CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational and Psychological AssessmentsStudent Assessment and Feedback

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-Regulated Learning as a Competence: Implications of Theoretical Models for Assessment Methods

Wirth, Joachim, Leutner, Detlev·2008·Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.102
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Lively research on self-regulated learning has produced a great number of models of self-regulated learning competence and it is still a challenge to integrate them within a single coherent framework. However, such a framework is necessary for, among other reasons, the development of valid assessment methods. We argue that one common characteristic of all models is that they consider the competence to make solid comparisons as a key competence of self-regulated learning. However, the kind of comparisons and the kind of standards used for these comparisons differ between models. The same is true for assessment methods. Valid assessment methods also have implemented comparisons and they also differ concerning the kind of comparison and the kind of standards used for assessment. In order to categorize both, models as well as assessment methods, we propose to distinguish between component models and process models of self-regulated learning. Component models imply the use of offline standards for assessment whereas process models imply the use of online standards. Both offline and online standards can be either quantitative or qualitative. We show that using qualitative standards leads to a higher validity of the assessment than using quantitative standards. This advantage of qualitative standards can be shown for both offline standards as well as online standards.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.102

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Artelt C., 2000, Strategisches Lernen
  2. Artelt C., 2006, Handbuch Lernstrategien, 337
  3. Baumert, J. Köller, O. (1996). Lernstrategien und schulische Leistungen [Learning strategies and school achievement]. In J. Möller, O. Köller (Eds.), Emotionen, Kognitionen und Schulleistung [Emotions, cognitions, and school achievement] (pp. 137–154). Weinheim: Beltz.
  4. Funke J., 1998, Finite Automaten als Instrumente zur Erfassung von Problemlösefähigkeiten bei Schülern
  5. Leutner D., 2006, Handbuch Lernstrategien, 162
  6. Lompscher J., 1994, LLF-Berichte 9, 114
  7. Pintrich P.R., 1991, The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ)
  8. Schlagmüller M., 2007, Würzburger Lesestrategie-Wissenstest für die Klassen 7–12 (WLST 7–12)
  9. Wild K.-P., 1992, LIST – Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium
  10. Wirth J., 2004, Selbstregulation von Lernprozessen
  11. Wirth J., 2005, Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis, 101
  12. Wirth J., 2006, Handbuch Lernstrategien, 172

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–157 of 157

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wirth, J., & Leutner, D.
Affiliations
University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Hogrefe Publishing Group
Published
2008-01
Volume
216
Issue
2
Pages
102-110
ISSN
0044-3409 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.102
OpenAlex
W1924037407
Cited by
158
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Zeitschrift für Psychologie (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
student self-regulation, competence model, component models, process model, assessment validity, quantitative standards

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review