Jennifer A. Buxton George Mason University

1. Effects of SREP+ on Elementary Students’ Self-Efficacy, Academic Achievement, and Self-Regulated Learning Jennifer A. Buxton George Mason University

2. Theoretical Basis • Evidence suggests positive self-efficacy beliefs, persistence, and self-regulation in addition to talent and effective instruction are necessary for attaining the highest levels of academic competence (Zimmerman, & Kitsantas, 2005. • Schunk (1994) explains that along with regulating their actions, students must also regulate the underlying motives for their actions such as achievement related cognitions, beliefs, goals, and affects. • Research indicates certain types of motivational beliefs, such as self-efficacy beliefs are adaptive and help to promote and sustain self-regulated learning (SRL).

3. Theoretical Basis • For students to invest the extra time and effort in SRL, they must be motivated to use the strategies (Schunk, 1994). • To successfully self-regulate the concept of self-regulation and strategies for effective engagement must be understood(Kitsantas & Dabbaugh, 2010). • Schunk (2008) reports strategy value information increases student motivation, encourages students to continue using the strategy, and is related more to achievement than simply instruction in the use of the strategy. • Therefore, in addition to explaining what, when, where, why, and how to use task strategies, it is equally important to also explain the value and benefits of using task strategies.

4. Theoretical Basis • Connecting the procedural elements of SRL to underlying constructs of motivation and SRL constructs may open the door to a number of opportunities that positively affect student learning such as increased intrinsic academic motivation, increased self-efficacy of SRL skills, and relational learning beneficial for both maintenance and generalization.

5. Operational Definitions • Self-efficacy beliefs are an individual’s powerful motivational beliefs, that influence virtually all aspects of life, regarding his or her capability to organize and implement actions to complete a specific task that influences virtually all aspects of a person’s life (Kitsantas, & Dabbagh, 2010; Pajares, 2008). • Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a process used to achieve learning goals requiring learners to personally activate and sustain cognition, affect, and behavior functioning based on their self-generated thoughts, feeling, and actions (Shunk, D., & Zimmerman, B., 2008). • Self-regulation efficacy (SRE) is an individual’s beliefs about their ability to engage in effective self-regulation.

6. Review of SRL Literature • According to Boekarts and Corno’s (2005) meta-analysis of SRL assessment and interventions described two generations of SRL interventions. • First generation interventions either encouraged students toward strategy use, or taught skills that successful learners already possessed. • Second generation interventions went beyond the first by looking at both SRL and volitional strategies (Boekarts, M. & Corno, L., 2005). • A large portion of empirical evidence for SRL that was located during a review of the literature was surveys of college and high school age students. • Most the experimental investigations in SRL involve basic interventions with domain specific self-regulatory strategies.

7. Review of SRL Literature • Due to the difficulty involved with learning SRLS and the motivation necessary to use them, classroom interventions are needed that target both improving academic motivation (motivational strategies) as well as improving student’s cognition, learning, and self-regulation (cognitive strategies). • Recently expanded and varied intervention approaches to foster academic motivation and self-regulation. However, an attempt to locate an intervention that contains explicit instruction of the concrete conceptual underpinnings of motivation and SRL was unsuccessful.

8. Review of SREP Literature • Zimmerman and Cleary’s (2004) SREP intervention aligned the closest to the purpose of this study, and the researcher chose to extend it due to its reported success, albeit limited by the small number of studies. • SREP, one of the few interventions that account for both motivational and cognitive learning strategies, attempts to examine the precursory role of motivation in SRL. • SREP is a two component intervention, initially developed for school professionals with the goal of empowering adolescents to more effectively engage in SRL.

9. Review of SREP Literature • SREP targets academic activities that require a high degree of self-regulatory control for a substantial amount of time in three ways: • Concurrently targets students’ skills in conceptualizing the nature of these tasks • Establishes task related goals and strategic plans to accomplish these goals • Engages students in an adaptive reflective processes to optimize or sustain high levels of performance (Cleary, T., Platten, P, & Nelson, A., 2008). • SREP utilizes strategic SMA (SMA) and Zimmerman’s (1989b) three phase cyclical SRL process based on the social cognitive theory (Cleary, T., Platten, P, & Nelson, A., 2008).

10. Review of SREP Literature • Minimal empirical evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of the program. One study by Zimmerman and Cleary (2004) reported a variety of benefits from the SREP program such as enhancing: • Motivation • Study strategies • Self-regulatory skills • Impact academic achievement. • A 2008 SREP intervention conducted by Cleary, Platten, and Nelson with urban high school students produced favorable results. • All five student in the experimental group demonstrated marked improvements in their test performance from baseline to intervention, while the failing grade of the comparison group at baseline did not improve during intervention.

11. Gaps in Literature • SREP is an effective research based intervention that accounts for student motivation more so than other SRL interventions. • However, this current study proposes that a more explicit focus on developing students’ conceptual understanding of the constructs of academic motivation and SRL processes could further increase the motivational effectiveness of SREP, especially in light of the younger age of the participants. • Motivational effectiveness can be further increased by accounting for limitations such as breadth, applicability, quality of participation, and student differences expressed in Cleary and Zimmerman’s (2004) initial SREP intervention case study.

12. Significance of the Study The SREP+ intervention extends the SREP intervention in four ways: • Employ a group experimental design as opposed to a case study or mixed-model design used in previous SREP research • Examine a younger population of students, from adolescent age students to elementary age students. • Embedding of an instructional element to increase students’ understanding of the conceptual constructs underlying motivation and SRL. • Examine students’ ability to maintain and generalize SRLS.

13. Purpose and Hypothesis • The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of SREP+ on elementary age students’ intrinsic academic motivation, SRL, self-regulation efficacy (self-efficacy for self-regulated learning), spelling academic achievement, self-efficacy for spelling, maintenance, and generalization. • It is hypothesized that as a result of the SREP+ intervention self-regulated students will exhibit higher levels of: • Increased intrinsic academic motivation • Self-regulatory efficacy • Increased use of SRLS • Self-efficacy beliefs of spelling achievement • Increased academic spelling achievement • Maintenance and generalization of SRLS

14. Research Questions • What are the effects of SREP+ on students’ intrinsic academic motivation? • What are the effects of SREP+ on students’ self-efficacy, specifically self-regulatory efficacy and self-efficacy beliefs of spelling achievement? • Is SREP+ associated with an increase in students’ academic spelling achievement? • Will students’ demonstrate maintenance and generalization of SRLS?

15. Methods – Setting and Participants • The study will be conducted in a mixed ethnicity, upper middle class suburban Elementary school in the Northeast United States. • Data collection and treatment sessions will take place in students’ general education inclusive Language Arts classroom. • The target population is approximately 50 general and special education fifth grade students, ages 10 and 11. • The 34 year old Caucasian intervenor will administer the measures and implement the intervention.

16. Methods – Measures Personal Data Questionnaire - This student questionnaire elicits demographic information about participants such as participants’ age, gender, grade, and ethnicity. All personal data information required for the students will be completed by the students as part of the pretest packet. SMA – Strategic Microanalytic Assessment -Two to three open ended micro-analytic questions such as, ‘What strategies did you use while studying for the weekly spelling test?’ and ‘How did you specifically use those strategies?’ will be administered to each student weekly during the intervention. Performance Measures. Average spelling grades, weekly spelling assessments, and average Science grades will be used to assess student academic achievement.

17. Methods – Outcome MeasuresIMI Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Ryan, 1982) • Four of seven original subscales, interest enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, and value/usefulness; were used to develop the 25 item survey. • Sample items: • I would describe this activity as very interesting. • I didn’t try very hard to do this activity. • I think doing this activity can help me to learn material better. • This activity did not hold my attention very well. • Responses – Seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not true at all to 7 = very true. • Responses were average across all 25 items to obtain students’ SRES scores. Some items were reverse scored. • High internal consistency (alpha = 0.79) and Substantial test-retest reliability (alpha = 0.66) (Siu, K. & Lopez, V., 2010).

18. Methods – Outcome MeasuresSRSI-SR Self-Regulation Strategy Inventory-Self-Report (Cleary, 2006) • 28 item measure of students’ use of SR strategies with three subscales, seeking and learning information, managing environment/behavior, and maladaptive regulatory behaviors (Cleary, 2006). • Sample items: • I lose important worksheets that I need to study • I make a schedule to help me organize my study time • I use binders or folders to organize my study materials • Responses – Five point Likert scale ranging from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always. • Responses were average across all 28 items to obtain students’ SRSI scores. Some items were reverse scored. • High internal consistency (alpha = .92)

19. Methods – Outcome MeasuresSRES – Self-Regulatory Efficacy Scale (Buxton, 2011) • 25 item scale of self-regulatory efficacy developed from Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning (Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M., 1992)and SELF (Zimmerman, B. & Kitsantas, A., 2007) measures. • Sample items: • How well can you finish assignments by the due date? • How well can you concentrate on school subjects at school? • How well can you take notes during class? • Responses – Seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not well at all to 7 = very well • Responses were average across all 25 items to obtain students’ SRES scores. • This new scale, will be pilot tested to determine reliability and validity.

20. Methods – Outcome MeasuresSESA Self-Efficacy for Spelling Achievement (Buxton, 2011) • 15 item scale of spelling achievement self-efficacy developed from Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning (Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M., 1992)and SELF (Zimmerman, B. & Kitsantsas, A., 2007) measures. • Sample items: • How well can you complete your spelling homework? • How well can you remember spelling words for a test? • How well do you think you do in spelling compared to your peers? • Responses – Seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not well at all to 7 = very well • Responses were average across all 15 items to obtain students’ scores. • This new scale, will be pilot tested to determine reliability and validity.

21. Methods – Outcome MeasuresSelf-Regulatory Learning Strategies Checklist • This researcher developed measure contains 12 strategies that will be discussed during intervention. • Student will respond “Yes” or “No” as to whether they currently use these strategies, in any subject area, at the time of assessment. Students will be instructed to choose “No” if they aren’t sure, because in this case not sure indicates that the student doesn’t possess enough knowledge about the strategy to make definitive decision. • The percentage of “Yes” responses will be used as the student score.

22. Method - Intervention SREP Intervention Component One: Diagnostic Assessment • Identify students’ motivational and strategic weaknesses by determining: • Classes of difficulty • Performance criteria • Repertoire of learning or study strategies • Enhance student awareness of maladaptive beliefs • Provide explicit instruction in core forethought processes such as task analysis, goal setting, and strategic planning.

23. Method - Intervention • SREP Intervention Component Two: Development • Empower students to become more self-directed learners with the hope of increasing students’ academic motivation and achievement (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). • Change areas of weakness identified in the first component into areas of strength by empowering students • Expand repertoire of study and learning strategies • Teach how to use the cyclical feedback loop of self-regulated learning • Three main sections: • Empowerment • Study/Learning Strategies • Cyclical Feedback Loop • Modifications from the initial design were made to account for the different instructional needs of younger students.

24. Method - Intervention • Empowerment • Cultivate students’ self-efficacy beliefs • Increase students’ awareness of their strategic errors • Inform students’ of the important connection between strategy use and success/failure in school (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). • Major difference of SREP+ • Instructional element included to further empower the students by teaching them: • Underlying constructs of motivation and self-regulation • Icluding important terminology they will encounter during the intervention.

25. Method - Intervention • Study/learning strategies.Once students begin to understand the connection between strategy use and academic performance, the next stage seeks to enhance students’ repertoire of self regulatory learning strategies (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). • Previous SREP interventions - the social cognitive model of strategy instruction (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). • This study was designed with an additional brief, explicit, introduction of each strategy including its purpose and value.

26. Method - Intervention • Cyclical feedback loop.Teaches students the workings of Zimmerman’s (1989b) cyclical model of SRL. • As students are progressed through these phases, they will use the SRL concepts such as goal setting, self-recording, goal evaluation, and making strategic attributions, and adaptive inferences (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). • The final core instructional aspect of the SREP instruction involves self-reflection. This module is a vital part of SREP because it connects the forethought, performance, and self-reflective processes the students have been using throughout the intervention. • A second goal of this module is to foster students’ metacognitive awareness of their use of self-regulatory learning strategies. • Understanding the reasons for their academic struggles and how they are attributable to the students’ efforts

27. Data Analysis and Expected Results • Principle Factor Analysis with Promax rotation will be conducted on the IMI, SRSI-SR, and SRES scales to determine any possible underlying dimensions in the scales. • Validity of the measure will also be examined. • Cronbach’s alpha will be obtained through a correlation tests to determine internal consistency reliability. • Based on findings in prior research, results of the exploratory factor analysis on the scales are expected to indicate high correlation and reliability.

28. Data Analysis and Expected Results • Gain scores for each measure will be calculated. • One-way ANOVA for gain scores tests will be employed to compare changes in the treatment groups before and after intervention in terms of each scale and the performance measures. • If ANOVAs for gain scores do not indicate significant differences, posttest data will be submitted to an ANOVA test with post hoc comparisons of independent sample t-tests for further examination. • Based on earlier findings from SREP intervention, significant differences between treatment groups are expected. • An increase of students’ motivation, SRE, use of SRS, and self-efficacy for spelling achievement are expected.

29. Limitations • One main limitation to this study is the small sample size. • A second limitation involves the measuring mastery. This intervention did not include a way to measure student mastery of the underlying construct included in the new component of SREP+. • Students’ knowledge of the underlying constructs should be pretested prior to intervention and reassessed once students complete the construct instruction.

30. Implications • An intervention which increases intrinsic academic motivation, self-regulatory efficacy, use of SRS, and self-efficacy beliefs of spelling achievement, will benefit both the students and teachers. • Successful use of general SRS skills may make students more likely to employ SRS across subject areas. • Enabling students to become more self-regulated and independent learners will have positive effects on their learning. • Self-regulated and independent students require less unnecessary teacher attention giving the teacher more time to spend on academics.