Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

31

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

Establishing a Scale that Measures Responsibility for Learning Carlo Magno

De La Salle University, Manila


Abstract
The present study advances the domain on responsibility for learning by establishing a measurement tool. Items were generated contextualized for college students. The tool constructed is composed of 10 items for deportment, 10 items for learning process, and 10 items for motivation anchored on Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005, 2007, 2008) conceptualization of responsibility for learning. A total of 2054 college students responded on a seven-point numeric scale. Higher scores attribute responsibility for the self while lower scores attribute responsibility towards the teacher. There were five factors tested using a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and the three-factor structure attained the best fit as opposed to a one-factor and a series of two-factor structures. Convergent validity was also established among the subscales (in the CFA and bivariate correlations). High internal consistencies were attained for the items using both CTT and IRT approaches. Graded Response Model was used and it was evidenced that the three subscales covers 90% of the continuum in the distribution pertaining to measurement precision. Appropriate threshold categories of the seven-point numeric scale were also found. Keywords: Responsibility for learning, deportment, learning process, motivation, scale development

Introduction Students who are responsible are generally able to direct their learning into functional outcomes. This indicates that students who are more responsible in school are more able to generate thoughts and feelings that allow them to achieve their goals. Students who manifest this situation are more able to perform and achieve in school. Measurement techniques on the construct responsibility for learning need to be established in order to advance studies in education and psychology. As early as 1951, Rockwell already recognized the need to develop students responsibility for their behavior in school. In order to develop responsibility of students, teachers needs to review classroom structure, lesson plan for the day, class activities, self-evaluation, standards set, and acceptance. This was supported by Corno (1992) where four learning environments were clustered that facilitates responsibility for learning: Opportunities to pursue interest, releasing the potential for revision, peers as learning partners, and participant modeling instruction. The earliest study on responsibility directed for learning was conducted by Crandall, Katvosky, and Crandall (1965) where they conceptualize responsibility as an internalize locus of control and individuals reinforce themselves to be motivated. They constructed the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility (IAR) Questionnaire to deal with childrens achievement development. The IAR contains 34 situations and a binary response is provided to detect external and internal locus of control on each situation. The context where the items were created at that time already
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

32
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

reflected the responsibility for learning (i.e., If a teacher passes you to the next grade, would it probably be; When you do well on a test at school, it is mo re likely to be ; When you have trouble understanding something in school, is it usually Jackson (2002) described responsibility as the defining aspect of mature character, and the development of responsible learning is seen to inhibit impulsivity. Individuals who are highly responsible are said to direct learning experiences toward functional outcomes in both educational and professional contexts (p. 52). In 1965 Crandall, Katvosky, and Crandall studied about responsibility for learning. They constructed a scale the measures intellectual achievement responsibility which has a more social and developmental framework. The scale is focused on external locus of control situations and the point of view is childrens instrumentality over their own behaviors. The researchers were actually attempting to explain characterizations of the responsibility within a social cognitive framework. That is, when they correlated the subscales they assumed that when one is responsible, intellectual academic success goes along with it. A more contemporary study by OConnor and Jackson (2009) constructed a scale that measures responsibility as part of a measure for learning style. They constructed the scales in a measurement model and found that learning responsibility has a negative path estimate with impulsivity, but it increases with emotional independence and practicality. Their study further described responsibility in the context of learning. Magno (2010) also found that responsibility for learning is a subscale of the academic self-regulation scale after conducting principal factor analysis. The factor structure of the scale uncovered the same factors with that of Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988) but a new factor was extracted called the learning responsibility. It is composed of items about rechecking homework if it is done correctly, doing things as soon as the teacher gives the task, having concern with deadlines, prioritizing school work, and finishing all home works first. Magno (2010) further defines this scale as the learners liability, accountability, and conscientiousness of the learning task and learning experience. The studies of OConnor and Jackson (2009) and Magno (2010) were able to identify responsibility for learning within a major construct of learning style and academic self-regulated learning, Responsibility for learning can be distinguished with academic self-regulated learning conceptuality. As a sub-scale of academic selfregulated learning it is termed as learning responsibility described as the learners liability, accountability and conscientiousness of the learning task and learning experience (Magno, 2010, p.70). On the other hand, responsibility for learning is a general emotive trait characterized by control and independence over ones actions. Learning responsibility is a self-regulation is more social-cognitive and strategic while responsibility for learning per se is emotive, independence, and control. More directed studies on the outcomes of responsibility for learning was conducted by Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005-2007). In their 2005 study they looked at the effect of responsibility for learning and self-efficacy beliefs in the use of learning strategies such as such in reading, note taking, test taking, writing, and studying. In the said study, they also constructed the perceived responsibility for
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

33
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

learning scale in this study. The scale indicates whether the respondents perceived the students themselves or the teacher was more responsible for various learning tasks or outcomes. In this instrument, the respondents are presented with 18 items where they will indicate whether the student of the teacher was more responsible for various learning tasks or outcomes, such as a students motivation, deportment, and learning process. The respondents answered each item using a seven point scale: 1 (mainly the teacher), 2 (definitely more the teacher), 3 (slightly more the teacher), 4 (both equally), 5 (slightly more the student), 6 (definitely more the student), and, 7 (mainly the student). Responsibility for learning is attributed to students efforts. Higher scores are reflected more on attributions for the students. Factor analysis of the items was conducted and the items results to be classified under three factors (81% total variance). However, there were very few items in the second and third extracted factors so a single a single index of students responsibility for learning was considered by the authors. The item mean score was 5.21, with SD of 1.21, and Cronbachs alpha of .97 was obtained in the 2005 study. In the 2007 study, items mean score for males was 5.23 (SD=1.02) and 5.42 (SD=.92) for females and a Cronbachs alpha of .90 was obtained (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2008). The present study tested whether responsibility for learning will support a three-factor structure composed of motivation, deportment, and learning process as opposed to a single factor as the outcome in the 2005 study of Zimmerman and Kitsantas. A scale was constructed following the content of the three factors proposed by Zimmerman and Kitsantas that was contextualized for Filipino college students. Moreover, additional IRT analyses were provided to uncover the measurement precision of the scale using a Graded Response Model (GRM). The In the GRM analysis, the Test Information Functions (TIF) and analysis of threshold categories were further conducted. Method Participants The participants in the study were 2054 Filipino college students in the National Capital Region (NCR) of the Philippines. These are college students that are enrolled in different universities and colleges in the NCR. Majority of the participants are in their first and second year in college and they have an average age of 18.2. They were conveniently sampled and all volunteered to participate in the study. Instrument A self-report instrument that measures responsibility for learning was constructed in the present study. The items and factors of the scale were adapted from the original conceptualization of Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005, 2007, 2008). There were 10 items constructed under each proposed factor (deportment, learning process, and motivation). The participants are prompted with the
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

34
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

statement who is more responsible when in answering each of the items. Each item is also responded using a 7 point numeric scale where higher ratings are responsibility attributed to the self and lower ratings are responsibility attributed to the teacher: 1 (mainly the teacher), 2 (definitely more the teacher), 3 (slightly more the teacher), 4 (both equally), 5 (slightly more the student), 6 (definitely more the student), and, 7 (mainly the student). The items were reviewed by one educational psychologist and another specialist in scale development. The items were also presented to a group of preservice teachers to review the relevance of the items for college students experience in the Philippines. Procedure The questionnaire was administered to 2054 college students from different colleges and university in the NCR. At the onset of administering the questionnaire, they were asked if they are willing to participate in the study. They were requested to sign a consent form if they agree to participate. They were instructed to answer the items in the questionnaire and reminded not to leave any item unanswered. The participants can answer at their own pace within 40 to 50 minutes. They were also reminded that there is no right or wrong answer so they need to respond as honestly as possible. Once completed, the questionnaire is returned and the participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study. Data Analysis The factor structure of the responsibility for learning was tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The procedure allowed the researcher to fit five separate common factor models to the observed data under various types of constraints. The five factors tested were compared using the Chi-square goodness of fit index (2), Root Mean Square Standardized Residual (RMS), and Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA). Comparative fit indices were also used such as the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Schwartz-Beyesian Criterion (SBC), and Browne-Cudeck Cross-Validation Index (BCCVI). The reliability of the scale was determined using Cronbachs alpha. A separate measure for person and item reliability using a one-parameter IRT was used. The Graded Response Model was used by determining measurement precision of the scale by interpreting a generated Test Information Function (TIF) and threshold values. Results Descriptive statistics of the three subscales of the instrument was determined. Table 1 reports the means, standard deviation, confidence interval of the mean, skewness, and kurtosis of the subscales.

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

35
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for the Subscales of Responsibility for Learning


CI N Deportment Learning Process Motivation 2054 2054 2054 M 4.66 3.08 4.65 -95% 4.62 3.06 4.61 +95% 4.71 3.10 4.70 SD 1.00 0.55 0.99 Skewness -0.41 -0.09 -0.31 Kurtosis 0.59 1.24 0.56

The mean scores for the subscale obtained in the present study are low as compared to the mean scores of the 2005 and 2008 study of Zimmerman and Kitsantas (M=5.37, SD=0.95). The range of means (M=3.08 to M=4.66) obtained in the present study indicates that students have the tendency to perceive the teacher to be responsible for their learning. Table 2

Correlations and Internal Consistencies of the Subscales for Responsibility for Learning
(1) (2) (3)

1 2 3

Deportment Learning Process Motivation Cronbach's alpha Person reliability Item reliability Person RMSE Item RMSE .10** .65** .83 .76 .97 .32 .02 .11**

.80 .75 .99 .31 .02

.84 .78 .99 .32 .02

All correlation coefficients were significant when the three subscales of responsibility for learning were intercorrelated (p<.001). There was a strong correlation between motivation and deportment (r=.65). However, the correlation between learning process and deportment (r=.10, p<.001) and between learning process and motivation (r=.11, p<.001) were weak. The significant correlations among the three subscales of responsibility for learning indicate the convergence of these subscales. The items that belong under each subscale also showed to have high internal consistencies as indicated by the Cronbachs alpha values (.80 to .84). An IRT approach was also used to estimate internal consistencies of the scale. The IRT approach separates calibration for person and items which assumes that item measure is not influenced by person measures. Both item (.97 to .99) and person reliabilities (.75 to .78) obtained are very high. This indicates that when item internal consistency is not influenced by sample characteristics, responses for the items tend to be uniform. When the Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE) is estimated for both person and item, estimates of error for the items are less (.02 for all) but estimates of error for person are quite large (.31 to .32).
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

36
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

The appropriate factor structure of responsibility for learning was determined by testing five measurement models. Later on the best model is determined by assessing each models goodness of fit. The first model is a onefactor model where all 30 items of the responsibility for learning was placed as manifest variables under one latent factor. The second to the fourth model are twofactor models where each of the subscales was paired under one latent factor. The first of these models combined deportment and motivation (20 items) under one latent factor and it was correlated with learning process (10 items) in a separate latent factor. The second model combined deportment and learning process (20 items) under one latent factor correlated with motivation in another (10 items). The third model combined learning process and motivation under one latent factor (20 items) correlated with deportment under a separate latent factor (10 items). The last model tested is a three-factor model where each of the deportment, learning process, and motivation subscales are structured with their own latent factor with 10 items each as manifest variables. Table 3

Goodness of Fit Indices for the Five Models of Responsibility for Learning
Model One-factor Deportment+Motivation and Learning Process Deportment+Learning Process and Motivation Learning Process+Motivation and Deportment Three-factor 5674.94 4991.95
2

df 405 376 404 404

RMS .062 .061 .059 .059

RMSEA .089 .086 .084 .083

AIC 2.82 2.49 2.58 2.51

SBC 2.99 2.65 2.75 2.67

BCCVI 2.82 2.49 2.59 2.51

5183.97 5020.65

4694.58

402

.057

.080

2.34

2.52

2.34

The results of the CFA showed that for all the five models, all parameter estimates of the items were significant, p<.001. All the correlations of the latent factors of the two-factor and three-factor models were also significant (p<.001) which indicates convergent validity of the scale. When the five measurement models were compared in their goodness of fit, all indices favors a three-factor model where deportment, learning process, and motivation are structured each on a latent factor. The three factor structure had the lowest chi-square value (2=4694.58). The RMS and RMSEA were also adequate with the lowest value. The comparative fit indices were also consistent in showing the three-factor structure having the best fit. The AIC, SBC, and BCCVI had the lowest values for the three-factor model. The measurement model for the three-factor structure also showed to have high parameter estimates for the items and very low standard errors (see Tables 4 to 6).

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

37
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

Table 4

Deportment Items, CFA Parameter Estimates, and Standard Error


Im caught using cell phone during class? I frequently go out of the classroom? I sneak food inside the classroom? Im caught cheating in an exam? I get reprimanded for chatting with my seatmate? I always recite and share my ideas during class? I photocopy books or handouts about the lessons in class? I answer back at the teacher? I goof around rather than finish the task given to us? I dont take down notes in class? Parameter Estimate 1.07 0.89 0.97 1.03 0.95 0.82 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.93 SE 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Table 5

Learning Process Items, CFA Parameter Estimates, and Standard Error


Parameter Estimate I make use of the Internet rather than books in doing my homework? I make my own reviewers for the lesson? I go to the library to read further about the lessons in class? I get high grades for open-notes exams? I did the wrong thing in answering my seatwork? The class is way behind the lesson? I do advanced readings so that it can give me an upper hand on discussions? I ask help from someone who is known to be good at a certain subject? I look up foreign words that I dont understand, in the dictionary? I do not remember information from assigned readings? 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.92 0.81 0.80 0.58 0.94 SE 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

38
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

Table 6

Motivation Items, CFA Parameter Estimates, and Standard Error


I always try to finish my projects on time? I study harder after getting a high grade on a quiz? Im lazy to go to class because Im not happy with my course? I believe that finishing my studies will give me a good future? I am seriously considering shifting to another course? Id rather finish my schoolwork than hanging out with friends? I am not motivated to take this course seriously? I once skipped class to finish my other schoolwork due that day? I get more challenged whenever I get reprimanded? I am even more motivated to study when receiving good grades? Parameter Estimate 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.77 0.93 0.84 0.94 0.83 0.88 0.99 SE 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03

The Test Information Function (TIF) was generated for each subscale of the responsibility for learning using a Graded Response Model (GRM). The TIF provides the amount of precision provided the scales. Waterman et al. (2010) explained that TIF provide information regarding the spread of a scale score relative to the latent construct being assessed by that scale. Scales with highly constrained test information curve are imprecise measures for much of the continuum of the domain. On the other hand, scales with TIF curves that encompass a large range (-2.00 SD units to 2.00 SD units includes about 95% of the possible values of a normal distribution) can be said to provide precise scores along much of the continuum of the domain of interest (pp. 274-275). The results of the TIF generated from the GRM showed that for all the three subscales (deportment, learning process, and motivation) there is 1.5 SD units below and above the mean of (values plotted on the y axis) (see Figure 1). This indicates that the scales encompass about 90% of the possible values in a normal distribution. This indicates that the three subscales provide adequate measurement precision along the continuum of responsibility for learning. Table 7

Average Response Threshold Values for each Subscale of the Responsibility for Learning
Deportment Learning Process Motivation 1 -0.671 -0.563 -0636 2 -0.36 -0.367 -0.394 Threshold Values 3 4 5 -0.094 0.139 0.372 -0.156 0.044 0.299 -0146 0.116 0.403 6 0.655 0.581 0.734 7 1.385 1.013 1.45

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

39
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

Figure 1
Test Information Function for the Three Subscales of Responsibility for Learning

1.1 TIF for Deportment

1.2 TIF for Learning Process

1.3 TIF for Motivation

Part of the results generated by the GRM is the analysis of the spread of threshold values. Analyzing the spread of the threshold within a seven-point numeric scale indicates the extent to which responses might or might not indicate interval scaling. Threshold values that are far from each other indicate equidistance and a good indicator of interval scaling. The threshold values obtained for the subscales deportment (-0.671, -0.36, 0.94, 0.139, 0.372, 0.655, and 1.385), learning process (-0.563, -0.367, -0.156, 0.044, 0.299, 0.581, and 1.013), and motivation (-0.636, -0.394, -0.146, 0.116, 0.403, 0.734, and 1.45) are varied indicating that the scales cover different range of levels. Motivation had the highest category threshold with a maximum average calibration of 1.385 followed by motivation and the lowest category threshold was for learning process (see Table 7).
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

40
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

Discussion The results of the present study showed the psychometric properties of the scale responsibility for learning in terms of its factor structure, convergent validity, internal consistencies, measurement precision, and threshold levels. First, in terms of the scales factor structure, it was found that responsibility for learning is best explained composed of the three factors of deportment, learning process, and motivation as originally conceptualized by Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005, 2007, 2008). The three factors subsumes responsibility for learning as indicated by their correlations both in the CFA and bivariate analysis. This key finding provides a workable factor structure for subsequent studies using the scale. In the 2005 study of Zimmerman and Kitsantas, the resulting principal components analyses lead them to use a unidimensional measure for responsibility for learning. But originally, the initial steps revealed a three-factor structure. The present study supports the three-factor structure as opposed to a single-factor or a two-factor structure of responsibility for learning. Having the three factors best explains responsibility of learning considering that it covers a wide array of characteristics. Responsibility for learning having composed of several dimensions is evidenced in previous literature coinciding with multiple ways of structuring classroom environment that make students responsible for their learning (Corno, 1992; Jackson, 2002). The items of the scale also showed evidence of reliability with the high internal consistencies obtained using Cronbachs alpha. When the IRT approach was used to estimate person and item reliabilities, the item reliabilities were even higher than the Cronbachs alpha values. This indicates that very high internal consistencies of the items can be obtained when the person characteristics were separated in the analysis. The internal consistencies along each subscale indicate that students responses on the items that belong in the same domain are consistent which means that measurement is uniform across the items. This can also be an indicator of validity where behavioral indicators of the domain refer to measurement of the same construct. The present study did not only show the factorial validity and internal consistency of the responsibility for learning scale but its measurement precision and scale threshold using a Graded Response Model. Analysis in the Classical Test Theory (CTT) is limited in showing the validity and reliability of scales anchored on correlation coefficients. The present study provided more information regarding the scale using an IRT Graded Response Model. First, the measurement precision of the three subscales was determined by generating Test Information Functions (TIF). The continuum of the scales covered 90% of a normal distribution which means that the scale has adequate measurement precision regarding responsibility for learning. Measurement precision in a CTT is done through construct validation which will require the present scale correlated with a previous established scale. However, the measurement precision based on the areas covered in a normal curve would only require the present instrument. A standard deviation of 1.5 units above and below

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

41
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

the average (ability estimate) is enough that covers the continuum for the responsibility for learning subscales. Second, the threshold values of the seven point scale were analyzed to further support measurement accuracy in the calibration of the scales. The CTT approach has no known estimate that provides how well the response format of a scale is. In the GRM approach, the threshold level of the seven point numeric scale used in the instrument deemed to be accurate in three ways: (1) scale categories were monotonically increasing across three subscales, (2) a variety of threshold values were obtained, and (3) difficulty of items. The monotonic increase of the scale categories indicate that the participants endorse higher levels of response for high scale categories and endorse lower levels of response for low level categories. This indicates that participants can discriminate well among the seven point numeric scale. There is an increasing threshold value from a scale of 1 to 7 in all the three subscales. There is accuracy on how participants responses using the seven-point scale. Moreover, a variety of threshold values were obtained for all three subscales. This indicates that the scales are equidistant and the scale categories are not equivalent as perceived by the respondents. This proves that the respondents can distinguish among the seven point numeric scale used. Lastly, is the analysis of the difficulty of the scales. Lower threshold categories were found for the learning process. The findings on the difficulty describe the trend on how difficult or easy responsibility of learning can be and it varies across the subscales. For example, there is some degree of easiness for students to attribute responsibility of their learning process toward the teacher (Mean value of 3.08, see Table 1). The results also show that there is some degree of difficulty for students to attribute responsibility for their motivation and deportment for themselves. The findings in the threshold categories of the seven point scale coincide with the attribution provided in responding to each item. Higher scores would mean attribution of responsibility for the self and lower scores is the attribution of responsibility towards the teacher. It was found that students perceive it easy to attribute the responsibility of the learning process towards the teacher and difficult to assume responsibility on motivation and deportment on the self. These key findings need further exploration to provide a better picture how the dynamics of these three factors work. Generally, the present study established the construction of responsibility for learning. The pattern of findings especially in the scale categories may depend on the kind of sample used in the study. However, key results are provided regarding the psychometric properties of the scale. The scale is recommended for use by other researchers to further determine its characteristics especially its pattern of threshold and dynamics of the three factors (deportment, learning process, and motivation). With responsibility for learning having sound psychometric properties, future researchers can further establish a line of research with the use of the construct.

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

42
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment September 2011, Vol. 8(2)

References Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging students to take responsibility for learning and performance. The Elementary School Journal, 93(1) 69-83. Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Childrens beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development 36, 91-109. Jackson, C. J. (2002). Learning styles and its measurement: An applied neuropsychological model of learning for business and education. Sydney, Australia: Cymeon. Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). College students homework and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 97-110. Magno, C. (2010). Assessing academic self-regulated learning among Filipino college students: The factor structure and item fit. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 61-76. OConnor, P. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2009). The factor structure and validity of the learning styles profiler (LSP). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 117-123. Rockwell, J. G. (1951). Pupil responsibility for behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 51(5), 266-270. Waterman, C., Victor, T. W., Jensen, M. P., Gould, E. M., Gammaitoni, A. R., & Galer, B. S. (2010). The assessment of pain quality: An item response theory analysis. The Journal of Pain, 11(3), 273-279. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Ponz, M. (1988). Construct validation of strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 397-417. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Reliability and Validity of Self-Efficacy for Learning Form (SELF) Scores of College Students. Journal of Psychology, 215(3), 157-163. About the Author Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational Psychology Department under the College of Education in De La Salle University in Manila Philippines. Most of his publications are in the areas of self-regulation, metacognition, language learning, learner-centeredness, and teacher performance assessment. Further correspondence can be addressed to him at crlmgn@yahoo.com or to De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Ave., Manila, Philippines. This study was funded by the University Research and Coordination Office (URCO) of De La Salle University, Manila.
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi