INTRODUCTION:

Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) define self-regulated learning as learning that occurs largely from the influence of students' self-generated thoughts, feelings, strategies, and behaviors, which are oriented toward the attainment of goals. Self-regulated learning is a process that assists students in managing their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions in order to successfully navigate their learning experiences. This process occurs when a student’s purposeful actions and processes are directed towards the acquisition of information or skills (Zumbrunn, Tadlock and Roberts, 2011). Generally, models of self-regulated learning are separated into phases. A popular cyclical model (See Fig. 1) discusses three distinct phases: Forethought and planning, performance monitoring, and reflections on performance (Pintrich and Zusho, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000).

During the forethought and planning phase, students analyze the learning task and set specific goals toward completing that task. When students learn unfamiliar topics, however, they may not know the best ways to approach the task or what goals might be the most appropriate. Teachers and/or more experienced peers often can instruct students on effective approaches in cases like these.

Next, in the performance monitoring phase, students employ strategies to make progress on the learning task and monitor the effectiveness of those strategies as well as their motivation for continuing progress toward the goals of the task.

Unfortunately, when strategies are new, students sometimes revert to using more familiar and perhaps ineffective strategies. For example, students may lapse into using the familiar strategy of flash cards to study new vocabulary words because it might seem easier than the new, effective strategy presented by the teacher. Whereas taking the time necessary to practice and learn the new strategy could lead to meaningful learning, students’ use of their fall-back strategy will likely leave them with a considerably less effective means to their learning. Close teacher monitoring and specific feedback can help students learn to use new strategies with fluency, especially if students face frustration. In the final reflection on performance phase, students evaluate their performance on the learning task with respect to the effectiveness of the strategies that they chose. During this stage, students also must manage their emotions about the outcomes of the learning experience. These self-reflections then influence students future planning and goals, initiating the cycle to begin again (Zumbrunn, Tadlock and Roberts, 2011).

Fig 1: Phases of self-regulated learning

The investigator took a close look upon the existing self-regulated learning questionnaires and found that almost all of them needed modifications before applying them on the sample of XIclass students. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire developed by Pintrich and De-Groot (1990) to measure the types of learning strategies and academic motivation used by college students. It is a 44 item instrument which uses 7 point likert scale. Since this instrument is applicable for post secondary students, it could not be successfully applied on XI class students.

The 63 item Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) was developed as a first attempt to assess these self-regulatory processes through self-report (Brown, Miller, and Lawendowski, 1999). Miller and Brown (1991) formulated a seven-step model of self-regulation. In this model it was believed that behavioral self-regulation may falter because of failure or deficits at any of these seven steps: (i) Receiving relevant information, (ii) Evaluating the information and comparing it to norms, (iii) Triggering change, (iv) Searching for options, (v) Formulating a plan, (vi) Implementing the plan, (vii) Assessing the plan's effectiveness (which recycles to steps (i) and (ii)). Although this model was developed specifically to study addictive behaviors, the self-regulatory processes it describes are meant to be general principles of behavioral self-control. This questionnaire was not found appropriate to be used in present research as it was constructed to check the self control abilities of alcohol addicts.

Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, and Lai (2009) developed an Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ) consisting of 24 item scale with a 5 point Likert-type response format having values ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The OSLQ consists of six subscale constructs, including environment structuring, goal setting, time management, help seeking, task strategies, and self-evaluation. Sample consisted of students enrolled in online degree programs. Since this scale was constructed and standardized for online learners, therefore it could not be used directly in the present research though its construction was based upon the cyclic model given by Pintrich and Zusho (2002) and Zimmerman (2000).

The close study of the above discussed tools revealed that most of the scales and questionnaires were developed and standardized on foreign population and used on a sample of college going students. Therefore, need was felt by the researcher to develop and standardize a scale on self-regulated learning which suits the adolescents of age close to 14 to 18 years in Indian educational settings. The process of construction of self-regulated learning scale was carried out in three phases which are planning phase, construction phase and standardization phase. These phases are described as below:

(i) Planning Phase:

The researcher thoroughly examined the literature from various sources such as journals, books and web sources and had discussions with scholars in the field of education and psychology in order to frame the items for self-regulated learning scale. The present scale was designed in the light of the three distinct phases of model on self-regulation discussed by Pintrich and Zusho (2002) and Zimmerman (2000) which are forethought and planning, performance monitoring, and reflections on performance. The various dimensions of these three phases were studied by the researcher before the construction of items.

(ii) Construction Phase:

After reviewing the literature available and having a thorough detail of the model of self-regulated learning, a number of statements were framed with the help of various field experts and students. The construction phase of the self-regulated learning scale went through three stages of standardization which were: (i) First draft of self- regulated learning scale (ii) Second draft of self-regulated learning scale (iii) Final draft of self-regulated learning scale.

First Draft of Self-Regulated Learning Scale:

Initially, 77 items were framed for the first draft of the scale. Following the Likert technique of scale construction, these items were shown to field experts to examine the content, repetitiveness and ambiguity in the items. The experts were also consulted in order to remove the language discrepancies and to make the items easily understandable by the sample. The distribution of items into six dimensions of the first draft is given in table-1.

Table 1: The dimension wise distribution of items of the first draft of self-regulated learning scale

Sr. No	Dimensions	Item No.	Total
1.	Task analysis	1-9	9
2.	Self-motivation beliefs	10-22	13
3.	Self-Control	23-61	39
4.	Self-Observation	62-65	4
5.	Self- Judgement	66-72	7
6.	Self-Reaction	73-77	5
	Total	1-77	77

Table-1 shows that total 77 items were prepared for the first draft of self-regulated learning scale. The scale consists of 9 items of task analysis, 13 items of self-motivation beliefs, 39 items of self-control, 4 items of self-observation, 7 items of self-judgement and 5 items of self-reaction were prepared for the first draft of self-regulated learning scale. All these above mentioned six dimensions belong to three different phases of cyclic phase model of self-regulated learning which are forethought and planning phase, performance monitoring phase and self-reflection on performance phase. The distribution of positive and negative items for the first draft has been given in table-2.

Table-2: The distribution of positive and negative items for the first draft of self-regulated learning scale

Statements	Item no.	Total
Positive items (+)	1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77	60
Negative items (-)	5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 36, 37, 39, 40, 58, 61, 66, 76	17
Total		77

Table-2 shows that out of 77 items, 60 were positive and 17 were negative items.

First Try-out and Evaluation:

The scale constituting of 77 items was then given to experts for analysing each item critically and then reflecting upon the changes required for the items. The researcher later on with the consultation of supervisor, acted upon the necessary modifications to be done regarding the items of the scale on self-regulated learning.

Table-3: The description of items dropped or modified for second draft of self-regulated learning

Sr. No.	Item No.	Total	Remarks
1	5, 7, 13, 16, 18, 29, 31, 32, 35, 38, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 61, 64, 72, 73, 77	20	Dropped
2	4, 6, 12, 20, 37, 42, 45, 56, 65, 67, 76	11	Modified

Following this procedure, 20 items were discarded and 11 items were reframed. So, finally 57 items were finalized for the second draft of the scale. The details of the modifications done are shown in table-3.

Table-3 shows that 20 items were dropped and 11 items were modified. After dropping and modifying items of the scale, the final items were included in the second draft of the self-regulated learning scale. So, the second draft consists of 57 items. The distribution of positive and negative items for the second draft of self-regulated learning scale has been given in table-4.

Table-4: The distribution of positive and negative items for the second draft of self-regulated learning scale

Statements	Item no.	Total
Positive items (+)	1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57	47
Negative items (-)	5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 39, 41, 42, 47, 56	10
Total		57

Table-4 shows that the second draft of self-regulated learning scale consists of 47 positive items and 10 negative items, which were retained after evaluation of first draft of the scale.

Second Draft of Self-Regulated Learning Scale:

The second draft of self-regulated learning scale consists of 57 items which were accepted as such and those which were modified considering the judgement given by the experts consulted.

Second Try-out and Evaluation:

The second draft consisting of 57 items was administered to a sample of 100 students of class XI of two schools for item validity. The details of the sample structure of try-out for the second draft of self-regulated learning scale have been given in table-5.

Table-5: The selection of students for second try-out of self-regulated learning scale

Sr. No.	Name of the Schools	Total
1	Shri Guru Harkrishan International School, Amritsar	50
2	DAV Public School, Amritsar	50
	Total	100

The table-5 shows the list of schools from which the sample for second try-out was chosen. The responses of the subjects were scored according to the weightage allotted to each item of the scale. The total sum of the weighted score of each item was calculated for each subject of the sample. On the basis of total scores, the answer-sheets were arranged in descending order. 27% subjects with high scores formed the high group and 27% with low scores formed the low group. The t-ratio was computed for the higher and lower groups to find the discriminating power of each item. Thus, the significance of difference between the means of scores of high and low group was computed to find out the discriminating power of each item which helps in finding out how well each statement is able to distinguish between the students with high and low self-regulated learning group. The 46 items with positive t-value which were found to be significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance were selected for the scale. The t-ratios of 11 items were not found significant even at 0.05 levels of significance. The t-ratios of 57 items have been placed in table-6.

Table-6: t-ratio of the second draft of self-regulated learning scale

Item No	t-value	Item No	t-value	Item No	t-value	Item No	t-value
1	2.40*	16	3.82**	31	3.33**	46	2.96**
2	2.22*	17	3.10**	32	0.83	47	2.55*
3	4.55**	18	2.45*	33	2.22*	48	1.25
4	1.63	19	2.50*	34	2.40*	49	2.42*
5	1.64	20	2.56*	35	0.86	50	1.11
6	2.95**	21	2.89**	36	2.41*	51	3.33**
7	3.00**	22	2.63*	37	2.33*	52	3.06**
8	2.20*	23	2.11*	38	2.33*	53	2.39*
9	2.29*	24	2.63*	39	2.63*	54	2.25*
10	1.75	25	3.52**	40	2.14*	55	2.50*
11	2.29*	26	2.20*	41	2.08*	56	2.00*
12	2.17*	27	2.22*	42	2.22*	57	0.60
13	2.37*	28	0.98	43	0.64
14	2.12*	29	2.81**	44	2.03*
15	1.77	30	2.14*	45	2.22*

* Significant at 0.05 level ** Significant at 0.01 level

(Critical Value 2.00 at 0.05 level and 2.67 at 0.01 level, df =52)

Table-6 shows that t-ratio for 46 items were found significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance and t-ratio for item no 4, 5, 10, 15, 28, 32, 35, 43, 48, 50 and 57 were not found significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, out of 57 items, 46 items were retained and 11 items were dropped for the final draft of self-regulated learning scale.

Final Draft of Self-Regulated Learning Scale:

The final draft of self-regulated learning scale consisted of 46 items. The distribution of items into 6 dimensions in the first draft is given in table-7.

Table-7: The dimension-wise distribution of items of the final draft of self-regulated learning scale

Sr. No	Dimensions	Item No.	Total
1.	Task analysis	1-5	5
2.	Self-motivation beliefs	6-13	8
3.	Self-Control	14-37	24
4.	Self-Observation	38-39	2
5.	Self- Judgement	40-44	5
6.	Self-Reaction	45-46	2
	Total	1-46	46

Table-7 shows that total 46 items in six dimensions were left in the final draft of self-regulated learning scale. The scale has 5 items on task analysis, 8 items on self-motivation beliefs, 24 items on self-control, 2 items on self-observation, 5 items on self-judgement and 2 items on self-reaction. All these above mentioned six dimensions belong to three different phases of cyclic phase model of self-regulated learning which are forethought phase, performance phase and self-reflection phase. The distribution of positive and negative items in the final draft has been given in table-8.

Table 8: The distribution of positive and negative items for the final draft of self-regulated learning scale

Statements	Item no.	Total
Positive items (+)	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46	36
Negative items (-)	4, 7, 12, 23, 27, 29, 32, 36, 37, 41	10
Total		46

Table-8 shows that out of 46 items retained for final draft of self-regulated learning scale, 36 were positive items and 10 were negative items.

Scoring:

Each item of the scale was assigned scores according to the Likert’s five points continuum which are: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree and Strongly Agree with respective weights of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the positive statements and 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for the negative statements. The scoring procedure adopted is shown in table-9.

Table-9 shows that self-regulated learning scale of a subject is the sum total of item scores of all the statements of the scale. The theoretical range of scores on this scale is from 46 to 230. High score on the self-regulated learning scale indicates that the subject possesses high self-regulated learning ability and low score on the self-regulated learning scale indicates that the subject possesses low self-regulated learning ability.

Reliability:

A scale is reliable when it gives consistently the same results when applied to the same sample under similar conditions. There are various methods by which the reliability of a test can be established. Guilford (1954) has suggested various methods such as Test-retest reliability, Alternative forms reliability and internal consistency reliability. All these methods require two sets from the same scale to be administered on same sample in order to find coefficient of reliability. Since self-regulated learning scale is heterogeneous and the items were arranged in a logical order, therefore, test-retest reliability method was found most suitable for establishing reliability of the scale. The scale was introduced to 50 respondents of DAV Public School, Lawrence Road, Amritsar. After a gap of two weeks, the same scale was administered to the same sample to evaluate test-retest reliability. The reliability co-efficient of the scale came out to be 0.93, which proved the consistency of the scale. The summary of the reliability coefficient values has been shown in table-10.

Table-10: Reliability coefficient of the self-regulated learning scale

Measure of Reliability	N	Reliability Coefficient
Test-retest method	50	0.93

Table-10 shows the reliability for the test-retest method to be 0.93. Thus, the final draft was considered reliable.

Validity:

Validity is also an important criterion of a good test. A test is said to be valid if it measures what it claims to measure. Validity is of various types such as face validity, content validity, construct validity, concurrent validity, predictive validity and factorial validity. The validity established for self-regulated learning scale is content validity. It refers to the systematic evaluation of the content of the test in order to determine whether it covers a representative sample of the traits to be measured. As the content of the scale was thoroughly covered through literature consultation and expert’s opinion, it was assumed that the scale measures what it is intended to measure. Therefore, the scale is taken as a valid measure of the desired dimensions.

REFERENCES:

1. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., and Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1-6.

2. Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R., and Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The self-regulation questionnaire. In L. VandeCreek, and T. L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

3. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2^nded.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

4. Miller, W. R., and Brown, J. M. (1991).Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the prevention and treatment of addictive behaviours. In N. Heather, W. R. Miller, and J. Greeley (Eds.), Self-control and the addictive behaviours (pp. 3-79). Sydney, Australia: Maxwell Macmillan Publishing Australia.

5. Pintrich, P. R., and De-Groot, E. V. (1990).Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

6. Pintrich, P. R., andZusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield, and J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp.249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Retrieved July 25, 2014 from http://www.self regulation.ca/download/pdf_documents/Self%20Regulated%20Learning.pdf

7. Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

8. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

9. Zumbrunn, S., Tadlock, J., and Roberts. E. D. (2011). Encouraging self-regulated learning in the classroom: A review of the literature. Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium: Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved July 25, 2014fromhttp://www.selfregulation.ca/download/pdf_documents/Self%20Regulated%20Learning.pdfS

Received on 25.09.2018 Modified on 07.10.2018

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(4): 924-928.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00155.9

Items	Score Assigned
Items	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Undecided	Agree	Strongly Agree
Positive (+)	1	2	3	4	5
Negative (-)	5	4	3	2	1