Development of the self-regulated learning teacher belief scale

Abstract

The present study describes the development and psychometric properties of the Self-Regulated Learning Teacher Belief Scale (SRLTB). The SRLTB is a self-report teacher scale with 10 items assessing teachers' beliefs about introducing self-regulated learning (SRL) in primary education. The process of item and scale development as well as testing and scale refinement procedure is presented. An explorative study (n ( ( =399) revealed a one-factor structure representing adherence of teachers for SRL in primary school. Next, Rasch analysis revealed good fit of the scale to the unidimensional continuum model. In a following study (n ( ( =553), construct validity of the SRLTB was confirmed. Finally, implications and limitations of the SRLTB for studying SRL are discussed. In general, the SRLTB appears to be a useful instrument for examining teacher beliefs about self-regulated learning practices in primary schools. BackgroundSelf-regulated learning (SRL) refers to independent, academically effective forms of learning that involve metacognition, intrinsic motivation, and strategic action (Zimmerman, 1989(Zimmerman, , 1990(Zimmerman, , 2002. The metacognitive component covers planning, setting goals, organizing, self-monitoring, and self-evaluating at various points during the process of acquisition. The motivational component emphasizes high self-efficacy, self-attributions, and intrinsic task interest. Finally, the behavioral component refers to selecting, structuring, and creating environments that optimize learning (Zimmerman, 2002).

Scale development: ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices

“…These limitations were identified in five main forms: (1) EFA and CFA were conducted using the data from the same sample (Zheng et al 2010)-when this occurs, good model fit in the CFA is expected, as a consequence, the added strength of the CFA in testing a hypothesized structure for a new data set based on theory or previous findings is lost (Khine 2008); (2) lack of CFA (Bolton and Lane 2012)-if this happens, the researcher loses the possibility of assigning items to factors, testing the hypothesized structure of the data, and statistically comparing alternative models (Khine 2008); (3) a certain amount of subjectivity was necessary in identifying and labeling factors in EFA (Lombaerts et al 2009)-since a factor is qualitative, it is common practice to label each factor based on an interpretation of the variables loading most heavily on it; the problem is that these labels are subjective in nature, represent the authors' interpretation, and can vary typically from 0.30 to 0.50 (Gottlieb et al 2014;Khine 2008); (4) the initial unsatisfactory factor analysis output (Lombaerts et al 2009); and (5) lack of a more robust CFA level (Jong et al 2014) taken together--when the study result distances itself from statistical results expected for EFA (e.g., KMO, Bartlett test of sphericity) and/or CFA (e.g., CFI, GFI, RMSEA), it results in an important limitation, since the tested exploratory and theoretical models are not considered valid (Khine 2008). Taking these results, future studies should consider the use of separate samples for EFA and CFA, the combination of EFA and CFA, the definition of objective parameters to label factors, and about the consideration for unsatisfactory results of EFA and CFA, seeking alternatives to better fit the model.…”

Development and validation of a Supportive Learning Environment for Expertise Development Questionnaire (SLEED-Q)

“…The questionnaire was developed in Dutch and presented to Dutch students. The first author of this paper developed entirely new items for the scales epistemological understanding, prior knowledge, differentiation, connectedness and practice with complexity and ambiguity; for the other five scales, we combined original items with relevant items from the 'metacognitive demands' and 'teacher encouragement and support' scales of the MOLES-S (Thomas 2003), performance control and self-reflection scales from the Self-Regulated Learning Inventory for Teachers (SRLIT; Lombaerts et al 2007) and the Planning and Monitoring scale, Relevance and Coherence scale and the Self-tackling assignments scale (Sol and Stokking 2008). Only the four items from MOLES-S used in the SLEED-Q were originally published in English.…”

“…Based on these criteria, we removed items and added six new items: (V_18: ''We learn how the subject M&O relates to other subjects''; V_75: ''When working on an assignment we keep track of time ourselves'''; V_76: ''The assignments from the book/hand-out deal with examples from the professional world''; V_77: ''We get a variety of assignments taken from the professional world''; V_78: ''We learn how to comment on fellow students' work''; V_79: ''The teacher teaches us how to deal with feedback''). Three of these new items were from the SRLIT (Lombaerts et al 2007) and the other three were developed by the first author. Table 2 shows the factor loadings and where and why the modifications were made.…”

Self-regulated learning in formal education: perceptions, challenges and opportunities

“…Whilst there have been several questionnaires deployed previously by others, directly or indirectly, their focuses are different from that of TPSRL. For instance, Lombaerts et al (2009) developed a 15-item instrument called 'Self-Regulated Learning Teacher Belief Scale' to assess teachers' opinions on the instruction of SRL. Similarly, Dignath-van Ewijk and van der Werf (2012) addressed teachers' knowledge and beliefs on how to foster students' SRL.…”