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

net/publication/334626448

Development and Validation of an Academic Self-Regulation Scale for

University Students

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

6 6,193

2 authors, including:

Nasir Mahmood
Allama Iqbal Open University
58 PUBLICATIONS 425 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Employees' Well being View project

Organizational Well being View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nasir Mahmood on 23 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2013

Development and Validation of an Academic Self-Regulation Scale

for University Students

Javed H. Akhtar and Nasir Mahmood*, Ph.D

Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab,
Lahore, Pakistan

Research on self-regulation of learning became an important topic

more than two decades ago to answer the question of how students
become masters of their own learning process. The primary
purpose of the study was to develop and gather initial
psychometric information regarding the Academic Self-Regulation
Scale (ASRS), a measure of students’ use of abilities and strategies
of self-regulated learning. Information regarding the scale’s factor
structure, validity and reliability was gathered using a sample of
410 public sector university students in various master level
programmes. The scale was convenient for classroom use because
of its appropriate length. Principal component analysis of the
ASRS, a 30-item scale yielded a five factor structure: (a) self-
planning, (b) self-monitoring, (c) self-instruction, (d) self-
evaluation, and (e) self-reaction. Internal consistency for the whole
scale ASRS was (alpha = 0.83). The implications of the results and
prospective avenues for future research are presented and
discussed.
Keywords: Academic self-regulation, validity, reliability,
university students

Interacting with others and managing oneself are two major

functions of self but the most important function of self is self-regulation
(Franzoi, 2006; Tesser, 1995). The concept of self regulation in an
academic context is known as academic self regulation. In other words, it
is the measure through which learners control and direct their own
learning. Iran-Nejad (1990) stated that learning occurs under the active
control of one’s internal source of self regulation. In self-regulated
learning students work on tasks while constructing personal strategies in
their own words and self control over outcomes (Butler, 2002).
Self-Regulated learning has become an important topic in
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nasir Mahmood, Ph.D,
Associate Professor, Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of the
Punjab, Lahore Pakistan. Email: mahsir1@yahoo.com
38 AKHTAR AND MAHMOOD

education and research over the past few decades (Steffen, 2006). One of
the major reasons for this is that researchers discovered that the extent to
which a learner is capable of regulating his or her own learning greatly
affects academic performance (Santrock, 2006: Bembenutty, 2005).
Producing independent learners is a major aim of school (Nasir & Kono,
2004). Teachers’ lessons in the class do not play a solo role any more
when it comes to measuring students’ learning performance; what’s more
important is students’ ability to master their own learning. Needs of
individual learners must be kept in mind in constructing the teaching-
learning process (Nasir & Kono, 2004).
Although there are a variety of theoretical perspectives on self-
regulated learning, it is generally viewed as a complex, multi-
dimensional process that integrates with other sub-processes.
Zimmerman (1998) is of the view that self-regulation is a cyclical activity
on the part of the learner, one that occurs in three major phases:
forethought, performance of volitional control and self reflection with
sub-processes. These three phases are regarded as before learning, during
learning and after learning phases. Pintrch’s (2000) theoretical model
classifies the process of self regulation in four phases: planning, self
monitoring, control and evaluation within cognitive, affective and
behavioral areas. Nasir (2005) is of the view that learners use their own
thinking during learning using the self instruction component of self-
regulation.

Components of Academic Self- Regulation

Academic self-regulation includes the components of self-
planning, self-monitoring, self-instructions, self-evaluation and self-
reaction.
Self Planning. Taking strategic actions which refer to self
generated actions and thoughts, which are systematically designed to
attain the desired goals, is called self planning (Zimmerman, 1998). This
process includes goal setting, planning, self-motivational beliefs,
outcome expectations, and the extent to which the learner gives
importance to the tasks.
Self Monitoring. Self monitoring is the inclination to use cues
from other peoples’ self presentations in controlling one’s own self
presentations (Frenzoi, 2006). Deliberate attention to one’s own behavior
is called self monitoring. It is assisted with self recording where instances
of behavior are recorded along with time, space and frequency of
occurrence. As Worchel, Cooper, Goethal, and Olson (2000) stated that
ACADEMIC SELF-REGULATION SCALE 39

self monitoring is adjusting oneself from situation to situation or to the

standards set by others. If you are self monitoring, you can control both
your verbal and non-verbal presentations so that you can respond to those
expectations. High self monitoring individuals are concerned about and
are aware of the way others react to them, but they give more importance
about actively and effectively changing their behavior to adjust to others’
reactions and expectations.
Self Instruction. Self instruction refers to taking notice and
considering academic strengths, weaknesses and strategies as they apply
to tackle day to day challenges of academic tasks (Zimmerman, 1998).
He further states that self instruction is telling oneself to go ahead during
a learning task and solve different problems.
Self Evaluation. Self evaluation means reflective thinking,
thinking about one’s self activity. As Baron, Byrne, and Suls (1989) state,
self evaluation is learning how to understand how another has performed,
in order to permit the subject to evaluate how well he or she has
performed. Self evaluation is comparing present performance with a
standard. This standard may be completing a task first or giving
importance to the standard in the process of completing the task. Self
evaluation is usually an initial self reflective process that occurs after
learning; and self-regulated learners evaluate accurately how well they
are doing (Zimmerman, 1998).
Self Reaction. Self reaction refers to reaction to performance and
the strategies which one employs for coping with the result of reflective
thinking. This may be positive or negative, good or bad, acceptable or not
(Zimmerman, 1998).
It is relevant to review various instruments developed and used in
the past to measure self-regulated learning. These instruments, used by
researchers to measure processes involved in self regulation of learning
are distinguished between: a) instruments that measure self-regulated
learning as an aptitude, and b) instrument that measure self-regulated
learning as an activity (event) (Winne & Perry, 2000). Instruments that
measure self-regulated learning as an aptitude are: The Learning and
Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer,
1987), The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
(Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993), Self-Regulated Learning
Interview Schedule (SRLIS) (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988)
while Think-aloud measures (Pressley, 2000; Pressley & Afflerbach,
1995) measure self-regulated learning as an activity.
In contrast, the distinguishing feature of ASRS (Academic Self-
40 AKHTAR AND MAHMOOD

Regulation Scale) is that it is a blend of measuring self-regulated learning

as an aptitude and activity (event). A second salient feature of this
instrument is that it is developed for higher education learners while the
above mentioned instruments were for elementary and secondary
students. Another characteristic of the instrument is the convenience in
usability. The length of the scale is kept manageable for the students to
use in the classroom without disturbing daily class routine.
As mentioned above, knowledge and understanding of self-
regulated learning processes of students has become a precondition for
effective learning. Knowledge is expanding exponentially and it is not
possible to transmit all knowledge and development, but an effort to
evaluate best learning practices is necessary. Locating, selecting and
organizing the valuable elements require higher degrees of self-
regulation. Therefore, the present study is aimed at developing a valid
and reliable tool for evaluating self-regulated learning practices before,
during and after learning phases. The instrument covers metacognitive,
affective and behavioral aspects of self-regulated learning, all of which
are useful for knowing one’s degree of self-regulation.

Method
The purpose of the study was to develop an instrument to measure
self-regulated learning. Therefore, the following procedure was adopted:

Sample
The total number of participants was 410, comprised of students
from 9 master’s level programs within a public sector university. This
was a wide range of students from different programs in an attempt to
make the results of the study more generalizable. Almost all the students
enrolled in the said program participated in the study.

Table 1
Distribution of Sample by Gender and Nature of Programs
Programs Total
Gender
MSEd MERA MBE MTE MA MA MA MA MA
(Isl.) (Ele.) (Sec.) (ECE) (ELTL)
Men 4 4 41 17 2 0 0 0 6 74
Women 22 32 37 11 21 50 69 40 54 336
Total 26 36 78 28 23 50 69 40 60 410
Note. M.S.ED: Master in Science Education, MA (ECE): Master in Early Childhood Education, MBE:
Master in Business Education, MTE: Master in Technical Education, MA (Isl.):Master in Islamic
Education, MA (Ele.): Master in Elementary Education, MA (Sec.): Master in Secondary Education,
MERA: Master in Educational Research and Assessment, MA (ELTL): Master in ELTL.
ACADEMIC SELF-REGULATION SCALE 41

Scale development
A synthesis of the sub-factors discussed in review of literature
converges on five sub-factors of self-regulation. A 30 item scale (ASRS)
addressing five sub-factors was developed to assess students’ use of self-
regulatory strategies on a 6-point Likert type scale ranging from
1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items were constructed
keeping in mind the sub- processes of a self-regulatory learning cycle
(Zimmerman, 1998). Detailed scope, indicators and example item of each
sub-factor is shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Scope, Number of Items, Example Item and Subscales (Factors) Reliability of
ASRS (N = 410)
Factor Scope k Example α

Self-Planning The extent to which an 10 I set goals for .80

individual is active attaining grades in
participant in designing the class.
goals and targets before
learning.
Self- The extent to which an 7 My good .78
Monitoring individual deliberately performance in the
attend to oneself behavior class is the result of
or cognition and controls teacher’s motivation.
self-presentations during
learning.
Self- The extent to which an 7 I give up/ skip .60
Instruction individual take notice of difficult parts of
weaknesses and strengths learning material
of learning challenges and provided
try to solve problems
during learning.
Self- The extent to which an 3 I am hesitant to take .47
Evaluation individual compare part in class
present performance with discussion.
standard after learning.
Self-Reaction The extent to which an 3 I take part in class .27
individual react to discussion only to get
reflective thinking after favor of teachers in
learning. grades

Procedure
Data was collected after formal permission from the competent
authorities. Complete instructions for filling in the scale were passed to
the respondents in an identical manner at each and every session. The
42 AKHTAR AND MAHMOOD

research assistants were trained for this purpose. To overcome possible

variations and errors, the class environment for data collection was kept
the same in all classes. Although students’ participation was voluntary
yet a majority of the students from various programs participated in the
study. The scale was administered to the students in a single session
during one of their classes. Although the students were not given a time
limit to complete the scale, most students finished the scale in about 15
minutes.

Results
Factor analysis was used to confirm the validity of items included
in various sub-scales of self-regulation. The five factors solution
explained 43.94% of the variance. Items appearing in this version of
ASRS are extracted using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax
rotation to generate the factors. The initial scale consisted of 35 items.
All items were submitted to Principal Component Analysis and finally 5
items were excluded. The final scale comprises of 30 items.
Table 3 shows factor loadings with the serial number of each item
appearing in the same way as in the original ASRS form. Tables 3
signifies the factors/sub-scales, factor loadings and reliability statistics.
The first sub-scale is named Self-Planning’. It consists of 10 items (item
# 7, 8, 11, 15, 6, 17, 14, 12, 3, and 13). Reliability statistics indicated the
alpha value ranging from 0.67-0.44. The second sub-scale consists of 7
items: SM-35, SM-34, SM-32, SM-4, SM-5, SM-33, and SM-26. This
sub-scale was named ‘Self-Monitoring’. Reliability statistics indicated
the alpha value from 0.75-0.43. The third sub-scale consists of 7 items:
SI-30, SI-19, SI-16, SI-22, SI-27, SI-20, and SI-29. This sub-scale was
named ‘Self-Instruction’. Reliability statistics indicated the alpha value
from 0.54-0.41. The fourth sub-scale consists of 3 items: SE-18, SE-23,
and SE-10. This sub-scale was named ‘Self-Evaluation’. Reliability
statistics indicated the alpha value from 0.69-0.54. The fifth sub-scale
consists of 3 items: SR-28, SR-21, and SR-31. This sub-scale was named
‘Self-Reaction’. Reliability statistics indicated the alpha value from 0.61-
0.45. It should be noted that items worded negatively were reverse scored
so that high scores represent the absence of these negative behaviors. The
reliability of the whole scale was 0.83.
ACADEMIC SELF-REGULATION SCALE 43

Table 3
Factor Loadings of the Academic Self-Regulation Scale
Factors
S. # Statements
SP SM SI SE SR
7 I consciously make sure that my class attendance .67
does not go below 80%
8 I can perform well all activities in the class .63
assigned by the teacher
11 I keep record of all class notes provided by the .62
teachers
15 I compete with high achievers among my class .60
fellows
6 I set goals for attaining grades in the class .58
17 I am regular in class because I am well aware of .55
rules to be dropped from a course
14 I work to get first position in the class .53
12 I always submit my written assignment to my .49
teacher before other students in the class
3 I always come five minutes before class time .48
13 I work just to pass this course .44
35 I am aware of disciplinary rules and regulations of .75
semester system
34 I know about the promotion rules of semester .73
system
32 My good performance in the class is the result of .60
teacher's motivation
4 I am well aware of Grade Point Average (GPA) .55
system of assessment and evaluation
5 I know about the means through which my .54
assessment will be made in semester system
33 My good performance in the class is the support .44
of my family and friends
26 Use of technical terms in the classroom learning is .43
sometime difficult but helpful in understanding
the subject
30 Assignment method is very boring and useless in .54
learning situation
19 I give up/ skip difficult parts of learning material .51
provided.
16 I usually rely on cramming the learning material .50
22 I like to study in group because that enhances my .50
learning ability
27 I can search the reading material given as .47
assignment by the instructor.
20 I use highlighting, heading, chunking and other .42
study helps in learning books and other materials
44 AKHTAR AND MAHMOOD

Factors
S. # Statements
SP SM SI SE SR
29 I feel difficult to complete assignment given by .41
the teacher in time
18 I am hesitant to speak English and to take part in .69
class discussion in English language
23 I feel hesitant when I am asked to present assigned .65
work in front of the class
10 I am not satisfied with my performance in the .54
class
28 I take part in classroom discussion only to get -.61
favor of teachers in grades
21 I usually study according to the study schedule set .50
by myself
31 My good performance in the class is due to my .45
own efforts
Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, Variance Explained: 43.94%, Rotation
Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization, α = 0.83, Factor loading larger than 0.41 are taken
only.
SP: Self-Planning SM: Self-Monitoring SI: Self-Instruction SE: Self-Evaluation SR: Self-
Reaction.

Table 4 indicates the relationship between sub-factors of

academic self-regulation. Statistical analysis depicts the independency of
sub-factors significantly. This was a fair effort to keep these potentially
very close sub-constructs independent, which is supported by the
correlation in the analysis shown in Table 4. There are few exceptions in
that some factors are not desirably independent because of probable
overlapping of sub-constructs being a part of self-regulation. These
values are academically and logically valid and reliable with some
statistical reservations.

Table 4
Inter Factor Correlation of Subscales (Factors) With Each Other and Complete
Scale (N = 410)
Factor M SD Self- Self- Self- Self- Self-
Planning Monitoring Instruction Evaluation Reaction
Self-Planning 49.23 8.80
Self-Monitoring 33.72 7.08 .55**
Self-Instruction 30.70 6.66 .42** .45**
Self-Evaluation 9.84 3.74 .03 -.01 .14**
Self-Reaction 13.16 3.08 .03** .37** .27** .01
Total scale score 136.69 20.28 .82** .79** .74** .24** .50**
p**< 0.01.
ACADEMIC SELF-REGULATION SCALE 45

Discussion
Self-regulation is a desirable quality for coping with the rapidly
changing nature of teaching and learning in response to the fluidity of
growing knowledge in higher education. With enhancement of learning
environments, the teacher’s role is changing to fill the gaps and respond
to new demands. Higher education is moving from an annual to a
semester system in Pakistan. Teachers are left with no option other than
to make their students independent learners. There is no research
instrument that can help to measure this shift of changing demands on the
part of learners. This research tool will be helpful in this regard. The
instrument (ASRS) is reasonably acceptable for teachers as a guide to
help their students become independent learners. The nature, size and
statistical features of the ASRS are designed to measure learners’ ability
to set effective learning goals, utilize proper strategies and assess the
learning process in order to adapt themselves to achieve better outcomes.
The government of Pakistan is ensuring quality education to meet
international academic standards (Memon, 2007). For this purpose the
Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan was established in 2002
to restructure the higher education system through teachers’ training and
other measures (Siddiqui, 2009). The important qualitative outcome of
this study for the learner is the development of his or her meta-cognitive
skills, and that is closely linked with self regulated learning. The ASRS
will explore the degree of self regulation of learners that leads to quality
education.
ASRS is developed to find self-regulated learning strategies of
university students on the five sub-scales identified. Factor analysis,
reliability and validity test for data on all five factors and overall scale
have confirmed the acceptability of the scale. The findings of the current
study provide a comprehensive insight into the psychological traits of
self-regulated learners. The ASRS scale can successfully act as a
diagnostic tool for a learner’s self-regulatory capacity in learning and
consequently has potential to improve teaching and learning. .
Every instrument is developed with a specific pre-supposed
purpose, which in a way limits the scope of the instrument. But ASRS
depicts the broader sense of self-regulated learning process. Results of
the present study support to the integrity of the proposed 5-factor model
assessing self-planning, self-monitoring, self-instruction, self-evaluation,
and self-reaction. ASRS is a well established short measure that would
not take students long to complete. Previous scales like the Learning and
Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer,
46 AKHTAR AND MAHMOOD

1987), the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)

(Pintrich et al., 1993), and Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule
(SRLIS) (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988) are lengthy. There
is a chance of losing concentration of respondents. ASRS is well built for
respondents to response without attention loss. This scale also did not
take time away from the instructors’ teaching.
Somehow, a few statistical anomalies are present in the result.
The reliability value of self-reaction sub-scale shows a relatively low
measure but the items regarding this sub-construct signify well-built
loadings. The relationship between sub-factors elaborates one value a bit
more and three values less. These values may be considerable for some
readers. We think this may be due to small sample size and the nature of
respondents. All respondents were prospective teachers in various
disciplines. There is a chance of similarity in responding pattern. Overall
present results justify the significance of this study as it produced a
useable, reliable and acceptable research instrument designed to measure
student use of self-regulatory learning strategies in classroom as well as
in non-class room context. These results concerning academic self-
regulation are in line with previous research in the academic domain
showing the importance of self-regulation for teaches (Zimmerman,
2008).
We suggest that the development and validation of ASRS fills a
needy gap in the literature and still there is always room for possible lines
of investigation for future research. First, the validation of the ASRS
should be extended to include criterion validity through investigating
relationship with previously validated scales. A second possible line is
that the ASRS should be extended to other populations to overcome the
shortcomings of the limited sample used in this study.

References
Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Suls, J. (1989). Exploring social psychology.
(3rdEd). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bembenutty, H. (2005). Academic achievement in a national sample: the
contribution of self regulation and motivational beliefs beyond and
above parental involvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational research Association, April 2005,
Canada.
Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualizing Instruction in Self-Regulated
Learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 81-92.
Franzoi, S. L. (2006). Social psychology. Boston: McGraw -Hill.
ACADEMIC SELF-REGULATION SCALE 47

Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning

processes. Review of Educational Research, 60(4) 573-612.
Memon, G. R. (2007). Education in Pakistan: The key issues, problems
and the new challenges. Journal of Management and Social
Sciences, 3(1), 47-55.
Nasir, M. (2005). A comparison of note taking ability of pro-
constructivist science students of elementary school with their
scores on Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS). Journal of Social
Sciences GCFU, Faisalabad, 1(2), 14-27.
Nasir, M., & Kono, Y. (2004a). Development and validation of
Constructive learners Scale (CLS) for elementary school science
students. Educational Technology Research, 27(1-2), 1-2.
Nasir, M., & Kono Y. (2004b). Relying on students to construct science
for themselves: Japanese way of nurturing independent learners in
elementary school classroom, Journal of Elementary Education,
IER, 13(1), 45-58.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia. T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993).
Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire (MLSQ). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated
learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-520). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The
nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressly, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex
cognitive processing exhaustive within-and between-study analyses
of think-aloud data. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in
the measurement of metacognition (pp. 261-296). Lincoln: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.
Santrock, J. W. (2006). Educational Psychology. Boston: McGraw Hills
Siddiqui, Z. S. (2009). Faculty development: A step towards quality and
excellence. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 5(2)
17-26.
Steffens, K. (2006). Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced
learning environments: lessons of a European peer review.
European Journal of Education, 41(3-4), 353-379.
Tesser, A. (1995). Advanced social psychology. Boston: McGraw- Hill,
Inc.
 48 AKHTAR AND MAHMOOD

Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). LASSI:

Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning.
In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, M. Zeindner (Eds). Handbook of
self-regulation (pp. 531-566). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.
Worchel, S., Cooper, J., Aorthal, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Social
psychology. USA: Wadsworth.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic
regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D.H.
Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self regulated learning: From
teaching to self-reflective practices. (pp1-19).New York: The
Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation:
Historical background, Methodological development, and Future
prospects, American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a
structured interview for assessing students’ use of self-regulated
learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23,
614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a
strategy model of students self-regulated learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284-290.

Received December 16, 2012

Revisions received October 11, 2013

View publication stats