Abstract

This was proposed to investigate the effect of self-regulated learning strategies on students’ motivation for learning English. This was an experimental research. Intact group pretest and posttest of design was utilized for data collection. Intact groups (experimental and control) of student studying in eighth class were selected voluntarily. Experimental group was taught with SRL strategies and control group was taught with traditional strategy. In order to measure students’ motivation to learn English, data was collected at start and end of the study. Independent sample t-test and paired sample t-test was applied to compare the mean scores of control group and experimental group. It was found that SRL strategies had no significant effect on students’ motivation. In the light of above findings, it was recommended for the further research to examine the effect of SRL strategies on students’ motivation to learn on larger experimental population of various grades.

Key Words

Self-regulated learning, Motivation, Achievement

Introduction

Currently, the study of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) has become a burning topic in educational psychology because researchers are conducting researches upon this topic such as what process is involved in it and how to teach them. Correspondingly, SRL is a mixture of skill and will so, strategic learner has learned to plan, control, and evaluate his or her own learning process (Montalvo & Torres, 2004; Karabenick, Pintrich, & Wolters, 2003). In line with previous studies, self-regulation means self-generated thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and regularly adapted in order to attain personal goals (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000). Likewise, students who are more self-regulated during writing also believe that they can learn to improve their writing skills (Hammann, 2005). Similarly, self-regulation is defined as a process in which students activate, take control of and evaluate their learning (Gholamreza, Parvin, Tavakoli, & Vahid, 2015; Kim & Nor, 2019). Furthermore, Paris and Paris (2001) stated that every student constructs his or her own theory of self-regulated learning. 

Goy (2017), Jingyan and Min (2017) showed that strategy training could help sudents to improve writing skills of students. Hashemi, Razi, and Vahidian (2015) suggested that there is need to provide the right conditions for growth, learning and teaching strategies to motivate self-regulated learning to teachers and teacher education. Likewise, Paris and Paris (2001) stated that teachers can provide information and opportunities to students of all ages that is helpful for them to become strategic, motivated, and independent learners. Similarly, study of Jang and Kim (2015) showed that medical students of South Korea become more motivated by using self-regulated strategies over time. In the same way, several studies found significant relationship between motivation, self-regulation and language learning strategies of Chinese EFL learners and undergraduate students (Banisaeid & Huang, 2015; Awaludin, Bakar, & Jafaar, 2014; Nevgi, Niemi, & Virtanen, 2013). 

Consequently, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation indirectly affected the academic achievement of college students through the mediating influence of efficacy for self-regulated learning (Ann, Cuttita, & Margot, 2012). Furthermore, there was significant correlation between components of motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning of the eighth grade students of English medium school in Pune city and college students of computer science (Soheyla, 2007; Hazley, Ingraham, Ramsay, Soh, & Shell, 2013). Likewise, study of Adnan, Ibrahim, and Nordin (2005) indicated that significant correlations between motivation and learning strategies subscales (metacognitive self-regulation and organization) of university students of Arabic language was found in Malaysia. Correspondingly, results of Soureshjani’s (2013) study revealed a strong and positive relationship between motivation and self-regulation of Persian EFL students. 

In addition, writing is a difficult task that requires the writer to “negotiate rules and mechanics while maintaining a focus on the over-all organization, form and features, purposes and goals, and audience needs and perspectives” (Graham, Harris, Mason, & Saddler, 2002; Gilbert, 2018; Graham, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1993p. 110). Next, those students who fail to produce essay simply tell what they know about a topic without giving much thought to planning, audience, topic, organization, or goals (Graham, Harris, Mason, & Saddler, 2002). In addition, self-regulatory capacity of adult language learners might be a function of proficiency and/or individual difference factors. Furthermore, the study has also provided evidence for self-regulation as a continuum (Mezie, 2008). In brief, skill in writing depends on many components which include author’s ability to plan and also manage the writing process (Farah, 2017). As, Sanprasert (2010) argued that Thai students are obedient, uncritical and unwilling to challenge the authority of teachers. In addition, Harding, Nibali, English, Griffin, Graham, Alom, and Zhang (2018) described some key features of the approaches and strategies for self-regulated learning include,

• Observation – the student observes processes modelled by others, verbal descriptions, guidance feedback

• Imitation and practice – the student emulates self-regulated learning behavior

• Internalisation – the student uses the strategy independently

• Recording – the student records successful strategies and monitors progress

• Monitoring – student (and teacher) reflect on use of strategies and controls future behaviour

accordingly.

Central to these strategies is student awareness and deliberate engagement with SRL.

Self-Regulated Learning and Motivation

Motivation is a key factor in ensuring academic success. As educators, we should make every attempt to help students in order to develop these strategies (Bloom, 2013; Schunk, 2005). In addition, findings of several studies demonstrated that there was no significant difference found between motivations for learning English of high school students after giving intervention of SRL strategies (Dignath, Perels, & Schmitz, 2009; Groot & Pintrich, 1990; Hashemi, Razi, & Vahidian, 2015). In contrast with previous studies, teaching of self-regulation learning strategies had a significant effect on the academic motivation of elementary level students in Iran (Davoodi, Hejazi, Lavasani, & Mirhosseini, 2011). Similarly, findings of Marcou and Philippou’s (2005) study indicated that SRL strategies such as to guide instruction and scaffolding, enhances motivational beliefs (MB) of fifth and sixth grade students during mathematical problem solving (MPS) (Batool, Noureen & Ayuob, 2019). In the same way, study of Bastiaens, Stijnen, and Vrieling (2012) revealed that student teachers’ motivation for learning was also enhanced in learning environments with increased SRL opportunities in college of Netherlands. Correspondingly, Dowing and Ning (2010) reported that self-regulation of business undergraduate students of Hong Kong university have direct and indirect influence on academic success through enhancement of motivation. Likewise, study of Hashemi, Razi, and Vahidian (2015) found significant relationship between the academic self-regulation and motivation of high school science students. Similarly, Adnan, Buniamin, Mohamad, and Mamat (2014) also argued that intrinsic and extrinsic goals of university students in the subject of Islamic and non-Islamic studies programmes of Malaysia were very strongly related to metacognitive self-regulation, self-efficacy and help seeking. In the same way, significant relationship was found between academic motivation and self-regulated learning of secondary school students in Kenya (Mutua, 2014). Likewise, findings of Alsawaie’s (2012) study showed there was a strong positive relationship between motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies of public school students of mathematics in UAE.

 In addition, Ammar’s (2010) study indicated that EFL students’ self-regulation of their reading language resulted in significant gains in their critical reading skills as well as enhanced their motivation to read English as a foreign language as compared to the traditional reading instruction practices of students in Egypt. Correspondingly, Daniela (2014) also maintained that self-regulation variable correlates strongly with motivation which confirms that a high level of self-regulation involves a high degree of motivation of secondary school students in Romania. Likewise, significant relationship was found between motivation and self-regulated learning of Iranian EFL learners (Ghaslanic, Kalantarib & Mahmoodi, 2014). In the same way, self-regulation was the most potent contributor in increasing the motivation of South-Western Nigerian elementary school students in Mathematics (Busari, 2013).

Significance of the Study

Self-regulated learning strategies are helpful for elementary school students in the subject of English in order to increase their motivation. In addition, when students become more self-regulated with their learning, then there is possibility of positive affect on their motivation. As the study of Boer, Bergstra, and Kostons (2013) reported that teachers should teach the strategy to the students through which they can self-regulate their learning in order to enhance their motivation. So, it might be a useful method to be used by teachers of English subject in order to increase students’ motivation in Pakistani schools where traditional culture of teaching is prevailing. 

It is very difficult for teachers to develop SRL strategies in the classroom, especially where teachers are using traditional methods and techniques in the classrooms in which teachers play the main role but it is not impossible to practice the SRL strategies in the classrooms. Thus, the purpose of this study was to enable teachers for providing opportunities to learners for practicing the SRL strategies for increasing motivation. Therefore, this study would guide school teachers how to help students to make them aware about SRL strategies by including the activities into their teaching process. 

This study will be useful for students to become aware of their weak and strong aspects of learning by using active learning strategies and students involvement in learning process. Moreover, reasons of low motivation of students are lack of active learning strategies and less involvement of student in learning. One of the goals of Punjab Examination Commission (PEC) and Directorate of Staff Development (DSD) is, to make students creative, skilled in writing, and self-regulated learners instead of rote learners. Next, examinations are based on creative writing rather than only depending on bookish knowledge. Thus, it is necessary to fill this gap in order to achieve the goals and students’ learning outcomes. Hence, rationale of this study was to investigate the effect of self-regulated learning strategies on students’ motivation for learning English in public sector elementary schools in Lahore




Objectives 

Objectives of the study were to: 

• Investigate the effect of self-regulated learning strategies (SRLS) on students’ motivation for learning English at elementary level

Null Hypotheses

Study was conducted to address following hypotheses:

Ho2     There is no significant effect of self-regulated learning strategies on  

          Students’ motivation for learning English at elementary level

Ho2.1 There is no significance difference in the pre-test and post-test means scores of 

         Experimental group for motivation

Ho2.2   There is no significance difference in the means scores of pre-test and post-test 

         Of control group for motivation

Ho2.3   There is no significance difference in the means scores of pre-test of the 

         Experimental and control group for motivation

Ho2.4   There is no significance difference in the means scores of post-test of the 

          Experimental and control group for motivation

Methodology

The study was experimental in nature. Quasi experimental design was used. Population of the study comprised of the 62 students of eighth grade studying in a voluntarily selected government school of Lahore. These students were studying into two sections namely, section A and section B (31 each intact classes). These two sections were randomly assigned as an experimental group and control group.




Research Instruments

Two research instruments were used in this research. One was achievement test and other was questionnaire of motivation for learning English.




Achievement Test

Achievement was measured by using subjective type test. Subjective test was scored by using the rubrics adapted from Punjab Examination Commission (PEC).




Motivation for English Learning

Data was collected through motivation questionnaire twice a time at beginning (pre-test) and end of experiment (post-test) to measure change in students motivation towards English learning. This motivation questionnaire was developed by Richard Schmidt, Deena Boraie, and Omneya Kassabgy in (1996) and they gave permission to use this tool in this study. The motivation questionnaire consisted of seven sections, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, personal goals, expectancy, attitudes, anxiety and motivational strength. Each section consisted of closed ended statements based 5-point Likert scale according to need of present study, two sections (1)  intrinsic motivation, (2) extrinsic motivation were taken from the original students’ motivation towards English learning questionnaire. Thus, students’ responses on two areas intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were recorded on this motivation questionnaire.




Experimental procedure

Experiment was carried out for a period of four months after getting the permission from school headmistress. Both sections were randomly assigned as experimental and control group. The researcher himself taught the experimental group and researcher attended the 1st period in school. Treatment was started in second week of the month. On the first day, achievement test of essay writing was given as a pre-test and motivation questionnaire were administered to the students. In the first week of introduction, consent was taken from participants and the experimental group was introduced SRL strategies.




Data Collection 

Researcher conducted pre-test before starting the phase of intervention. Further, researcher collected four writing samples from students during four months and every writing sample was collected after four weeks. Finally, after giving the intervention, post-test was administered. 

Data Analysis

Statistical techniques, such as Independent sample t-test was used to compare the mean scores of two groups (experimental group and control group). Furthermore, Paired sample t-test was also applied to compare scores of pre-test and post-test of experimental group.

Ho2     There is no significant effect of self-regulated learning strategies on 

          Students’ motivation for learning English at elementary level

Ho2.1 There is no significance difference in the pretest and post-test means scores of experimental group for motivation

 

Table 1. Comparison of experimental group’s pre-test and post-test results for motivation by Paired sample t-test

Groups	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	p-value
Pre-test(Exp.)	31	4.87	.261	-.627	30	.535
Post-test(Exp.)	31	4.93	.453

P<0.05

It is observed from above table 1 that there is no significant difference between the mean scores experimental group’s pre-test (Mean=4.87) and post-test (Mean=4.93). Hence, the null hypothesis, Ho2.1 there is no significance difference in the pretest and post-test means scores of experimental group in motivation, was accepted. It was indicated that students taught through SRL strategies having same motivation in pre-test and post-test.

Ho2.2   There is no significance difference in the means scores of pre-test and post-test of control group for motivation

 

Table 2. Comparison of control group’s pre-test and post-test results for motivation Paired sample t-test

Groups	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	p-value
Pre-test(Cont.)	31	4.81	.395	.244	30	.809
Post-test(Cont.)	31	4.78	.394

P<0.05

Table 2 revealed that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of control group’s pre-test (Mean=4.81) and post-test (Mean=4.78). Hence, the null hypothesis, Ho2.2   there is no significance difference in the means scores of pretest and post-test of control group for motivation, was accepted. It was concluded that students were not taught through SRL strategies having same scores in pre-test and post-test regarding motivation

Ho2.3   There is no significance difference in the means scores of pre-test of the experimental and control group for motivation

 

Table 3. Comparison of experimental group and control group’s pre-test results for motivation by Independent sample t-test

Groups	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	p-value
Experimental	31	4.87	.261	.759	60	.451
Control	31	4.81	.395

P<0.05

It is observed from above table 3 that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of control group’s pre-test (Mean=4.81) and experimental group’s post-test (Mean=4.87). Hence, the null hypothesis, Ho2.3   there is no significance difference in the means scores of pre-test of the experimental and control group for motivation was accepted. It was concluded that students of both groups were not taught through SRL strategies having same motivation in pre-test regarding motivation

Ho2.4   There is no significance difference in the means scores of post-test of the experimental and control group for motivation

 

Table 4. Comparison of experimental group and control group’s post-test for motivation by Independent sample t-test

Groups	N	Mean	SD	t-value	df	p-value
Experimental	31	4.93	.453	1.58	60	.119
Control	31	4.81	.498

P<0.05

It is evident from above table 4 that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of control group (Mean=4.81) and experimental group (Mean=4.93). Hence, the null hypothesis, Ho2.4   there is no significance difference in the means scores of post-test of the experimental and control group in motivation was accepted. It was concluded that students of both groups were having same motivation in post-test.

Findings

1. Mean motivation score (Mean=4.93) of students who taught through SRL strategies was no significant higher than mean scores of motivation (Mean=4.81) of students who taught through traditional method.

2. There was no significant difference found between the mean scores of experimental group’s pre-test (Mean=4.87) and post-test (Mean=4.93) regarding motivation.

Discussion

The findings of this study are also evident that there was no significant difference found between motivation of pre-test and post-test of experimental group students. In the same way, Dignath, Perels, and Schmitz (2009) argued in their study regarding motivation that there is no significant effects found between pre-test and post-test of experimental class in subject of Mathematics. Similarly, Abadikhah, Aliyan, & Talebi. (2018) revealed that assessing students’ attitudes towards the employment of SRL strategies in writing is beneficial for academic writing course design as it can provide a substantial amount of information to help instructors enhance their students’ academic performance. In addition, findings of Hashemi, Razi, and Vahidian (2015); Groot and Pintrich (1990) showed that there was no significant difference found between motivations for learning English of high school students after giving intervention of SRL strategies. Likewise, Eom (2015) argued that extrinsic motivation had no significant relationship with learning outcomes of university students.

In contrast with previous studies, positive correlation was found between motivational components and self-regulated learning of Irani undergraduate EFL students (Berenji, 2015); Meider (2018). Correspondingly, it was found that self-regulated model had positive effect on students’ motivation (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004; Hosseinimehr & Nejhad, 2015). Likewise, several studies of different countries found significant relationship between self-regulated strategy and motivation of students  at different level (primary, middle, secondary, graduate and post graduate) in various subjects (Ammar, 2010; Adnan, Buniamin, & Mamat, 2014; Alsawaie, 2012; Boer, Bergstra, & Kostons, 2013; Bastiaens, Stijnen, & Vrieling, 2012; Davoodi, Hejazi, Lavasani, & Mirhosseini, 2011; Dowing & Ning, 2010; Daniela, 2014; Ghaslanic, Kalantarib & Mahmoodi, 2014; Hahmi, Razi, & Vahidian, 2015; Mutua, 2014).

Recommendations

Experimental group students who were taught through SRL strategies and control group students who were taught through traditional method have same motivation towards learning English. So, it is suggested that replicate the study by using self-developed instrument of motivation for learning English (essay and story writing) at elementary level students. Further study might be conducted to explore the effect of self-regulated learning strategies on eighth grade male students’ achievement as well as compared the educational performance of male and female students.

References

• Abadikhah, S., Aliyan, Z. & Talebi, S. H. (2018). EFL students' attitudes towards selfregulated learning strategies in academic writing. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 1-17. Retrieved from,
• Alsawaie, N. O. (2012). Investigation of self-regulated learning strategies and motivational beliefs in Mathematics achievement. Unpublished masters dissertation. United Arab Emirates University, UAE
• Ammar, I. M. A. (2010). The effects of self-regulated reading strategy development on the prospective EFL teachers' critical reading skills and reading motivation. Retrieved on April 20, 2016 from,
• Ann, H. L., Cuttita, A. F., & Margot, E. (2012). Motivation, self-regulated learning Efficacy, and academic achievement among international and domestic students at an urban community college: a comparison. Retrieved from,
• Awaludin, S. N., Bakar, S. N., & Jafaar, S. (2014). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Paper presented at the conference on Eproceedings of the conference on Management and Muamalah, International Islamic University College Selangor.
• Banisaeid, M., & Huang, J. (2015). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning and language learning strategy in the case of Chinese EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(5), 36-43. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5p.36
• Batool, T., Noureen, G., & Ayuob, Z. (2019). Relating Learner Empowerment with Learner SelfRegulation Learning in Higher Education. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 5(4), 755-766. Behavioral Sciences, 98(4), 1062-1068 .doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.03.517
• Berenji, S. (2015). Motivational components effect on self-regulated learning and How selfregulated learning affect Iranian EFL students' academic success in Tabriz-Iran Islamic Azad University. Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 3(3), 125-130. Retrieved from
• Bloom, M. (2013). Self-regulated learning: goal setting and self-monitoring. The Language Teacher, 37(4), 46-50. Retrieved from, jalt-publications.org/tlt.
• Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. (Ed.). New York: Academic Press
• Boer, D. H., Bergstra, D. S. A., & Kostons, M. N. D. (2013). Effective strategies for self-regulated learning: A meta-analysis. Groningen: GION. Retrieved from,
• Busari, A. O. (2013). Assessing the relationship of self-regulation, motivation and anxiety on mathematics achievement of elementary school children in South -Western Nigeria. An International Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia, 7(3), 110-126. doi:
• Cleary, J. T., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: a school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537-550. doi: 10.1002/pits .10177
• Daniela, P. (2014). The relationship between self-regulation, motivation and Performance at secondary school students. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(04), 2549-2553. Retrieved from,
• Davoodi, M., Hejazi, E., Lavasani, G. M., & Mirhosseini, S. F. (2011). The effect of self-regulation learning strategies training on the academic motivation and self-efficacy. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29(11), 627-632. Retrieved from,
• Dignath, C., Perels, F., & Schmitz, B. (2009). Is it possible to improve mathematical achievement by means of self-regulation strategies? Evaluation of an intervention in regular math classes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(1), 17-31. Retrieved from,
• Dowing, K., & Ning, K. H. (2010). The reciprocal relationship between motivations and selfregulation: A longitudinal study on academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 682-686. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.9.10
• Eom, S. (2015). The effects of student motivation and self-regulated learning strategies on student's perceived e-learning outcomes and satisfaction. Retrieved from,
• Farah, M. S. (2017). Self-Regulated learning Strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Retrieved from,
• Ghaslanic, R., Kalantarib, B., & Mahmoodi, M. H. (2014). Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), motivation and language achievement of Iranian EFL Learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(4), 1062-1068 .doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.03.517
• Gholamreza, S., Parvin, K., Tavakoli, M., & Vahid. (2015). Relationship between self-regulated learning strategies with academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Recent Advances on Education and Educational Technologies, 82(1) 586-598. doi: 978-1-61804-294-
• Gilbert, E. J. (2018). Improving Japanese EFL Learners' Writing PerformanceThrough Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Retrieved from
• Goy, N. (2017). An action research on the development of self-regulated writing strategies of Turkish EFL students. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 191-204. Retrieved from,
• Graham, S., Harris, R, K., Mason, H. L., & Saddler, B. (2002). Developing self-regulated writers. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 110-115. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_7