Hertel Karlen 2020 Bjep 12402

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/347949509
Implicit theories of self‐regulated learning: Interplay with students’

achievement goals, learning strategies, and metacognition
Article in British Journal of Educational Psychology · December 2020

DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12402
CITATIONS READS
22 717
2 authors:
Silke Hertel Yves Karlen

Universität Heidelberg University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
88 PUBLICATIONS 661 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 358 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Computer-Based Competence Diagnostic in Self-Regulated Learning (CoKoS) View project
National enlargement of the PISA 2009 Study View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Silke Hertel on 28 December 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2020)

© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
on behalf of British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Implicit theories of self-regulated learning:

Interplay with students’ achievement goals,
learning strategies, and metacognition
Silke Hertel1* and Yves Karlen2
1
Institute of Education Science, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
2
School of Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern
Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland
Background. Implicit theories are important belief systems that influence an individ-
ual’s motivation and behaviour. In academic contexts, domain-general implicit theories of
ability (e.g., intelligence) and their relation to self-regulated learning (SRL) have been
examined.
Aims. In this study, we followed a domain-specific approach and first introduced scales
to assess students’ implicit theories of the malleability and of the relevance of SRL. Second,
we investigated how implicit theories of SRL are related to students’ SRL. Third, we
examined the relationship of implicit theories of SRL with students’ demographics and
personality traits.
Sample. Participants were students from a medium-sized university in Germany
(N = 254) aged M = 23.85 years.
Methods. Data on students’ demographics and personality traits, implicit theories of
intelligence (INT), achievement goals, and learning strategies were collected with well-
established measures. In addition, students’ implicit theories of SRL and their declarative
metacognitive knowledge about SRL were assessed with measures developed within this
study. Confirmatory factor analyses and regression analyses were performed.
Results. The two postulated dimensions of implicit theories of SRL were supported. As
expected, implicit theories of SRL were more strongly related to students’ achievement
goals, learning strategies, and metacognitive knowledge than implicit theories of INT.
Moreover, implicit theories of SRL were mostly unrelated to students’ demographics and
personality traits.
Conclusion. The results emphasize that domain-specific implicit theories of SRL
contribute substantially to the explanation of students’ SRL. Thus, further research on
SRL should consider domain-specific implicit theories of SRL in addition to implicit
theories of INT.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
*Correspondence should be addressed to Silke Hertel, Institute of Educational Science, Heidelberg University, Akademiestrasse 3,
69117 Heidelberg, Germany (email: hertel@ibw.uni-heidelberg.de).
DOI:10.1111/bjep.12402
2 Silke Hertel and Yves Karlen
In the past decade, implicit theories have gained increasing attention from researchers.
Located along a continuum from an incremental theory (growth mindset) to an entity
theory (fixed mindset), implicit theories are powerful predictors of individuals’
behaviours, motivations, emotions, and cognition (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, &
Dweck, 2007; Chen & Pajares, 2010; Dickh€auser, Dinger, Janke, Spinath, & Steinmayr,
2016; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999). Research has mainly focused on domain-
general implicit theories (e.g., implicit theories of intelligence) and has revealed that they
relate to an array of self-regulatory processes, such as goal setting and learning strategy use
(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007; Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013; Sisk,
Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, & Macnamara, 2018). However, individuals can hold different
implicit theories of different abilities or attributes at the same time. Research suggests that
more general self-beliefs, such as implicit theories of intelligence, can be distinguished
from self-beliefs focusing a specific field or domain, for instance math or writing (e.g.,
Gunderson, Hamdan, Sorhagen, & D’Esterre, 2017). Furthermore, it has been argued that
domain-specific implicit theories may be better suited for predicting domain-specific
behaviour (e.g., Br aten & Strømsø, 2005; Burnette et al., 2019; Karlen & Compagnoni,
2017; Schroder, Dawood, Yalch, Donnellan, & Moser, 2016; Scott & Ghinea, 2014).
Following this line of argument, it can be assumed that students’ self-regulated learning
(SRL) is particularly influenced by their implicit theories of SRL rather than by their
implicit theories of intelligence (INT). Implicit theories of SRL can – in the particular
context of learning as well as learning-related behaviour, motivation, and metacognition –
be interpreted as domain-specific beliefs. On the contrary, focusing on intelligence,
implicit theories of INT address an attribute that refers to a variety of areas rather than only
affecting a specific domain. Therefore, implicit theories of INT can be viewed as domain-
general implicit theories (Gunderson et al., 2017).
In this study, we referred to the social-cognitive concept of implicit theories
introduced by Dweck and Leggett (1988) and adapted it to a domain-specific perspective
focusing on SRL. We aimed to (1) present and validate scales to assess students’ implicit
theories of SRL; (2) investigate the relationship between students’ implicit theories of SRL
and SRL itself (specifically, achievement goals, learning strategies, and metacognitive
knowledge about SRL); and (3) examine implicit theories of SRL in the context of students’
demographics and personality traits.
Implicit theories of abilities

Implicit theories are conceptualized as cognitive frameworks through which individuals
interpret their experiences (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). They influence how students
approach challenging academic situations, impact the way they perceive their own
knowledge and abilities, modulate their motivation and learning behaviour, and ascribe
meaning to events (Blackwell et al., 2007). Furthermore, they are associated with different
reactions in case of setbacks or failure (Dweck & Master, 2008; Haimovitz & Dweck,
2017). According to Dweck’s social-cognitive model of achievement motivation (Dweck,
2000; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck & Yeager, 2019), implicit theories are schematic
knowledge structures that incorporate beliefs about abilities on a continuum from an
entity theory (fixed mindset) to an incremental theory (growth mindset). Students holding
an incremental theory of abilities are more likely to assume that these can be acquired,
increased, and improved with effort. Such students set mastery goals more often, persist
when facing challenges, rebound better from occasional failures, and more frequently use
adaptive strategies (e.g., Burnette et al., 2013; Hong et al., 1999; Karlen, Suter, Hirt, &
Implicit theories of self-regulated learning 3
Merki, 2019; Schroder et al., 2017). In contrast, students who hold an entity theory of
abilities are more likely to presume that these are specific traits that cannot be changed by
learning or effort. They assume that abilities are stable and that they equal a set of
predetermined strengths and weaknesses (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). This can lead to
maladaptive strategic behaviours, such as low persistence, decreased effort when facing
demanding situations, and challenge avoidance (Dweck & Molden, 2017).
Individuals can hold different implicit theories of different abilities at the same time
(Schroder et al., 2016). Depending on the focus of the addressed ability or attribute, a
distinction can be made between domain-general and domain-specific implicit theories
(Gunderson et al., 2017). Domain-general implicit theories refer to abilities or attributes
with a broader effect in various areas, whereas domain-specific implicit theories refer to
abilities or attributes with a narrowed focus and that are relevant in a particular field.
Following this line of argument, implicit theories can address different abilities or
attributes (for an overview, see Dweck & Molden, 2017), for example, domain-general
beliefs such as implicit theories of INT (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and willpower (Job,
Bernecker, Miketta, & Friese, 2015) or domain-specific beliefs such as implicit theories of
mathematics ability (Rattan, Good, & Dweck, 2012) and writing ability (Karlen &
Compagnoni, 2017). Moreover, individuals can hold an entity theory of one attribute (e.g.,
intelligence) but an incremental theory of another (e.g., SRL; Dweck & Molden, 2017;
Schroder et al., 2016).
Besides the implicit theories of the malleability of an ability, individuals’ implicit
theories of its relevance for a particular purpose have been shown to impact motivation,
behaviour, and achievement (Dweck & Master, 2008; Spinath, 2001). In line with the
expectancy-value theory of motivation (e.g., Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Wigfield, Eccles, &
M€oller, 2020) it can be argued that the particular relevance of an ability in a specific
situation steps up its value, leads to higher motivation, and becomes an important
determinant of behaviour. Therefore, implicit theories of the relevance of an ability are
possible predecessors or triggers of utility values attributed to the ability in a particular
situation. However, implicit theories are on a more general level: they are not related to a
specific situation but to a particular ability or attribute. When the expectancy-value
perspective is applied to the level of implicit theories, it becomes evident that beliefs
about the relevance of a particular ability should be investigated in addition to beliefs
about its malleability (Dweck & Master, 2008; Spinath, 2001; Stiensmeier-Pelster &
Spinath, 2001).
Implicit theories of SRL

Taking a domain-specific perspective on implicit theories and investigating the interplay
of implicit theories of SRL and SRL processes are important next steps in the research on
implicit theories (Burnette et al., 2013; Costa & Faria, 2018; Schroder et al., 2016). This ties
in with previous efforts to evaluate the domain specificity versus the domain generality of
constructs, attitudes, abilities, beliefs, and traits that have a long tradition in psychology
research (e.g., Cattell, 1943; Goldberg, 1990; Gunderson et al., 2017; Schroder et al.,
2016). Furthermore, it addresses the question whether specific beliefs are better
predictors of behaviour compared to beliefs that refer to abilities on a (more) general level.
This is of particular interest in mindset research.
SRL is a situational and task-specific process of learning, in which individuals show self-
determined and active efforts to plan, execute, and evaluate their actions, as well as
regulate their behaviour, thoughts, and feelings to achieve their personal goals (Schunk &
Greene, 2018; Winne, 2018; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2014; Zimmerman & Schunk,
2011). Consequently, SRL competencies encompass learners’ abilities to monitor and
regulate their cognition, emotions, motivation, and behaviours to target their goals
(Schunk & Greene, 2018). Moreover, to effectively self-regulate their learning, learners
apply metacognitive knowledge about learning strategies to use them effectively and to
successfully overcome challenges (Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987). The ability to
self-regulate one’s own learning is strongly related to success in school and beyond
(Broadbent & Poon, 2015). SRL becomes particularly crucial whenever students are faced
with complex and concurrent achievement tasks as well as a learning organization that
necessitates high degrees of autonomy (Broadbent & Poon, 2015; Schneider & Preckel,
2017). Although the relevance of different beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy) for SRL behaviour is
highlighted in SRL research (Panadero, 2017), theoretical models of SRL do not explicitly
elaborate on the interactions of implicit theories of the malleability and of the relevance of
SRL with components of SRL.
Implicit theories of SRL are understood as domain-specific mindsets that cover an
individual’s beliefs of the malleability of SRL or of the relevance of SRL for academic
achievement. Self-regulation itself can relate to different areas of behaviour (e.g., health,
addiction, crime, relationships, workplace, for an overview see Vohs & Baumeister,
2017). With the focus on the area of learning, implicit theories of SRL address a particular
scope of self-regulation. Notwithstanding, SRL competencies can be applied to different
subjects or fields of studies and are conceptualized as cross-curricular competencies in
educational research.
Implicit theories of the malleability of SRL are located on a continuum from an entity
theory (fixed mindset) to an incremental theory (growth mindset). Students who hold an
entity theory of SRL suppose that competencies in SRL are relatively stable over time,
cannot be acquired by training, and are related to a given talent. By contrast, students’
holding an incremental theory of SRL assume that SRL competencies can change over time
and thus can be acquired as well as improved by training. Consequently, students with an
incremental theory of SRL are expected to demonstrate higher effort and motivation with
regard to the acquisition and the use of SRL strategies.
Implicit theories of the relevance of SRL for academic achievement are found on a
continuum from less relevant to more relevant. Students who ascribe low relevance for
academic achievement to SRL perceive SRL as less important for academic performance.
By contrast, students who rate SRL as highly relevant for academic achievement attribute a
high impact on academic performance to SRL. Therefore, implicit theories of the
relevance of SRL for academic achievement are expected to step up the utility value of SRL
and because of that to increase efforts on the subsequent self-regulation of one’s own
learning as well as individuals’ performances in SRL (e.g., Ommundsen, Haugen, & Lund,
2005; Yan, Thai, & Bjork, 2014). This is of particular importance because SRL is a
demanding process and learners who are convinced that the effort is worthwhile are more
likely to stay tuned.
Analysing the relationship between implicit theories of SRL and SRL and comparing it
with the interrelation of implicit theories of INT and SRL allows the detection of specific
impacts of these belief systems on distinct aspects of SRL behaviour and knowledge (e.g.,
goal setting, learning strategy use, metacognitive knowledge). The disentanglement of the
effects of implicit theories of SRL and implicit theories of INT helps to deepen the
theoretical understanding of the interplay of domain-specific and domain-general implicit
theories on a general level as well as to the further elaboration of SRL theory in particular.
Moreover, this can bring forth cues to better understand the inconsistent effects of
mindset interventions (Burnette et al., 2019) and provide evidence that may serve as a
starting point for developing (mindset) interventions for SRL.
Implicit theories and SRL

Until now, the interplay of implicit theories and SRL has predominantly been investigated
in the context of implicit theories of INT, which means a domain-general perspective has
been taken. Individuals who subscribe to incremental implicit theories of INT consider
effort in strategic engagement to be important for improving ability and learning
successfully (Blackwell et al., 2007). Compared with their peers who hold entity theories,
they procrastinate less and display better time management skills, higher active coping,
and more effective emotional regulation. They also make more frequent use of various
learning strategies and demonstrate higher levels of success with these strategies (e.g.,
Mouratidis, Michou, & Vassiou, 2017; Yan et al., 2014). Because of their strategic adaptive
behaviour, these students are more likely to succeed in academic contexts (e.g., Blackwell
et al., 2007; Jones, Wilkins, Long, & Wang, 2012).
Implicit theories have also been shown to relate to higher metacognitive awareness
and engagement (Hammann, 2005; Limpo & Alves, 2014). In this context, Karlen and
Compagnoni (2017) found that university students who hold an incremental theory of
writing ability not only apply higher-quality strategies more often, but also possess higher
metacognitive knowledge than their peers who hold an entity theory. In contrast, holding
an entity theory is related to maladaptive strategic behaviours such as helpless orientation,
lower locus of self-control, and increased disengagement and procrastination (Doron,
Stephan, Boiche, & Scanff, 2009; Mouratidis et al., 2017; Robins & Pals, 2002). Other
researchers have found small positive or negative correlations between domain-general
implicit theories of INT and SRL (e.g., Br
aten & Strømsø, 2005; Greene, Costa, Robertson,
Pan, & Deekens, 2010). In any case, a recent meta-analysis indicates that implicit theories
are positively related to SRL processes, including students’ use of higher-quality learning
strategies, goal setting and monitoring, effort and persistence in learning, and metacog-
nitive engagement (Burnette et al., 2013).
Implicit theories and achievement goal orientations

Students’ goal orientations are considered key factors in SRL (Schunk & Greene, 2018) as
well as important predictors of their motivation and achievement in academic settings
(Dweck & Master, 2008; Fenollar, Roman, & Cuestas, 2007; Geitz, Joosten-ten Brinke, &
Kirschner, 2016; Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009). Implicit theories of INT were identified as
important determinants of achievement goal orientations (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;
Howell & Buro, 2009). In line with theoretical assumptions, subscribing to an incremental
theory of INT positively correlates with mastery goal orientations (e.g., Chen & Pajares,
2010; Dickh€auser et al., 2016; Robins & Pals, 2002) and negatively correlates with
performance-avoidance goals (Burnette et al., 2013). Students who hold an incremental
theory of INT tend to remain more optimistic and persevere in their pursuit of a long-term
goal. Compared with students who hold an entity theory of INT, they do not doubt their
abilities and consider achievement situations as possibilities for extending their abilities
(Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2000). In contrast, as demonstrating fixed levels of high
competence is a main concern for entity theorists, students holding an entity theory of INT
were expected to adopt performance-approach goals more frequently (Dweck & Leggett,
1988). However, to date, no substantial relationship has been found between implicit
theories and performance-approach goals (Burnette et al., 2013; Dickh€auser et al., 2016;
Karlen et al., 2019). Although there is evidence of a link between implicit theories of INT
and achievement goals, the results are generally ambiguous (e.g., Doron et al., 2009;
Dupeyrat & Marine, 2005; Ommundsen et al., 2005). This could be due to a difference in
the specificity of effects when relating domain-general implicit theories (e.g., of
intelligence) instead of domain-specific implicit theories of SRL to distinct aspects of
goal setting and SRL behaviour.
Implicit theories, individual demographics, and personality traits

Implicit theories of INT are mostly unrelated to personality traits (e.g., the ‘Big Five’),
intelligence, and confidence in one’s intellectual ability in adulthood (Hong et al., 1999;
Spinath, Spinath, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2003). Concerning gender differences, some
studies have pointed out that female students are more likely to hold an entity theory of
INT than male students. However, other studies have reported no differences between the
genders (e.g., Bodill & Roberts, 2013; Robins & Pals, 2002). A recent meta-analysis of 113
empirical studies on implicit theories of INT found no differences between the genders
(Burnette et al., 2013). However, gender differences might occur for domain-specific
implicit theories (see Chen & Pajares, 2010). Regarding age, differences in implicit
theories have been reported. For instance, Diseth, Meland, and Breidablik (2014) found
that younger students in Year 6 were more likely to hold an incremental theory of ability
than their older peers in Year 8. Since beliefs become more stable with age, differences
among age groups are not usually expected for adults (Dweck, 2000; Stiensmeier-Pelster
& Spinath, 2001). For the ‘Big Five’, relationships have been reported between holding an
incremental theory of INT and conscientiousness as well as for holding an entity theory of
INT and neuroticism (Satchell, Hoskins, Corr, & Moore, 2017).
Research questions
In this study, we referred to the social-cognitive theory that understands implicit theories
as beliefs about abilities and aimed to expand the existing body of research. Up to now, a
domain-general perspective of implicit theories of INT was predominantly chosen when
the relation of implicit theories and SRL was examined. We emphasized a domain-specific
approach focusing on implicit theories of SRL and addressed the following three research
questions:
1. Do the scales presented allow for a reliable assessment of the two hypothesized
dimensions of implicit theories of SRL, the malleability and the relevance, in
university students?
We expected that both scales allowed for a reliable assessment and hypothesized that a
two-factor solution would result in better model fit indices than a one-dimensional model
in confirmatory factor analysis (Hypothesis 1).
2. Are implicit theories of SRL related to students’ achievement goals, learning
strategies, and metacognitive knowledge?
Since implicit theories of INT are related to students’ achievement goals and their
application of learning strategies, we hypothesized that the same was also true of implicit
theories of SRL. Students who hold an incremental theory of SRL and those who rate SRL as
highly relevant for academic achievement were expected to formulate mastery-oriented
goals instead of performance-avoidance goals (Hypothesis 2). It was also expected that
these students would apply learning strategies more often (Hypothesis 3). Furthermore,
we hypothesized that implicit theories of SRL were related positively to metacognitive
knowledge about SRL (Hypothesis 4).
From a more general perspective, we expected implicit theories of SRL to explain
additional variance in students’ goal setting, habitual learning strategy use, and
metacognitive knowledge, indicating a stronger relationship as compared to implicit
theories of INT (Hypothesis 5).
3. Are implicit theories of SRL related to students’ demographics such as gender, age,
university entrance degree (Abitur certificate), the field of study, length of university
study, and personality traits?
Based on ambiguous findings regarding the relation of implicit theories of INT and
individuals’ demographics, this paper presents exploratory analyses of the correlations
between implicit theories of SRL, students’ demographics, and personality traits.
Methods
Participants and design
The sample consisted of N = 254 university students enrolled at a medium-sized
university in Germany currently pursuing a teacher education track (n = 182, 73.1%) or a
bachelor track in educational science (n = 67; 26.9%). All students were participating in a
course on ‘self-regulated learning’, which is part of the regular curriculum for both study
tracks. Three measurement points were scheduled throughout the semester: a pre-test at
the beginning (T1), a post-test in the middle (T2), and a follow-up test at the end (T3). Data
from T1 were considered in the analyses, except for students’ personality traits, which
were assessed only in T3.
Measures
Descriptive statistics, item examples, and internal consistencies for all measures are
presented in Table 1.
Implicit theories of SRL

Based on validated instruments measuring implicit theories of INT (Spinath & Sch€ one,
2003), domain-specific scales assessing implicit theories of SRL were developed.
Accordingly, the malleability and the relevance of SRL for academic achievement were
distinguished. Each aspect was covered by three items that could be answered using a five-
point Likert-type scale (listed in Appendix). The higher values represented stronger
endorsements of an incremental theory of SRL and presumed higher relevance of SRL for
academic achievement at university.
Implicit theories of intelligence

Students’ implicit theories of INT were assessed using the pre-existing questionnaire (SE-
€ BELLKO-ST, Spinath & Sch€
SU one, 2003). Accordingly, students’ implicit theories of the
malleability of INT (three items) and implicit theories of the relevance of INT (three items)
for academic achievement were distinguished. Higher values represented stronger
8
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, item examples, and internal consistencies.
Measurement Internal consistency

M SD Items points Item example and answer format (Cronbach’s a)
Age 23.85 3.06 1 T1 – –

Gender .53 – 1 T1 – –
University entrance 2.18 .61 1 T1 – –
degree
Field of study .62 – 1 T1 – –
Silke Hertel and Yves Karlen
Length of university study 7.27 3.61 1 T1 – –

IT malleability of SRL 4.52 .65 3 T1 Self-regulated learning. . .(1) cannot be improved by practice .89
to (5) can be improved by practice.
IT relevance of SRL 3.95 .80 3 T1 Successful academic performance at university. . .(1) does .86
not require competencies in self-regulated learning to (5)
does require competencies in self-regulated learning.
IT malleability of INT 3.39 1.10 3 T1 Intelligence. . .(1) cannot be improved by practice to (5) can .87
be improved by practice.
IT relevance of INT 3.08 .89 3 T1 Successful academic performance at university. . .(1) does .89
not require intelligence to (5) does require intelligence.
Metacognitive knowledge 6.80 2.05 14 T1 – –
about SRL
Cognitive learning 3.75 .92 3 T1 I write short summaries of the learning contents capturing .80
strategies the main ideas.
(1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree
Metacognitive learning 4.05 .75 3 T1 If I do not understand a fact the first time, I go through it again, .76
strategies step by step.
Resource management 3.06 1.04 3 T1 I stick to a specific time schedule when I study. .78
strategies (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree
Mastery goals 4.14 .74 3 T1 At university, it is important to me to acquire a deep .80
understanding of the content.
Continued
Table 1. (Continued)
Measurement Internal consistency

M SD Items points Item example and answer format (Cronbach’s a)

Performance-approach 2.98 .91 3 T1 At university, it is important to me to show that I master the .75
goals contents.
Performance-avoidance 1.80 .99 3 T1 At university, it is important to me that nobody notices when .91
goals I do not understand the content.
Work avoidance 2.67 1.03 3 T1 At university, it is important to me to pass the class with as .87
little effort as possible.
Openness to experience 3.74 .64 10 T3 I am interested in many different things. .81
Conscientiousness 3.97 .70 9 T3 I work reliably and conscientiously. .85
Extraversion 4.08 .64 8 T3 I am talkative, I like to talk. .81
Agreeableness 4.40 .54 10 T3 I am helpful and selfless in my contact with others. .73
Neuroticism 3.24 .77 8 T3 I am worried very often. .83
Note. IT = implicit theories; INT = intelligence; SRL = self-regulated learning.

Implicit theories of self-regulated learning
9
preference of an incremental theory of INT and implied a higher relevance of intelligence

for success at university.
Metacognitive knowledge about SRL

Students’ metacognitive knowledge about SRL was assessed by a multiple-choice test
consisting of 14 items. The test covered declarative knowledge about SRL processes (e.g.,
cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational components) and strategies (e.g., goal setting,
learning strategies, and attribution). For each of the 14 questions, three (12 items) to four
(two items) alternative answers were provided, only one of which was correct. The item
difficulties ranged from Pi = .06 (very difficult item) to Pi = .88 (very easy item). A
manifest sum score of these 14 items was used in the analyses.
Learning strategies
The students’ self-reported habitual use of learning strategies was assessed with items
from the LIST (Wild & Schiefele, 1994), which is an adapted version of the ‘Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire’ (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993).
Cognitive strategies (elaboration, structuring), metacognitive strategies (evaluation,
adaptation), and resource management strategies (time management, organization) were
assessed with three items each.
Achievement goals
The students’ achievement goals were assessed with a validated instrument (SELLMO-ST,
Spinath, Stiensmeier-Pelster, Sch€
one, & Dickh€auser, 2002). Due to economic reasons, a
short version of the instrument was used. Mastery goals, performance-approach goals,
performance-avoidance goals, and work avoidance were assessed with three items each.
Higher values represented stronger endorsements of the particular goal orientation.
Personality traits
Students’ personality traits were assessed with a German version of the Big Five Inventory
(BFI; Rammstedt & John, 2005). A total of 45 items were applied covering the dimensions
of openness to experience (10 items), conscientiousness (nine items), extraversion (eight
items), agreeableness (10 items), and neuroticism (eight items). Manifest mean scores for
the five trait dimensions were used in the analyses.
Analyses
SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM, 2017) and Mplus version 8.2 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-
2017) were used to analyse the data. To address particular missing data, all parameters
were estimated using the full information maximum likelihood algorithm implemented in
Mplus. The average rate of missing values per variable was 2.42% (SD = 5.25; range = 0–
17.01).
First, to explore the dimensionality and the reliability of the scales on implicit theories
of SRL (Research Question 1), we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using
Mplus. To evaluate the model fit, the v2/df ratio value, the comparative fit index (CFI), the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square
(SRMR) were employed. A v2/df ratio below 3, CFI values above 0.95, RMSEA values
smaller than 0.06, and SRMR values smaller than 0.08 indicate good model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & M€ uller, 2003). In addition, chi-square
difference tests were conducted to support the decision between competing models.
Second, the interplay of implicit theories of SRL and students’ achievement goals, learning
strategies, and metacognitive knowledge (Research Question 2) was analysed within the
scope of multiple regression analyses using Mplus. Implicit theories of SRL, achievement
goals, and learning strategies were all included as latent factors, furthermore metacog-
nitive knowledge about SRL was included as a manifest sum score. Third, multiple
regression analyses were conducted using Mplus to investigate how implicit theories of
SRL and implicit theories of INT were related to the students’ demographics and
personality traits (Research Question 3). Latent indicators were included for all implicit
theory scales, whereas all predictors were entered as manifest scores.
Results
Research Question 1: Dimensionality and reliability of the scales on implicit theories of
SRL
In a first step, we focused our new developed scales on implicit theories of SRL and run
two CFAs. First, a one-dimensional model with one first-order factor (implicit theories of
SRL) and all six items was computed. The one-dimensional model yielded an unacceptable
fit (v2 = 158.83, df = 9, v2/df = 17.65, CFI = 0.50, SRMR = 0.18, RMSEA = 0.28),
indicating multidimensionality. Second, a two-dimensional model with two correlated
latent factors was specified (see Figure 1). This two-dimensional model indicated better fit
values (v2 = 10.55, df = 8, v2/df = 1.32, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.04) and
outperformed the one-dimensional model in terms of common model fit indices as well as
the chi-square difference test (Dv2 = 148.28, Ddf = 1, p < .001). The results indicated
that the two dimensions of implicit theories of SRL are discriminatory but moderately
related constructs (r = .38, p < .001). The analyses revealed high indicator loadings
between .79 < c > .94. The two dimensions of implicit theories of SRL – the malleability
and the relevance – showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, see Table 1).
Figure 1. Two-dimensional model of implicit theories of self-regulated learning.

Their correlation with the implicit theories of the malleability and the relevance of INT
was not statistically significant ( .005 ≤ r ≥ .140, p > .05).
In a second step, CFA were run to further examine the discriminant validity of the
scales on implicit theories of malleability and of relevance of SRL and of INT. First, a one-
dimensional model (Model a) with all twelve items on implicit theories loading on one
implicit theory factor was specified. This analysis resulted in an unacceptable model fit
(v2 = 1,094.864, df = 54, p < .001; CFI = 0.31, TLI = 0.16; SRMR = 0.22,
RMSEA = .30). Therefore, a second model (Model b) with two implicit theory factors –
one for implicit theories of SRL (six items) and one for implicit theories of INT (six items) –
was defined. This led to an improvement in the model fit (v2 = 706.466, df = 53,
p < .001; CFI = 0.57, TLI = 0.46; SRMR = 0.17, RMSEA = .24). Comparing Model a and
Model b, the chi-square difference test supported the decision for Model b
(Dv2 = 388.398, Ddf = 1, p < .001). Due to the unsatisfactory fit indices of Model b, a
third model (Model c) with four latent factors representing implicit theories of malleability
and of relevance of SRL and of INT was specified. Each dimension was represented by
three items. Model c showed appropriate fit indices (v2 = 108.361, df = 48, p < .001;
CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = .08). Taking into account model
estimation and model comparison with the chi-square difference test (Model b vs. Model
c: Dv2 = 598.105, Ddf = 5, p < .001), the data support the decision for Model c.
In a third step, we looked at the means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies
for all constructs (see Table 1) as well as their intercorrelations (see Table 2). As indicated
by reliability values from .73 to .91 for Cronbach’s alpha, all constructs were reliably
assessed. The intercorrelations between the variables and scales were mostly low to
medium-sized. Moderate to high correlations were found for the length of the students’
university studies and age (r = .60, p < .01) as well as for the length of the students’
university studies and field of study (r = .73, p < .01).
Research Question 2: Interplay of implicit theories of SRL with students’ achievement

goals, learning strategies, and metacognitive knowledge
To analyse the interplay of students’ implicit theories with SRL’s components, three
separate latent regression models were specified (see Table 3). In Model 1, implicit
theories of SRL were introduced as predictors for students’ achievement goals, habitual
learning strategy use, and metacognitive knowledge about SRL. For the implicit theories of
the malleability of SRL, statistically significant negative relations were found to
performance-avoidance goals, whereas statistically significant positive relationships
appeared with metacognitive learning strategies and metacognitive knowledge about
SRL. For the implicit theories of the relevance of SRL, statistically significant positive
relations were found with mastery goals, performance-approach goals, cognitive learning
strategies, and resource management strategies (one-tailed testing).
In Model 2, implicit theories of INT were considered as predictors. Statistically
significant positive relationships appeared for implicit theories of the malleability of INT
and mastery goals, as well as cognitive learning strategies (one-tailed testing). For the
implicit theories of the relevance of INT, statistically significant positive relationships
were found with performance-approach goals and the habitual use of metacognitive
learning strategies.
In Model 3, implicit theories of SRL and implicit theories of INT were simultaneously
introduced as predictors. The effects for implicit theories of SRL equalled the effects
reported for Model 1. Regarding the implicit theories of INT, the relations of the implicit
Table 2. Intercorrelations for all items and scales.
Item/Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1. Age – .12 .02 .33** .60** .06 .03 .05 .22** .04 .07 .02 .06 .10 .22** .04 .11 .07 .03 .01 .10 .06
2. Gender – .02 .20** .22** .08 .24** .17* .23** .02 .18** .20** .11 .20** .13 .06 .04 .25** .15* .10 .28** .02
3. University entrance – .40** .31** .01 .09 .15* .12 .15* .09 .04 .05 .22** .09 .06 .20** .17* .08 .10 .05 .05
degree
4. Field of study – .73** .02 .06 .20** .03 .15* .10 .07 .21** .23** .15* .07 .19** .08 .03 .09 .18* .22**
5. Length of university – .06 .05 .25** .09 .17* .11 .09 .04 .22** .22** .07 .18** .08 .02 .04 .19* .18*
study
6. IT malleability of SRL – .33** .07 .03 .27** .11 .35** .11 .19** .02 .28** .08 .03 .15* .11 .02 .02
7. IT relevance of SRL – .10 .06 .08 .18** .19** .16* .20** .17* .08 .12 .17* .10 .20** .04 .05
8. IT malleability of INT – .08 .02 .15* .04 .04 .14* .02 .09 .03 .16* .03 .06 .12 .01
9. IT relevance of INT – .07 .08 .15* .09 .08 .17* .03 .06 .18* .13 .01 .06 .10
10. Metacognitive – .09 .05 .07 .10 .07 .12 .04 .06 .04 .03 .13 .09
knowledge about SRL
11. Cognitive learning – .22** .21** .18** .13 .12 .09 .21** .02 .21** .07 .01
strategies
12. Metacognitive – .22** .27** .14* .17* .04 .16* .13 .15* .09 .11
Learning Strategies
13. Resource – .12 .21** .03 .10 .49** .09 .06 .05 .06
management strategies
14. Mastery goals – .23** .30** .23** .19** .27** .18* .07 .05
15. Performance- – .36** .14* .07 .12 .06 .09 .04
approach goals
16. Performance- – .21** .12 .04 .04 .13 .08
avoidance goals
17. Work avoidance – .15* .17* .08 .06 .08
18. Openness to – .15* .15* .15* .12
experience
19. Conscientiousness – .18* .16* .24**
20. Extraversion – .02 .20**
21. Agreeableness – .27**
22. Neuroticism –
Note. N = 175–249; IT = implicit theories; SRL = self-regulated learning; INT = intelligence; two-tailed testing.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Implicit theories of self-regulated learning
13
14
Table 3. Results of regression analyses of implicit theories related to achievement goals, learning strategy use, and metacognitive knowledge about SRL.
Performance-approach Performance-avoidance
Mastery goals goals goals Work avoidance
b SE b b SE b b SE b b SE b
Model 1 IT malleability of SRL .14 .10 .13 .11 .08 .11 .49*** .13 .32 .02 .12 .01
IT relevance of SRL .24* .09 .22 .25** .09 .27 .08 .12 .05 .14 .12 .11
Model 2 IT malleability of INT .12* .06 .16 .001 .05 .002 .10 .08 .10 .03 .07 .03
IT relevance of INT .11 .08 .12 .19** .07 .24 .06 .10 .05 .06 .09 .05
Model 3 IT malleability of SRL .15 .10 .13 .10 .08 .10 .49*** .13 .32 .01 .12 .01
IT relevance of SRL .21* .10 .19 .23** .09 .25 .11 .12 .07 .13 .12 .10
IT malleability of INT .10 .06 .13 .02 .05 .03 .09 .08 .09 .02 .07 .02
IT relevance of INT .10 .08 .10 .17** .07 .22 .07 .10 .05 .05 .09 .05
Cognitive learning Metacognitive learning Resource management Metacognitive knowledge

strategies strategies strategies about SRL
Model 1 IT malleability of SRL .06 .10 .06 .45*** .11 .36 .07 .14 .04 .90*** .25 .28
IT relevance of SRL .24** .10 .23 .13 .10 .11 .28# .14 .17 .10 .24 .03
Model 2 IT malleability of INT .11# .06 .14 .004 .07 .004 .02 .09 .04 .07 .16 .03
IT relevance of INT .04 .08 .04 .21* .09 .20 .16 .12 .11 .18 .20 .07
Model 3 IT malleability of SRL .06 .10 .06 .46*** .11 .37 .07 .14 .04 .91*** .25 .29
IT relevance of SRL .23* .10 .21 .11 .10 .09 .26# .14 .16 .14 .24 .05
IT malleability of INT .08 .06 .11 .02 .06 .03 .01 .09 .01 .06 .15 .03
IT relevance of INT .02 .08 .02 .20* .08 .19 .14 .11 .10 .19 .19 .07
Note. IT = implicit theories; SRL = self-regulated learning; INT = intelligence; two-tailed testing. Model 1: v2 = 463.11, df = 306, v2/df = 1.51, CFI = 0.94,
SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = .05; Model 2: v2 = 419.09, df = 306, v2/df = 1.37, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = .04; Model 3: v2 = 675.85, df = 462, v2/df = 1.46,
CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = .04; R-square (Model 1, Model 2, Model 3): mastery goals (.08#, .04, .11*); performance-approach goals (.06, .06, .11*);
performance-avoidance goals (.09*, .01, .10*); work avoidance (.01, .004, .01); cognitive learning strategies (.06, .02, .08#); metacognitive learning strategies (.17*, .04,
.21*); resource management strategies (.04, .01, .05); metacognitive knowledge about SRL (.07*, .006, .08*).
#
p > .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
theories of the malleability of INT to mastery goals and cognitive learning strategies were
not significant anymore. All other effects for implicit theories of INT equalled the effects
reported for Model 1.
When controlling for the students’ age, gender, and university entrance degree1, the
results remained stable. Only minor changes occurred for implicit theories of the
malleability of SRL, which added significantly to the explained variance of students’
mastery goal orientations in Models 1 and 3. Implicit theories of the malleability of INT did
not add anything further to the explained variance of students’ mastery goal orientations
or their habitual use of cognitive learning strategies in Model 2.
Research Question 3: Relationships of implicit theories of SRL to individual

demographics and personality traits
Regression analyses were conducted to specify the interplay of implicit theories of the
malleability of SRL and of the relevance of SRL with students’ age, gender, university
entrance degree, field of study, length of university study, and personality traits (Model 4).
All predictors were included in a single model to control for alpha-error accumulation.
The same analyses were conducted for implicit theories of INT (Model 5). Table 4 displays
the results.
The implicit theories of SRL were mostly unrelated to students’ individual demo-
graphics and personality traits. Statistically significant regression coefficients were found
only for the implicit theories of the relevance of SRL for academic achievement. Gender,
openness to experience, and conscientiousness were statistically significantly related to
beliefs about the relevance of SRL.
Regarding implicit theories of INT, statistically significant regression coefficients were
found for the malleability and the relevance of INT for academic achievement. Students’
gender, university entrance degree, field of university study, length of university study,
and conscientiousness were statistically significantly related to implicit theories of the
malleability of INT. Regarding implicit theories of the relevance of INT for academic
achievement, statistically significantly relationships were found with students’ age,
gender, and conscientiousness.
Discussion
We aimed to expand the existing body of research on implicit theories, which has
predominantly taken a domain-general perspective of implicit theories of INT when the
relation of implicit theories and SRL was examined. By introducing scales on implicit
theories of SRL, we emphasized a domain-specific approach in the analyses of the
interplay of implicit theories and SRL. By analysing implicit theories of SRL and implicit
theories of INT simultaneously, we attempted to disentangle the effects of domain-
specific and domain-general beliefs. Furthermore, we examined the interplay of implicit
theories of the malleability of an ability and implicit theories of its relevance. Data from a
sample of university students were used for the analyses. In the following sections, we
discuss our findings and draw conclusions for further research and practice.
First, we examined the structure of implicit theories of SRL and the reliability of the
newly developed scales. In support of Hypothesis 1, CFA revealed that the implicit
1
Due to intercorrelations causing multi-collinearity, field of study and length of university study were not included.
16
Table 4. Results of regression analyses of individual demographics and personality traits related to implicit theories.
Model 4 Model 5
IT malleability of SRL IT relevance of SRL IT malleability of INT IT relevance of INT

Age .55 .37 .11 .43 .33 .09 .11 .14 .03 1.02*** .28 .24
Gender .08 .15 .05 .63*** .15 .40 .20* .09 .19 .45*** .11 .33
University entrance degree .04 .06 .05 .08 .07 .09 .11* .05 .17 .10 .06 .11
Field of study .03 .17 .02 .16 .18 .10 .32** .10 .30 .04 .13 .03
Length of university study .67 .40 .12 .60 .48 .10 .94** .27 .25 .53 .39 .11
Openness to EXPERIENCE .03 .08 .03 .20* .09 .20 .04 .05 .06 .003 .07 .003
Conscientiousness .14 .12 .12 .28** .10 .25 .11* .05 .14 .21** .08 .21
Extraversion .01 .10 .004 .07 .10 .07 .003 .05 .01 .08 .07 .09
Agreeableness .09 .07 .11 .08 .08 .10 .01 .04 .02 .09 .06 .13
Neuroticism .03 .09 .02 .08 .11 .06 .09 .05 .11 .12 .08 .11
Note. IT = implicit theories; SRL = self-regulated learning; INT = intelligence; two-tailed testing.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
theories of the malleability and of the relevance of SRL are distinguishable yet moderately
correlated dimensions that can be assessed reliably with the developed scales.
Furthermore, CFAs indicated that implicit theories of the malleability and of the relevance
of SRL and of INT represent independent dimensions.
Second, we examined the relation between implicit theories of SRL and SRL’s
components. The findings indicated that both dimensions of implicit theories of SRL – the
malleability and the relevance – interrelate with students’ achievement goal orientations,
self-reported learning strategy use, and metacognitive knowledge about SRL. In line with
our assumptions and based on findings for implicit theories of INT (Burnette et al., 2013;
Dickh€auser et al., 2016), students endorsing an incremental theory of SRL reported
performance-avoidance goals less often. Surprisingly, there was no significant relation
between implicit theories of the malleability of SRL and mastery goals. However, implicit
theories of the relevance of SRL for academic achievement were positively interrelated
with mastery goals. Moreover, contrary to our expectations, no significant interplay with
performance-avoidance goals was found for implicit theories of SRL. All together, these
results only partially supported Hypothesis 2. The differentiation of the two implicit
theories dimensions could be one explanation for this. The results suggested that both
dimensions activate specific SRL processes and, consequently, specific mechanisms in
goal setting. These specific effects might be concealed when implicit theories of the
malleability of abilities are examined individually. Another explanation for these
unexpected findings might be differences in the level of specificity: implicit theories
were assessed domain specifically with a focus on SRL, whereas students’ achievement
goals were measured on a domain-general level addressing academic performance at
university. Even though, from a theoretical perspective, the link between implicit theories
and achievement goals seems to be clear (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), in the empirical
literature, correlations between implicit theories and achievement goals are not entirely
consistent (e.g., Burnette et al., 2013; Chen & Pajares, 2010; Dickh€auser et al., 2016;
Karlen et al., 2019; Ommundsen et al., 2005; Robins & Pals, 2002). Further studies may
investigate these specific mechanisms more closely by applying domain-specific measures
for goal orientations.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 addressed the interplay of implicit theories of SRL with students’
self-reported habitual use of learning strategies and metacognitive knowledge about SRL.
As expected, implicit theories of SRL positively correlated with the habitual use of
cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies, as well as with metacog-
nitive knowledge about SRL. Thus, both hypotheses were supported by the data.
However, differentiating between implicit theories of the malleability and of the relevance
of SRL for academic achievement again proved to be important (Dweck & Master, 2008;
Spinath, 2001; Stiensmeier-Pelster & Spinath, 2001). On the one hand, holding an
incremental theory of SRL was positively related to self-reported use of metacognitive
learning strategies and metacognitive knowledge about SRL. On the other hand, assigning
a high relevance for academic achievement to SRL was positively related to self-reported
use of cognitive strategies and resource management strategies. Moreover, the results
support the assumption that implicit theories of malleability of SRL and implicit theories of
relevance of SRL prompt the activation of different SRL processes.
In line with Hypothesis 5, the additional contribution of implicit theories of SRL to the
explanation of SRL of was revealed when both mindsets – implicit theories of SRL and
implicit theories of INT – were included in the analyses simultaneously. For all
components of SRL, an increase in the proportion of explained variance was obtained
when measures of implicit theories of SRL were added, compared to considering implicit
theories of INT as the only predictors (see Table 3).
Mastery and performance-avoidance goals, self-reported habitual use of cognitive and
resource management strategies, and metacognitive knowledge about SRL were related
only to implicit theories of SRL. Regarding performance-approach goals and metacogni-
tive learning strategies, relationships with both implicit theories of SRL and of INT were
found.
These results support the conclusion that domain-specific implicit theories are of
particular importance for explaining domain-specific behaviours (Br aten & Strømsø,
2005; Burnette et al., 2013; Schroder et al., 2016; Tempelaar, Rienties, Giesbers, &
Gijselaers, 2015).
Third, we examined the extent to which implicit theories are related to the students’
demographics and personality traits. Effects for gender and conscientiousness appeared
for implicit theories of SRL and for implicit theories of INT. Male students were more likely
to hold an entity theory of INT and to judge SRL and INT as less relevant for academic
achievement at university. However, students with high conscientiousness were found to
hold an incremental theory of intelligence more often and ascribed higher relevance for
academic achievement to SRL and intelligence. These findings tie in with results on the
relation of personality traits and incremental theory of INT that have been reported
previously (Satchell et al., 2017). The negative correlations of age and length of university
study with implicit theories of INT were in line with previous findings that have reported a
shift from an incremental perspective towards an entity theory as age increases (e.g.,
Diseth et al., 2014; Stiensmeier-Pelster & Spinath, 2001).
Taken together, the results support the conclusion that domain-specific implicit
theories are of particular importance for explaining domain-specific behaviours.
Moreover, they point out that implicit theories of SRL play a key role in university
students’ SRL processes as they create a meaning system that leads students to various SRL
paths. Endorsing an incremental theory and ascribing higher relevance for academic
success to SRL promotes active engagement in students’ own regulation of their
motivation and learning behaviour. The important role of both implicit theories – implicit
theories of malleability of SRL and implicit theories of relevance of SRL – in the activation
of SRL processes is highlighted. Our findings emphasize the importance of supporting
students in developing both an incremental theory of SRL and a sense of the relevance of
SRL for academic success. If students presume that they can increase their competencies
in SRL through effort and training, and if they are aware of the relevance of SRL for
academic achievement, they are more likely to show adaptive patterns of SRL. This is of
particular significance for education, as the competence to self-regulate one’s own
learning is crucial for academic success besides prior knowledge and intelligence (e.g.,
Crede, Roch, & Kieszczynka, 2010; Schneider & Preckel, 2017). In particular, SRL
competencies tend to show stronger relationships with achievement than students’
personalities, intelligence, or personal backgrounds (Richardson, Abraham, & Bond,
2012; Zuffian o et al., 2013). This highlights the importance of promoting favourable
implicit theories of SRL and of fostering competencies in SRL in general. Since implicit
theories can be affected by interventions (Binning, Wang, & Amemiya, 2019; Blackwell
et al., 2007; Burnette et al., 2019; Paunesku et al., 2015), the verbal signals of parents as
well as teachers and educators in the classroom play an important role in prompting
particular mindsets (Park, Gunderson, Tsukayama, Levine, & Beilock, 2016; Stern &
Hertel, 2020). Thus, parents, teachers, and educators should be sensitized to encourage
favourable implicit theories of the malleability and of the relevance of domain-specific
abilities (e.g., SRL) in addition to domain-general implicit theories of abilities or attributes

(e.g., intelligence) to support stronger engagement in (domain-specific) learning and to
promote academic achievement.
Limitations and further steps

This study had some limitations that might have impacted its results. First, although the
study’s design was longitudinal, only data from a single measurement point could be
included in the analyses due to data-collection constraints. Consequently, our analyses
were cross-sectional, and no causal inferences could be made. All data were collected
from one university in central Germany and included only students from two academic
tracks. The sample contained a high proportion of female students, as is common in
educational science and teacher education. Thus, it is questionable whether our results
can be generalized to apply to students from other universities or academic tracks. That
being said, since results reported by other researchers were replicated in our study, these
concerns were diminished to some degree (Spinath et al., 2003; Stiensmeier-Pelster &
Spinath, 2001). Replication of the findings reported here with another, more gender-
balanced sample that includes additional academic tracks and data collected from more
than one university is thus recommended.
Moreover, all of the students who took part in this study were participating in a course
on SRL, which may also have impacted their implicit theories of SRL. It cannot be ruled out
that incremental theories of SRL were triggered by the very fact of implementing a course
on SRL, which inherently suggests that these competencies can be developed over time.
Furthermore, implicit theories may have been activated by the application of the
questionnaire scales, which could account for the high ceiling effect for the implicit
theories of the malleability of SRL that occurred in our data. Nevertheless, a moderate
ceiling effect was found for the implicit theories of the malleability of INT as well. These
ceiling effects go along with restricted variance and offer one explanation for the fewer
statistically significant relationships between students’ incremental theories of SRL and of
INT with components of SRL.
Concerning the dependent variables, students’ learning strategies were assessed by
self-reports and examined only from a habitual perspective (statements of agreement of
strategy use). No objective information about the frequency, and – more importantly – the
quality of students’ actual use of learning strategies was included in this study. Future
studies should therefore address the interplay of implicit theories of SRL with not only the
habitual use of learning strategies, but also the frequency and the quality of students’
actual learning strategies use, as well as with their academic achievement within the scope
of a longitudinal study that allows for causal inferences. In addition, the relationship of
implicit theories of SRL and other implicit theories, such as willpower (Job et al., 2015),
should also be explored to add evidence to questions concerning the development of as
well as the interplay between domain-general implicit theories and domain-specific
implicit theories.
To continue building on promising results regarding the effectiveness of mindset
interventions (e.g., Burnette, Russell, Hoyt, Orvidas, & Widman, 2018; Paunesku et al.,
2015; Yeager et al., 2016), further examination of the effects of interventions focusing on
the impact of domain-specific implicit theories of SRL and domain-general implicit
theories on students’ SRL and achievement is recommended. This might also add to an
explanation of the inconsistent findings for the relationship of implicit theories and
students’ academic achievement (Costa & Faria, 2018; Sisk et al., 2018).
Conclusion
Our results emphasize the importance of implicit theories as frameworks for students’
achievement goals, use of learning strategies, and metacognitive knowledge about SRL. By
analysing implicit theories of SRL and implicit theories of INT simultaneously, we were
able to disentangle the effects of domain-specific and domain-general beliefs. Moreover,
the results of our study indicate that implicit theories can be differentiated between
implicit theories of the malleability and implicit theories of relevance of a specific ability
and both complement each other in predicting SRL processes. Our study reveals evidence
that implicit theories of SRL are distinct from implicit theories of INT. Moreover, implicit
theories of SRL – representing domain-specific beliefs – have a stronger relationship with
SRL than domain-general implicit theories of INT and therefore are of particular
importance for explaining SRL. Although the results must be interpreted carefully, the
reported findings contribute to filling an important gap in the research. They can drive the
further development of SRL theory in the sense of an extension by implicit theories and
provide a basis for the derivation of implications for interventions in the context of SRL.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Heidelberg University, Field of Focus 4: Self-Regulation and
Regulation: Individuals and Organizations.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Authors’ contributions
Silke Hertel (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition;
Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Visualization; Writing –
original draft; Writing – review & editing); Yves Karlen (Conceptualization; Formal
analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing –
review & editing).
Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request.
References
Binning, K. R., Wang, M.-T., & Amemiya, J. (2019). Persistence mindset among adolescents: Who
benefits from the message that academic struggles are normal and temporary? Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 48(2), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0933-3
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
Development, 78(1), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
Bodill, K., & Roberts, L. D. (2013). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic locus of control as
predictors of studying behaviour. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 163–166. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.08.001
Br
aten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2005). The relationship between epistemological beliefs, implicit
theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning among Norwegian postsecondary students.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 539–565. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000709905X25067
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in
online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher
Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
Burnette, J. L., Hoyt, C. L., Russell, V. M., Lawson, B., Dweck, C. S., & Finkel, E. (2019). A growth
mind-set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer
science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1948550619841631
Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A
meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 655–
701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029531
Burnette, J. L., Russell, M. V., Hoyt, C. L., Orvidas, K., & Widman, L. (2018). An online growth
mindset intervention in a sample of rural adolescent girls. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12192
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116
Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of grade 6 science students: Relation to
epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 35(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.003
Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-
analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.
00829
Crede, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic
review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of
Educational Research, 80, 272–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310362998
Dickh€auser, O., Dinger, F. C., Janke, S., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2016). A prospective
correlational analysis of achievement goals as mediating constructs linking distal motivational
dispositions to intrinsic motivation and academic achievement. Learning and Individual
Differences, 50, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.020
Diseth, A., Meland, E., & Breidablik, H. J. (2014). Self-beliefs among students: Grade level and gender
differences in self-esteem, self-efficacy and implicit theories of intelligence. Learning and
Individual Differences, 35, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.06.003
Doron, J., Stephan, Y., Boiche, J., & Scanff, C. L. (2009). Coping with examinations: Exploring
relationships between students’ coping strategies, implicit theories of ability, and perceived
control. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1348/
978185409X402580
Dupeyrat, C., & Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive
engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2004.01.007
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Dweck, C. S., & Master, A. (2008). Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B.
J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 31–51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2017). Mindsets: Their impact on competence motivation and
acquisition. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation: Theory and application (pp. 135–154). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 14, 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166
Fenollar, P., Roman, S., & Cuestas, P. J. (2007). University students’ academic performance: An
integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77, 873–891. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X189118
Geitz, G., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Kirschner, P. A. (2016). Changing learning behaviour: Self-
efficacy and goal orientation in PBL groups in higher education. International Journal of
Educational Research, 75, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.11.001
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.59.6.1216
Greene, J. A., Costa, L.-J., Robertson, J., Pan, Y., & Deekens, V. M. (2010). Exploring relations among
college students’ prior knowledge, implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning
in a hypermedia environment. Computers & Education, 55, 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2010.04.013
Gunderson, E. A., Hamdan, N., Sorhagen, N. S., & D’Esterre, A. P. (2017). Who needs innate ability to
succeed in math and literacy? Academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence about peers
versus adults. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1188–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/de
v0000282
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New
research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88, 1849–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cde
v.12955
Hammann, L. (2005). Self-regulation in academic writing tasks. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 15–26.
Hong, Y.-Y., Chiu, C.-Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D.-M.-S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions,
and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
Howell, A. J., & Buro, K. (2009). Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: A
mediational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.lindif.2008.08.006
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Job, V., Bernecker, K., Miketta, S., & Friese, M. (2015). Implicit theories about willpower predict the
activation of a rest goal following self-control exertion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 109, 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000042
Jones, B. D., Wilkins, J. L., Long, M. H., & Wang, F. (2012). Testing a motivational model of
achievement: How students’ mathematical beliefs and interests are related to their achievement.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-
0062-9
Karlen, Y., & Compagnoni, M. (2017). Implicit theory of writing ability: Relationship to
metacognitive strategy knowledge and strategy use in academic writing. Psychology Learning
& Teaching, 16(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716682887
Karlen, Y., Suter, F., Hirt, C., & Merki, K. M. (2019). The role of implicit theories in students’ grit,
achievement goals, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and achievement in the context a long-
term challenging task. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101757. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.lindif.2019.101757
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students’ response to a
SRSD intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 571–590. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjep.12042
Mouratidis, A., Michou, A., & Vassiou, A. (2017). Adolescents’ autonomous functioning and implicit
theories of ability as predictors of their school achievement and week-to-week study regulation
and well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cedpsych.2016.09.001
Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition.. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability,
and self-regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 461–474.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830500267838
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). Young children’s
motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to teacher-reported instructional
practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 300–
313. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000064
Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set
interventions are a ccalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science,
26, 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategies users
coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals of child
development, Vol. 4 (pp. 89–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K). Diagnostica, 51,
195–206. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.51.4.195
Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok – Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors
with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48, 731–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’
academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138,
353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal
orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313–336. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805
Satchell, L., Hoskins, S., Corr, P., & Moore, R. (2017). Ruminating on the nature of intelligence:
Personality predicts implicit theories and educational persistence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 113, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.025
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & M€ uller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural
equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of
Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A
systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 565–600. https://doi.org/10.
1037/bul0000098
Schroder, H. S., Dawood, S., Yalch, M. M., Donnellan, M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2016). Evaluating the
domain specificity of mental health–related mind-sets. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 7, 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616644657
Schroder, H. S., Fisher, M. E., Lin, Y., Lo, S. L., Danovitch, J. H., & Moser, J. S. (2017). Neural evidence
for enhanced attention to mistakes among school-aged children with a growth mindset.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.01.
004
Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (Eds.) (2018). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.
4324/9781315697048
Scott, M. J., & Ghinea, G. (2014). On the domain-specificity of mindsets: The relationship between
aptitude beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57, 169–174.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2288700
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under
which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-
analyses. Psychological Science, 29, 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
Spinath, B. (2001). Implizite Theorien uber € €
die Veranderbarkeit von Intelligenz und Begabung
als Bedingungen von Motivation und Leistung. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Spinath, B., & Sch€ one, C. (2003). Ziele als Bedingungen von Motivation am Beispiel der Skalen zur
Erfassung der Lern- und Leistungsmotivation (SELLMO). In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg
(Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept (pp. 15–27). G€ ottingen: Hogrefe.
Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2003). Implicit theories about personality
and intelligence and their relationship to actual personality and intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35, 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00310-0
Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Sch€ one, C., & Dickh€auser, O. (2002). Skalen zur Erfassung der
Lern-und Leistungsmotivation: SELLMO. G€ ottingen: Hogrefe.
Stern, M., & Hertel, S. (2020). Profiles of Parents’ Beliefs About Their Child’s Intelligence and Self-
Regulation: A Latent Profile Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.610262
Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., & Spinath, B. (2001). Implicit theories about the malleability of intelligence
and ability. Psychology Science Quaterly, 43, 53–76.
Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2015). The pivotal role of effort
beliefs in mediating implicit theories of intelligence and achievement goals and academic
motivations. Social Psychology of Education: an International Journal, 18(1), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9281-7
Vohs, K. D., & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of self-regulation. Research, theory, and
applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.
1015
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & M€ oller, J. (2020). How dimensional comparisons help to understand
linkages between expectancies, values, performance, and choice. Educational Psychological
Review, 32, 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09524-2
Wild, K.-P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium: Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und
Reliabilit€at eines neuen Fragebogens. Zeitschrift Fur € Differentielle Und Diagnostische
Psychologie, 15, 185–200.
Winne, P. H. (2018). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk &
J. A. Greene (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of self-regulation of
learning and performance (pp. 36–48). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Yan, V. X., Thai, K.-P., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated learning: Do
they vary with mindset? Journal of Applied Research in Memory Cognition, 3, 140–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.003
Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C., . . . Dweck, C. S.
(2016). Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth
mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 374–391.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000098
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Comparing students’ self-discipline and self-regulation
measures and their prediction of academic achievement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 39, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.004
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation
intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The educational psychology series.
Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: An introduction
and an overview. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook
series. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). New York, NY:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Zuffian
o, A., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Kanacri, B. P. L., Di Giunta, L., Milioni, M., & Caprara, G. V.
(2013). Academic achievement: The unique contribution of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated
learning beyond intelligence, personality traits, and self-esteem. Learning and Individual
Differences, 23(1), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.010
Received 21 March 2019; revised version received 23 November 2020
Appendix :
Items on Implicit Theories of SRL
Malleability of SRL
Everyone has a certain ability to self-regulate their learning and this . . . (1) cannot be
changed to (5) can be changed.
Self-regulated learning . . . (1) cannot be improved by practice to (5) can be improved
by practice.
How well one can self-regulate one’s learning is something that . . . (1) always stays the
same to (5) can be changed.
Relevance of SRL
Successful academic performance at university . . . (1) does not require competencies in
SRL to (5) does require competencies in SRL.
Self-regulated learning . . . (1) is not a prerequisite for successful study to (5) is a
prerequisite for successful study.
In order to be successful in university studies . . . (1) one does not have to be good in
SRL to (5) one must be very good in SRL.
View publication stats

Hertel Karlen 2020 Bjep 12402

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hertel Karlen 2020 Bjep 12402

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Implicit theories of self‐regulated learning: Interplay with students’

Article in British Journal of Educational Psychology · December 2020

Silke Hertel Yves Karlen

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Computer-Based Competence Diagnostic in Self-Regulated Learning (CoKoS) View project

National enlargement of the PISA 2009 Study View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2020)

Implicit theories of self-regulated learning:

Implicit theories of abilities

Implicit theories of SRL

Implicit theories and SRL

Implicit theories and achievement goal orientations

Implicit theories, individual demographics, and personality traits

Implicit theories of SRL

Implicit theories of intelligence

Measurement Internal consistency

Age 23.85 3.06 1 T1 – –

Length of university study 7.27 3.61 1 T1 – –

Measurement Internal consistency

(1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree

Note. IT = implicit theories; INT = intelligence; SRL = self-regulated learning.

preference of an incremental theory of INT and implied a higher relevance of intelligence

Metacognitive knowledge about SRL

Figure 1. Two-dimensional model of implicit theories of self-regulated learning.

Research Question 2: Interplay of implicit theories of SRL with students’ achievement

Cognitive learning Metacognitive learning Resource management Metacognitive knowledge

Research Question 3: Relationships of implicit theories of SRL to individual

IT malleability of SRL IT relevance of SRL IT malleability of INT IT relevance of INT

abilities (e.g., SRL) in addition to domain-general implicit theories of abilities or attributes

Limitations and further steps

Data availability statement

Received 21 March 2019; revised version received 23 November 2020

View publication stats

You might also like