reported examined the self-regulatory processes of teachers as learners,
asserting that teachers who believe in the importance of self-regulatory skills in their
learning will teach them to their students. For instance, Hwang and Vrongistinos
(2002) examined the relationship between self-regulated learning strategies and
academic achievement in elementary student teachers. Results indicated that high
achievers tended to use a variety of self-regulated learning strategies such as intrinsic
goals, task value, self-efficacy, elaboration, metacognition, and regulatory process –
more than low achievers.
Another study (Tillema & Kremer-Hayon, 2002) investigated the strategies used
by teacher educators to develop self-regulated learning in their students. Data were
collected from Dutch and Israeli teacher educators. Findings showed that there were
disparities and similarities between teacher educators from Holland and Israel. Dutch
educators emphasised independent learning, self-development, self-study, critical
inquiry, and learning from work, whereas Israeli educators emphasised planning, goal
selection, time-management, metacognition, and motivation. Teacher educators from
both countries considered self-regulated learning to be a reflective approach both for
themselves and for their students. In addition, the researchers stated that teacher
educators were more aware of and involved with students’ self-regulated learning
than their own. Corno and Randi (1999, as cited in Randi, 2004) suggested that a
learning environment promoting self-regulated learning should have the following
characteristics:

● supporting teachers to design their own instruction rather than imitate

● providing teachers with choices about instruction
● emphasising the evaluation of instructional practices
● encouraging teachers to plan, implement, and evaluate their instruction
● providing opportunities for learning within the context of teaching
● helping teachers in communicating their knowledge clearly.

The literature emphasises the significance of teachers’ self-regulation as learners

and the role of teacher education programs in facilitating self-regulated learning.
However, there is an explicit need for empirical studies which investigate teachers’
own self-regulated strategies, as executed in their teaching environment. For this
reason, the present study aimed to develop and validate an instrument assessing
teacher self-regulation.
 348 Y. Cape-Aydin et al.

Method
Sample
The sample consisted of Turkish pre-service teachers from different universities. In
Turkey, teacher education programs for all disciplines were restructured by the Higher
Education Council (YÖK) in 1998 (YÖK, 1998). These restructured programs include
courses from three main domains: general culture, special subject training, and peda-
gogy. Within the pedagogical domain, there are three field experience courses in
which pre-service teachers are required to observe teaching environments and to teach
in actual classes. Pre-service teachers are supposed to teach for at least 24 hours in the
last semester of their teacher education program.
Two different samples of pre-service teachers who were about to graduate were
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

used in the present study. The data collected from Sample 1 were used for initial anal-
ysis of factor structures, as a part of a pilot study. The data from Sample 2 were used
for cross-validation.

Sample 1
A total of 320 pre-service teachers (188 female, 130 male; two individuals did not
respond to the gender item) from different universities in Turkey participated in the
pilot study. Their ages ranged from 20 to 33 with a median of 22.

Sample 2
The cross-validation sample consisted of 898 pre-service teachers (522 female,
357 male; 19 individuals did not respond to the gender item) attending teacher
preparation programs in different universities in various regions of Turkey. Majors
included mathematics education (29.1%), elementary science education (29.5%),
biology education (6%), physics education (6%), chemistry education (10.2%),
and elementary education (19.2%). Their ages ranged from 19 to 28 with a median
of 22.

Measures
Based on Zimmerman’s self-regulation model and semi-structured interviews with
pre-service/in-service teachers, a total of 39 items in nine factors were written to
construct the Teacher Self-Regulation Scale (TSRS). Respondents rate the items on a
six-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. In addition
to these items, one item was included as a filler item and was not used in further
analyses.
The nine factors of the TSRS were goal setting, intrinsic interest, performance
goal orientation, mastery goal orientation, self-instruction, emotional control, self-
evaluation, self-reaction, and help-seeking. The definitions of the factors are provided
in Table 1.
To ensure content validity, a group of experts (three educational psychologists,
two measurement and evaluation specialists, and two teachers) examined the items to
allocate each item to one of the nine factors. There was approximately 90% agreement
among the examiners. They also judged the quality of items in terms of clarity,
comprehensiveness, and sentence structure. In addition, an expert in the Turkish
 Educational Psychology 349

Table 1. Description of the nine factors, with sample items.

Factor Description Sample item(s) for each factor
Goal setting Process of establishing objectives to ‘While I am preparing classes, I identify
guide actions during instruction goals to be achieved by students’
Intrinsic Beliefs concerning personal interest ‘It makes me happy to see my students
interest in the profession learn’
Performance Goals to do better than others as a ‘It is important to be a successful
goal teacher and to have others teacher in order to get promotion’
orientation believe in one’s competence
Mastery goal Goals to improve competence in ‘It is important to be a successful
orientation teaching and master the teaching teacher in order to satisfy myself
task against self-set standards professionally’
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

Self-instruction Process of monitoring one’s own ‘During instruction, I adapt my

performance in teaching and
making instructional changes
when necessary
Emotional Strategies for controlling and
control regulating affect, mood, and
emotions
Self-evaluation Process of evaluating current
teaching performance by
comparing it with previously
established goals and past
performance
Self-reaction Affective responses following a
teaching performance
Help-seeking Getting help from others to resolve
problems encountered in
teaching process
instructional strategies based on
students’ needs’
‘When a problem occurs in class, I first
try to calm down’
‘At the end of instruction, I try to
determine whether I met my goals’
‘Realising that I am successful
motivates me to study more’
‘I ask for help from my colleagues
when I encounter problems that I
cannot solve’

language reviewed items for linguistic accuracy. Based on their review, some
revisions were made.

Data analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to provide construct validity evidence
for the proposed nine-factor structure of the TSRS using the AMOS 4.0 software
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). All factors were considered to be correlated. A variety
of fit indices were examined to evaluate the model fit. The first to be examined was
the chi-square statistic. However, several studies (Bollen, 1989; Hoyle, 1995; Kline,
1998) have indicated that the chi-square statistic is very sensitive to sample size, and
a trivial difference can be found significant with large sample sizes. Thus, researchers
should not just rely on the chi-square statistic while evaluating model fit: other fit indi-
ces should be considered. In the present study, three additional fit indices were exam-
ined: the normed fit index (NFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the comparative fit index
(CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA; Steiger
& Lind, 1980). NFI and CFI values greater than .95 indicate a good fit to the data (Kline,
1998), while a RMSEA of about .05 indicates a close fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
Next, the internal consistencies of the nine factors were estimated using
Cronbach’s alpha. This procedure was applied to data from both Sample 1 and
 350 Y. Cape-Aydin et al.

Sample 2. For further validation, the Turkish Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TTSES; Capa, Cakiroglu, & Sarikaya, 2005) adapted from Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001) was administered to the pre-service teachers in Sample 2.
Canonical correlations were calculated between teacher self-regulation factors on the
TSRS and teacher self-efficacy factors obtained from TTSES. The self-efficacy
factors included efficacy for classroom management, efficacy for instructional strate-
gies, and efficacy for student engagement. The self-regulation factors included the
nine factors of the TSRS.

Results
Results are presented in two parts: pilot study and cross-validation study.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

Pilot study
The 39-item TSRS was administered to Sample 1. To test the hypothesised factor
structure, confirmatory factor analysis was performed using AMOS. Chi-square, CFI,
NFI, and RMSEA values were examined to evaluate the model fit. The chi-square
statistic was significant (χ2[666] = 1499.33, p < .05), indicating rejection of the
model. The CFI, NFI, and RMSEA values were found to be .98, .96, and .06,
respectively. Overall, these indices indicated a good model fit.
Cronbach’s alpha estimates for each factor ranged from .53 to .85. When item–
total correlations were examined for each factor, it was found that one of the items
from the ‘self-evaluation’ factor did not contribute well to the total variability,
resulting in a low reliability coefficient of .53. Deletion of this item increased the
alpha coefficient to .68. This finding was also consistent with the confirmatory factor
analysis results. This item had very low factor loading (.19). Thus, this item was
removed. In addition, because the reliability of the ‘emotional control’ factor was low
(.57) and all of the existing items were working as intended, two items were added to
this factor.

Cross-validation study
The resultant scale with 40 items was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis to
retest its nine-factor structure using Sample 2 (898 pre-service teachers). As
evidenced by the CFI (.98), NFI (.98), and RMSEA (.06) values, the model was a
good fit to the data. Again, the large sample size resulted in a significant chi-square
statistic (χ2[704] = 2764.38, p < .05).
Table 2 presents the standardised loadings of the nine-factor TSRS model. As
shown in the table, all the loadings were significant and they generally fell above the
.50 standard (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005, p. 777). One loading
estimate – the .18 associated with Item 34 – indicated a poor fit. This item (‘While
evaluating myself at the end of instruction, I compare my performance with previous
ones’) may not have been appropriately interpreted by pre-service teachers as they did
not have prior teaching experience. This item may work well with a sample of in-
service teachers. In addition, poor factor loading associated with Item 34 did not seem
to be problematic, because the fit indices were high enough for a good model fit.
Therefore, this item was retained in the TSRS.
 Educational Psychology 351

Table 2. Standardised coefficients for the nine-factor TSRS model.

Item Factor λ
Item 2 goal setting .715
Item 8 goal setting .735
Item 14 goal setting .778
Item 24 goal setting .580
Item 28 goal setting .670
Item 30 goal setting .763
Item 45 intrinsic interest .900
Item 46 intrinsic interest .697
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

Item 47 intrinsic interest .872

Item 48 intrinsic interest .574
Item 49 intrinsic interest .821
Item 36 performance goal .586
Item 39 performance goal .759
Item 40 performance goal .484
Item 41 performance goal .647
Item 43 performance goal .738
Item 37 mastery goal .756
Item 38 mastery goal .338
Item 42 mastery goal .703
Item 44 mastery goal .739
Item 3 self-instruction .697
Item 11 self-instruction .713
Item 18 self-instruction .668
Item 25 self-instruction .666
Item 9 emotional control .622
Item 16 emotional control .599
Item 33 emotional control .471
Item 7 emotional control .707
Item 35 emotional control .620
Item 15 self-evaluation .732
Item 19 self-evaluation .789
Item 29 self-evaluation .765
Item 34 self-evaluation .178
Item 4 self-reaction .668
Item 6 self-reaction .819
Item 12 self-reaction .425
Item 22 self-reaction .345
Item 17 help seeking .797
Item 21 help seeking .839
Item 27 help seeking .589
Note: All coefficients are significant at p < .05.
 352 Y. Cape-Aydin et al.

Table 3. Phi estimates.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Goal setting .39** −.01 .28** .31** .44** .46** .38** .36**
2. Intrinsic value −.02 .45** .34** .25** .34** .37** .33**
3. Performance goal orientation .08** .00 −.02 .00 .07** .08**
4. Mastery goal orientation .28** .15** .30** .29** .23**
5. Self-instruction .26** .40** .37** .33**
6. Emotional control .24** .22** .24**
7. Self-evaluation .35** .35**
8. Self-reaction .29**
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

9. Help-seeking
**p < .01

The correlations among the factors (phi estimates) are presented in Table 3. As seen
in the table, the ‘performance goal orientation’ factor had low to almost zero correlation
with the other factors. On the other hand, correlations among the remaining factors
ranged from .15 to .46, indicating a small to moderate effect size (Cohen, 1988).
To provide further validation evidence, canonical correlation analysis was
performed to examine the relationships between a set of teacher self-regulation vari-
ables and a set of teacher self-efficacy variables. For this purpose, a well-known scale,
the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001), was used. This scale has three subscales: efficacy for classroom management,
efficacy for instructional strategies, and efficacy for student engagement. It was
adapted to Turkish by Capa et al. (2005). For the present study, the three-factor model
was retested through confirmatory factor analysis, yielding the following fit indices:
TLI = .99; CFI = .99; and RMSEA = .07. Factor pattern coefficients were all signifi-
cant, ranging from .56 to .74. The reliability coefficients were .75 for efficacy for
student engagement, .75 for efficacy for instructional strategies, and .81 for efficacy
for classroom management.
Canonical correlation resulted in three canonical variates. The first canonical corre-
lation was .52 (27% overlapping variance); the second canonical correlation was 21
(4.4% overlapping variance); and the third one was .13 (1.7% overlapping variance).
Together the three canonical correlations accounted for a significant relationship
between the two sets of variables (χ2[27] = 323.29, p < .001). Table 4 presents the
canonical correlation and coefficients for the first canonical variate pair. A correlation
of .3 was used as the cutoff value to examine the relationship between the variables
and the canonical variates (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). All self-regulation variables,
except performance goal orientation, were significantly correlated with the first canon-
ical variate. Similarly, all efficacy variables with correlations well above .3 were
significantly related. The first pair of canonical variates revealed that there was a
positive correlation between efficacy variables (efficacy for classroom management,
efficacy for instructional strategies, and efficacy for student engagement) and self-
regulation variables (goal setting, intrinsic interest, mastery goal orientation, self-
instruction, emotional control, self-evaluation, self-reaction, and help-seeking). That
is, teachers with high self-efficacy scores on the TSES tended to establish objectives
to guide their actions in instruction, to show personal interest in the profession, to
set goals to improve competence in teaching, to monitor their own performance in
 Educational Psychology 353

Table 4. Correlations, standardised canonical coefficients, canonical correlations, percentages

of variance, and redundancies between self-efficacy variables and self-regulation variables.
First canonical variate

Variables Correlation Coefficient

Teacher self-efficacy variables:
Efficacy for instructional strategies .81 .34
Efficacy for classroom management .66 −.04
Efficacy for student engagement .97 .77
Percent of variance .68
Redundancy .18
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

Teacher self-regulation variables:

Goal setting .79 .31
Intrinsic value .73 .41
Performance goal orientation .16 .16
Mastery goal orientation .63 .12
Self-instruction .79 .37
Emotional control .70 .31
Self-evaluation .67 −.13
Self-reaction .34 −.29
Help-seeking .54 .07
Percent of variance .39
Redundancy .11
Canonical correlation .52

teaching and make changes when necessary, to use strategies for controlling and regu-
lating emotions, to evaluate current teaching performance by comparing it with previ-
ously established goals, to show adaptive responses following a teaching performance,
and to get help from others to resolve problems encountered in the teaching process.
Table 4 also shows the percentage of variance and redundancies. The percentage
of variance values indicate that the first canonical variate pair extracted 68% of
variance from the self-efficacy variables and 39% of variance from the self-regulation
variables. Also, redundancy values reveal that the first self-regulation variate
accounted for 18% of the variance in the self-efficacy set. Similarly, the first self-
efficacy variate accounted for 11% of the variance in the self-regulation set.
Table 5. Reliability coefficients of the TSRS subscales.
Factors of the TSRS Items Alpha
Goal setting 2, 8, 14, 24, 28, 30 .86
Intrinsic interest 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 .85
Performance goal orientation 36, 39, 40, 41, 43 .78
Mastery goal orientation 37, 38, 42, 44 .67
Self-instruction 3, 11, 18, 25 .78
Emotional control 7, 9, 16, 33, 35 .73
Self-evaluation 15, 19, 29, 34 .62
Self-reaction 4, 6, 12, 22 .66
Help-seeking 17, 21, 27 .78
 354 Y. Cape-Aydin et al.

The internal consistency of each subscale of the TSRS was examined using
Cronbach’s alpha. As shown in Table 5, the reliability coefficients ranged from .62 to
.86. The items causing relatively low reliability coefficients (Items 34 and 38) also had
small pattern coefficients in confirmatory factor analysis. As overall fit indices were
good enough and the content of the items reflected the corresponding subscales well,
these items were kept.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale assessing teacher self-
regulation, which was defined in the present study as teachers’ own self-regulated
strategies, which they use during lessons. In an attempt to fulfill this aim, a three-step
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

procedure was followed: initial questionnaire items were developed; a pilot study was
conducted; and then the questionnaire was validated.
In the first step, a nine-factor structure was proposed based on Zimmerman’s self-
regulation model and semi-structured interviews with pre-service/in-service
teachers. Then, items were generated to represent each of the following factors: goal
setting, intrinsic interest, performance goal orientation, mastery goal orientation, self-
instruction, emotional control, self-evaluation, self-reaction, and help-seeking. These
items were examined by a group of experts for content validity.
In the second step, the data obtained from the pilot study were subjected to confir-
matory factor analysis and reliability analysis. Results indicated overall good model
fit; however, one item not contributing to the variability in the corresponding factor
was removed. Two additional items were developed and included.
In the third step, the final form of the scale, the 40-item Teacher Self-Regulation
Scale (TSRS), was re-administered. The nine-factor structure was supported through
confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, internal consistency coefficients were
found to be good, ranging from .62 to .86. To provide criterion validity evidence,
canonical correlation was performed to investigate the relationship between teacher
self-regulation and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Results revealed that all teacher self-
regulation variables, except performance goal orientation, were significantly corre-
lated with the teacher efficacy variables. These findings are congruent with the tenets
of Bandura (1997) and Zimmerman (2000): the more people believe in their capability
to accomplish tasks, the more they employ strategic thinking to reach optimal
solutions. On the other hand, people with low self-efficacy beliefs have difficulty in
finding and using effective strategies and thus give up easily when they encounter
obstacles. When applied to teaching, highly efficacious teachers are more likely to
use self-regulatory strategies. Overall, the results of this study indicate that the TSRS
can be utilised as a valid and reliable instrument to assess teachers’ self-regulatory
strategies.
However, a point of caution is worth noting. In the present study, the TSRS was
administered only to pre-service teachers in Turkey. In future research, the scale
should be validated with teachers at different career stages (pre-service and early, mid,
and late career) in different countries. After further validation, the TSRS may help
identify teacher characteristics affecting the ways in which instruction is delivered to
students. Identification of these characteristics in terms of teacher self-regulation may
provide teachers with feedback to design more effective instruction. Similarly, teacher
educators can get feedback to reconsider the ways in which they prepare pre-service
teachers to their profession.
 Educational Psychology 355

The TSRS, as a reliable tool, has the potential to provide new possibilities
for research in teaching. There is a need to investigate the factors influencing teacher
self-regulation: personal and contextual factors (e.g., school climate, school adminis-
tration, availability of resources) in teacher self-regulation can be explored with the
ultimate goal of improving classroom instruction. Teacher self-regulation can also be
examined longitudinally using the TSRS, to see whether changes occur throughout the
teaching career and how these changes are mediated. Additionally, the TSRS may
enable researchers to examine relationships between teacher self-regulation and other
related variables such as student self-regulation and achievement. Overall, considering
all these potential uses and the validation evidence provided in this study, the TSRS
is a promising tool to be utilised in teaching and teacher education.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. American Journal of
Distance Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Arbuckle, J.L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238–246.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen
& J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: The effects
of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474–482.
Capa, Y., Cakiroglu, J., & Sarikaya, H. (2005). The development and validation of a Turkish
version of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. Egitim ve Bilim [Education and Science],
30(137), 74–81.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbuam.
Elliot, E.S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tathan, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2005). Multivariate data analysis
(6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thou-
sands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hwang, Y.S., & Vrongistinos, K. (2002). Elementary in-service teachers’ self-regulated
learning strategies related to their academic achievements. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 29, 147–154.
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guild-
ford.
Neber, H., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted
students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental vari-
ables. High Ability Studies, 13, 59–74.
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., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive valid-
ity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 810–813.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
Applications (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
 356 Y. Cape-Aydin et al.

Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers’ College Record, 106,

1825–1853.
Steiger, J.H., & Lind, J.C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors.
Paper presented at the Psychometric Society Annual Meeting, Iowa City, IA.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Tillema, H.H., & Kremer-Hayon, L. (2002). “Practising what we preach”: Teacher educators’
dilemmas in promoting self-regulated learning: A cross case comparison. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18, 593–607.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 04:57 05 December 2014

analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.

Wolters, C.A., & Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-
regulated learning in the mathematics, English, and social studies classroom. Instructional
Science, 26, 27–47.
YOK. (1998). Egitim fakultesi ogretmen yetistirme lisans programlari [Undergraduate teacher
education programs of the faculties of education]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
Yumusak, N., Sungur, S., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Turkish high school students’ biology
achievement in relation to academic self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation,
13, 53–69.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41, 64–70.
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for
assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 614–628.