European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 579–593 | Cite as

Assessment of learning strategies: self-report questionnaire or learning task

  • Eve KikasEmail author
  • Anna-Liisa Jõgi


Two types of assessment instruments were developed to assess middle school students’ learning strategies, and their effectiveness in predicting various learning outcomes was examined. The participants were 565 middle school students. Three subscales (rehearsal, organization, elaboration) from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al. 1991) formed a unique Learning Strategy scale. Memorization strategies (rehearsal and organization) were assessed with a specific learning task (memorizing word list). Math and language skills, assessed in Grade 7 and Grade 8, were used as outcome measures. The reported use of learning strategies, measured by Learning Strategy scale, was not related to any learning outcomes. In contrast, students who used memorization or organization during learning task differed in all outcomes. Results indicate a serious need to consider which assessment methods will be used in middle school. In the future, self-report questionnaires could benefit from subject-specific and more concrete descriptions of tasks. Meanwhile, we advise using questionnaire and cognitive behavioral learning task methods concurrently to assess learning strategies of middle school students.


Learning strategies Questionnaire Learning task Assessment Middle school students 



The study was supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (institutional research grant IUT 3-3 and special grant no. 10.1-8.1/933) and European Social Fund Program Eduko (via Archimedes Foundation, grant 30.2-4/549). We would like to thank Anu Palu, Krista Uibu, and Piret Soodla for developing the math and language tests and Teri Talpsep for valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.


  1. Alexander, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1994). Strategy regulation: the role of intelligence, metacognitive attributions, and knowledge base. Developmental Psychology, 30, 709–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, P., Sperl, C., Buehl, M., Fives, H., & Chiu, S. (2004). Modeling domain learning: profiles from the field of special education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, J.-L., & Karabenick, S. (2011). Motivation and students’ use of learning strategies: evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21, 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjorklund, D. F., Ornstein, P. A., & Haig, J. R. (1977). Developmental differences in organization and recall: training in the use of organizational techniques. Developmental Psychology, 13, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). Students’ adaptation of study strategies when preparing for classroom tests. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 401–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Credé, M., & Phillips, L. (2011). A metaanalytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dinsmore, D., Alexander, P., & Loughlin, S. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan, T., & McKeachie, W. (2005). The making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self-regulated learning strategies, and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23, 49–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Parliament and the Council (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved June 18, 2015, from
  14. Gaskill, P., & Murphy, P. (2004). Effects of a memory strategy on second-graders’ performance and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadwin, A., Winne, P., Stockley, D., Nesbit, J., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E. (2000). Teachers’ coaching of learning and its relation to students’ strategic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong, E., Sas, M., & Sas, J. C. (2006). Test-taking strategies of high and low mathematics achievers. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kikas, E. (2006). School Psychology in Estonia. In S. Jimerson, T. Oakland, & P. Farrell (Eds.), The handbook of international school psychology (pp. 91–102). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Kikas, E., Männamaa, M., Kumari, V., & Ulst, T. (2008). The relationships among verbal skills of primary school students with specific learning disabilities and a normal comparison group. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55, 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lei, P.-W., Wu, Q. (2007). Structural equation modeling: issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 33-43-Google Scholar
  22. Liu, O. (2009). Evaluation of a learning strategies scale for middle school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., & vom Hofe, R. (2013). Predicting long‐term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: the unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child Development, 84, 1475–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  25. Neber, H., & Heller, K. (2002). Evaluation of a summer-school program for highly gifted secondary-school students: the German Pupils Academy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ornstein, P., Coffman, J., Grammer, J., San Souci, P., & McCall, L. (2010). Linking the classroom context and the development of children’s memory skills. In J. Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research, schooling, and human development (pp. 42–59). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pintrich, P., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  31. Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rao, N., & Sachs, J. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 1016–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson, J. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Samuelstuen, M., & Bråten, I. (2007). Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students’ strategic processing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schellings, G., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Measuring strategy use with self-report instruments: theoretical and empirical considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider, W., & Sodian, B. (1997). Memory strategy development: lessons from longitudinal research. Developmental Review, 17, 442–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tulving, E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated” words. Psychological Review, 69, 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vabariigi Valitsus (2011/2014). Põhikooli riiklik õppekava. [National curriculum for basic schools], Riigi Teataja I 2014, I, 20. Retrieved June 18, 2015, from
  39. Veenman, M. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197–218). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Wolters, C. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Sciences and HealthTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations