Using multiple, contextualized data sources to measure learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning




McCardle, Lindsay
Hadwin, Allyson F.

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title


Metacognition Learning


As theory and research in self-regulated learning (SRL) advance, debate continues about how to measure SRL as strategic, fine-grained, dynamic adaptations learners make during and between study sessions. Recognizing learners’ perceptions are critical to the strategic adaptations they make during studying, this research examined the unique contributions of self-report data for understanding regulation as it develops over time. Data included (a) scores on the Regulation of Learning Questionnaire (RLQ) completed in the first and last few weeks of a 13-week course and (b) diary-like Weekly Reflections completed over 11 weeks. Participants were 263 undergraduate students in a course about SRL. First, exploratory factor analysis resulted in a five-factor model of the RLQ with factors labeled Task Understanding, Goal Setting, Monitoring, Evaluating, and Adapting. Second, latent class analysis of Time 1 and 2 RLQ scores revealed four classes: emergent regulators, moderate regulators, high regulators with emergent adapting, and high regulators. Finally, in-depth qualitative analysis of Weekly Reflections resulted in group SRL profiles based on a sub-sample of participants from each RLQ class. Qualitatively, these groups were labeled: unengaged regulators, active regulators, struggling regulators, and emergent regulators. Quantitative and qualitative SRL profiles were juxtaposed and similarities and differences discussed. This paper explicates and discusses the critical importance of sampling self-reports of SRL over time and tasks particularly in contexts where regulation is developing.



Self-regulated learning, Self-report data, Metacognition


McCardle, A. & Hadwin, A.F. (2015). Using multiple, contextualized data sources to measure learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning. Metacognition Learning, 10(1), 43-75. doi: 10.1007/s11409-014-9132-0