Author:
Sindy J. Castillo Doctoral School of Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Sindy J. Castillo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7582-988X
Open access

Abstract

In higher education, students are expected to take responsibility for their own learning with little or no help from their teachers. Even though the teacher is a key element in the learning process, there is limited information on higher education students' way of taking charge of their own learning and the agency of the teacher that could influence this process. This paper intends to investigate this gap in the literature by conducting a semi-structured interview study. The interviews were conducted with ten English major students from a Hungarian university. The research was based on two main objectives: (1) to obtain an overview of higher education students' self-regulation (SR); (2) to explore their views on the teacher's influence on their SR process. The data retrieved from the interviews were analyzed using the Templates of Organizing Style (TOS). The results suggest that higher education students use cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral strategies in order to self-regulate and that there are some personality and professional aspects (e.g., being likable or providing constant, meaningful feedback) of the teacher that can either enhance or hinder students' SR process. The findings also indicate that between these two aspects, the teacher's personality plays a more influential role in students' SR. This can have important implications in the way higher education students' self-regulation is perceived as well as the way teachers prepare for a lesson and behave in a class.

Abstract

In higher education, students are expected to take responsibility for their own learning with little or no help from their teachers. Even though the teacher is a key element in the learning process, there is limited information on higher education students' way of taking charge of their own learning and the agency of the teacher that could influence this process. This paper intends to investigate this gap in the literature by conducting a semi-structured interview study. The interviews were conducted with ten English major students from a Hungarian university. The research was based on two main objectives: (1) to obtain an overview of higher education students' self-regulation (SR); (2) to explore their views on the teacher's influence on their SR process. The data retrieved from the interviews were analyzed using the Templates of Organizing Style (TOS). The results suggest that higher education students use cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral strategies in order to self-regulate and that there are some personality and professional aspects (e.g., being likable or providing constant, meaningful feedback) of the teacher that can either enhance or hinder students' SR process. The findings also indicate that between these two aspects, the teacher's personality plays a more influential role in students' SR. This can have important implications in the way higher education students' self-regulation is perceived as well as the way teachers prepare for a lesson and behave in a class.

Introduction

Amongst individual differences (ID) variables, self-regulation (SR) has become a prominent topic in the field of pedagogy. According to Baumeister and Vohs (2007), SR can be defined as a personal process based on altering one's behavior in order to achieve a set goal. In higher education, students are expected to be prepared to take responsibility for their own learning. Studies have pointed out the importance of a supportive context in the self-regulation process in which students have choices in the way the classes' activities are carried out (Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, & Nordby, 2000). Part of this context is the teacher and even though teachers can be hypothesized to be an important element in the learning process, there is limited information about higher education students' SR and the aspects and conditions that could obstruct or ensure the teacher's effective role effectively improving students' SR.

This paper intends to add to the literature by conducting a semi-structured interview study with ten higher education students, in order to explore their experiences with self-regulation as well as their views on their teacher's role in the self-regulation process. The research has two main objectives; (1) to obtain an overview of higher education students' self-regulation, and (2) to determine the views higher education students have on the teacher's influence on their self-regulation process. Implications of this study might be able to help to expand the knowledge about students' self-regulation and the role of the teacher in the self-regulation process.

Literature review

Self-regulation

SR is often defined as a varied and complex process in which several elements of human agency are taken into account. According to Zimmerman (2000), self-regulation is the creation of one's own “thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (p. 14). In other words, it refers to students' independent effort to take charge of their own learning. As SR is an individual difference, every person has their own way to self-regulate; however, some basic features constitute self-regulation. In their research, Baumeister and Vohs (2007) claimed that in order to achieve effective self-regulation, four elements need to be included; a) a clear and consistent standard, which refers to a person having a determined goal or objective in their mind which they do not change until such a goal is met; b) monitoring, which means checking on a regular basis the process of how one gets closer to the goal, c) strength or willpower to have enough determination and resolution. The fourth element is d) motivation, which, in education, is often defined as students' aspiration to become an improved, idealized version of themselves (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005). The authors suggested that effective self-regulation is usually obtained by sacrificing one's urges for a bigger and more important goal. Therefore, it can be said that motivation plays an important role in self-regulation and can serve as the source of strength or willpower. Bown (2009) agrees with the fact that SR requires a complex and varied process that students go through in order to enhance their learning. Such processes include cognitive, metacognitive, motivation, and behavioral conduct. This is to say, self-regulation requires the ability to set better learning goals, use learning strategies, monitor and assess goals, establish a proper learning environment, look for support, invest further effort and constancy, modify strategies, and set new goals when present ones are accomplished. In other words, to become self-regulated learners, students have to employ several types of strategies and apply the necessary changes in order to truly become in charge of their own learning. These definitions emphasize the complexity of being a self-regulated individual by interconnecting cognition, motivation, and behavior. This might be one of the reasons why SR is described as a complex practice when in reality it is often unconscious. This also complicates the way in which SR can be measured. Winne and Perry (2000) describe SR in two ways: as an event, which views SR as working around a specific task; or as an aptitude, which views SR as a complete round of abilities. In this study, the terms self-regulation and self-regulated learning will be used interchangeably to denote the mental process a person goes through and the ability to change their behavior in order to achieve an academic goal.

Strategies in self-regulation

Data from several studies have identified various types of strategies used in the SR process. Hadi Mahmoodi, Kalantari, and Ghaslani (2014) conducted a study with English as a foreign language (EFL) learners from Iran. They used a questionnaire in order to find the relationship between self-regulation, motivation, and achievements. They concluded that there was a correlation between motivation and self-regulation but there was not one between achievement and self-regulation. Furthermore, they provided five cognitive and metacognitive strategies that, according to their results, were the ones that Iranian students used the most. Such strategies were; (1) to organize and make adjustments in their behavior, (2) to self-evaluate, and to keep records and monitor their progress. Additionally, Zimmerman and Pons (1986) classified self-regulation strategies into 14 types. These are as follows: “self-evaluation, organizing and transforming, goal setting and planning, seeking information, keeping records and monitoring, environmental structuring, self-consequences, rehearsing and memorizing, seeking peer assistance, seeking teacher assistance, seeking adult assistance, reviewing tests, reviewing notes, and reviewing texts” (p. 618). For the purpose of this research, these 14 types of SR strategies and Hadi et al.'s (2014) classification of SR strategies will be used as concepts of SR strategies; they provide a comprehensive classification of students' self-regulation strategies.

Self-regulation models

It was important for the purpose of this research to look into models that take into account the influence of the individual's surroundings in their actions. Some theorists have explained the process of self-regulation and presented models in order to represent such processes. Zimmerman (1989) classified self-regulation into three categories. These are behavioral self-regulation, environmental self-regulation, and personal self-regulation. As an example of behavioral self-regulation, students might praise themselves or give positive or constructive criticism. For environmental SR, students usually ask for help from peers or teachers. Finally, for personal SR, students use strategies such as memorizing and repeating or setting a goal. This triadic model of SR emphasizes the link between three aspects of human lives but, as it has been mentioned in the previous section, SR is a more multifaceted and dynamic process.

Zimmerman's cyclical model of self-regulating learning presents the SR process as a cycle based on continuous monitoring that allows students the opportunity to become aware of potential changes that can be done regarding goals, strategies, and/or behavior (El-Henawy, Dadour, Salem, & El-Bassuony, 2010). This model consists of the following steps; (1) the self-reflection phase, where students self-evaluate and become aware of the efficacy of their learning techniques, (2) when that realization comes into place, students set a goal and decide their use of strategy. In that step, students' strategic background, as well as teacher and classmates, influence the choice and effectiveness of the strategies, (3) the implementation and monitoring of the strategies from the second step come into place, and (4) the strategic outcome and monitoring, which occurs when the student has analyzed the results of the strategy and determined what changes need to be made.

The teacher's role in self-regulation

In the professional discourse, due to an extensive body of research, it is well known how extrinsic and intrinsic motivation play a central role in the understanding of a student's performance in their learning process (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Baumeister and colleagues, stated that motivation is a key factor in students' learning process and, as explained before in the first part of the literature review, motivation plays an important role in students' self-regulation process (Baumeister et al., 2007). If we see it from Bandura's (2001) social-cognitive theory point of view, the environment has a relevant influence on human behavior. He argues that certain environmental factors affect a person's self-regulation process; therefore, they also have an effect on people's actions. For example, Bandura (2001) also mentions how some actions of the teacher such as praises or “encouragement from the teacher” (Zimmerman, 1989, p. 330) serve as incentives that can determine how students perceive their capabilities when working on a task.

Besides compliments and inspiration, there are other ways in which the teacher influences a student's way of taking responsibility for their own learning. Some studies have pointed out the importance of the teacher's personality features for the learning process of students. Patrick and Smart (1998) did research aiming at investigating different aspects of teachers that make teaching effective. In their effort to define teacher effectiveness, they merged students' views on an effective teacher with items from previous instruments reaching the conclusion that some aspects of effective teaching are showing respect, having the capacity to challenge students, and being organized. Along the same line, Kim and Maccann (2017) conducted a study with the aim to analyze the effect that the instructors' personality features had on students' learning results. The researchers used a series of regression analyses in order to find out which aspects of the instructor's personality affected students' results. They concluded that the teacher's personality has a significant influence on students' outcomes in their learning process.

Studies have also pointed out the importance of the role of the teacher in the self-regulation process of students. Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, and Milburn (1995) compared child-centered programs (focused on meaningful activities and children's interests) and didactic-centered programs (focused on meaningless activities and the decisions made by the teacher). They reached the conclusion that children in a didactic-focused program showed behaviors of poor self-regulation, such as lack of independence, poorer aptitudes, and lower expectations for their future. Perry and VandeKamp's (2000) exploratory study in elementary education described how the teacher can improve students' self-regulation in reading and writing activities. They reached the conclusion that students' feeling threatened by assessment, students' participation in difficult reading and writing tasks, and the teacher not providing students with enough independence influence either the growth or decline of self-regulated learning. Later, Perry et al. (2000) did further research and they presented some ways in which the teacher can promote self-regulation in students. The study was conducted through interviews with teachers and observation of students in the 3rd grade taking charge of their own learning. The researchers reached the conclusion that there were several ways in which the teacher could enhance students' self-regulation. These are: (1) offering students choices and opportunities to voice their opinions and ideas, (2) offering opportunities for self and peer-evaluation followed by students expressing their feedback, (3) providing no more or less support than needed, and (4) providing evaluation that needs to be as unthreatening as possible and with a great amount of constructive feedback. A key limitation of these studies is that the sample was drawn from a population of primary education students. Thus, the results might not be generalizable to other levels of education.

A socio-cognitive view of self-regulation is based on the influence of external factors on self-regulation. However, it is contradictory to think that a self-initiated process such as self-regulation, which is based on students' independent work, can be externally influenced by the teacher. According to Ryan and Deci (2000b) self-determination theory centers on the extent to which a person's actions are self-motivated and self-determined. Self-determination theory proposes that extrinsically motivated actions can actually be internalized and become self-regulated. In their research, Ryan and Deci (2000b) stated that in effect, extrinsic motivation can provoke autonomous behaviors when it is internalized, this is to say students are able to work independently and make their own choices. For example, when a student studies for a test it could be either because it is important to successfully graduate or because their parents' pressure. Both cases encapsulate extrinsic motivation; however, the first one contains a sense of one's own choice. In other words, the students choose to study because they truly believe it will help them to accomplish a goal (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

The process of regulation proposed by self-determination theory can help shed some light on why some learners believe they need to feel the teachers' influence in order to successfully self-regulate. According to Ryan and Deci (2000b), some types of self-regulation are extrinsically motivated. These are identified regulation, integrated regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. When the regulation gets embraced by the person, it is called integrated regulation. Identified regulation is when the action is acknowledged or perceived as significant for the person, whereas introjected regulation is when the regulation is not fully acknowledged by the person but actions are performed to avoid responsibility or concern. Finally, external regulation is when the regulation is performed in order to obtain a prize or to elude negative comments.

One of the ways teachers can enhance students' SR is by offering them opportunities for independent work; therefore, the notion of autonomy cannot be ignored when investigating self-regulation. In their study, Carver and Scheier (2000) discussed self-determination theory and its branches. They interestingly laid some emphasis on how they believed the notion of autonomy was not real and how people believed in autonomy because they needed to feel this sense of freedom, or choice and determination. They went on to consider whether independent acts were true. In effect, they suggested that the notions of independence and autonomy might not actually exist. However, they also pointed out the need for literature on whether people needed actual autonomy or just the perception of such. These theories might have an important implication on how the teacher influences students' SR. To some extent, this research agrees with the fact that teachers need to let go of some of the control of the learning process since it is believed that students get better results when having a sense of independence (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Whether this feeling of autonomy is not real goes beyond the scope of this research.

Despite the limited research on SR in higher education, there are some interesting findings related to students' attitudes and the teacher's feedback. Valle et al. (2003) proposed a new self-regulation model based on cognitive, motivational, and volitional factors of previous self-regulated learning models. They reached the conclusion that the way students perceived themselves and the way they perceived the activities in the class had an influence on goal-setting, the use of learning strategies, and the motivation in completing tasks and achievement. They also pointed out that in an educational environment, the difficulty of the task along with having the necessary knowledge and skills to complete such a task increased positive outcomes in self-regulation processes, such as the ones mentioned before (the setting of goals and use of strategies). Additionally, Green (2019) researched how feedback could positively influence students. The research was based on postgraduate students' views, and it suggested that feedback needed to be explicit and continuous for students to be able to reach a better understanding of their learning process. It also emphasized how feedback should be a conversation rather than a one-sided dialogue. Finally, it also encouraged students to be outspoken regarding feedback. That is to say, students should not listen to the teacher passively but discuss and challenge the comments given. This has an important implication for the way feedback is performed since it promotes a different way to carry out the dynamic relationship between teacher and students.

This literature review aimed at explaining the concepts that will be used in this research and providing an overview of the available literature on SR and the teacher's influence on students' SR processes. It can be concluded that some elements need to be further analyzed such as autonomy in SR. It can be also concluded that most of the studies aimed at investigating external aspects influencing the SR process have been conducted in primary or secondary educational contexts, which is further evidence of the need of conducting more research in the field of higher education.

Methods

From the point of view of research methods, it was important to ensure the acquisition of rich data regarding students' views on the role of the teacher in their self-regulation process since this was an unfamiliar topic for the researcher. Because of the exploratory nature of the inquiry, the qualitative research paradigm was selected as it ensures the acquisition of new and abundant information which can open doors to several emerging details from the investigation (Dörnyei, 2007). Besides that, the focus of the inquiry was an unchartered area for the researcher. That is why qualitative research was applied in this investigation as, according to Morse and Richards (2002), it is the most suitable method to use in order to research an unfamiliar area for the researcher, such as the one described above. Based on the literature review and the aims of the paper, the following research questions were formulated:

  1. How do English major students' take responsibility for their own learning with the help of their teacher?

  2. What aspects of the teacher's work and personality improve English major students' way of taking responsibility for their own learning?

  3. What aspects of the teacher's work and personality prevent English major students from taking responsibility for their own learning?

Participants

This research focused on higher education students, more specifically, English major students from a higher education institution in Budapest. The sampling was non-probability sampling as “the principle criteria for the selection of the sampling was the convenience for the researcher” Dörnyei (2007, p. 85). The participants were ten English majors between the ages of 25 and 30. They were all in their last semester of their major in English studies and they were five females and five males. It is important to emphasize that they represented a mixture of cultures since four of the participants were Hungarians and the rest were international students. In Table 1, the pseudonyms given to each participant along with their nationalities are displayed.

Table 1.

Participants

Pseudonym Age Gender Nationality
Ally 24 Female Hungarian
Ben 24 Male Hungarian
Danna 24 Female Hungarian
Denisse 25 Female Jordan
Farrah 24 Female Algerian
George 24 Male Hungarian
Kate 27 Female Chinese
Mathew 29 Male Indonesia
Melissa 31 Female Turkish
Victor 30 Male Turkmenistan

The instrument

The data was obtained through semi-structured interviews. This type of inquiry was chosen because besides providing guidance to the interviewer, it also provides flexibility to ask additional questions or, as stated by Wallace (1997), semi-structured interviews are a fusion of “a certain degree of control with a certain amount of freedom to develop the interview” (p. 147). As it was claimed before, the aim of this research was to obtain an overview of higher education students' self-regulation and to add to the literature on how higher education students perceived the teacher's influence on their self-regulation process.

The semi-structured interview guide was devised by the author and consisted of four major categories that altogether contained four broader areas of questions. The first category was concerned with biographical questions, such as students' age and background regarding their language learning experience. The other three categories concerned the sub-research questions and were based on the literature on self-regulation, as well as self-regulation models and theories focusing on the positive or negative aspects of the teachers that the participant believed influenced their self-regulation process (El-Henawy et al., 2010; Paris & Paris, 2001; Zimmerman, 1989).

After the interview guide was devised, revisions from two experts were made. The experts were English major professors with extensive experience in researching individual differences in language learning. After the approval of the experts, two pilot interviews were conducted, which led to the conclusion that small changes were needed, such as changing the wording of some of the questions, as well as adding some sub-questions. The rest of the interviews were conducted between November 2018 and January 2019 in English. Each of the interviews lasted between 30 and 45 min approximately and altogether they yielded around 35,000 words of data. The data were treated anonymously and participation in the research was voluntary.

Data collection and analysis

The interviews were recorded and then transcribed into Word files. This facilitated the process of analyzing the data. In order to do the analysis, the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used. This facilitated the analysis of each finding by comparing it to previous findings in the literature. The comparative analysis was conducted by contrasting each of the participants' answers by using a highlighting method. This method meant using a code manual in which different colors were used to highlight every theme or emerging theme in the data. In this case, the yellow color indicated aspects of the teacher that positively influenced the self-regulation process of students. In the same way, the red color indicated negative aspects of the teacher that influenced the self-regulation process. Finally, the light-blue color indicated the participants' way to self-regulate. This helped the process of spotting new emerging themes from the ones previously known by the researcher based on the literature review.

For the next step, in order to have a better organization of the data that can allow the proper representation of the relationship between the emerging themes, Crabtree and Miller's (1999) Template of Organizing Style (TOS) was used. Based on the literature review and the two pilot interviews' color-coded themes, a draft template was made. The template contained the three main topics of the research: the way higher education students view their self-regulation and the aspects of the teacher which influence those students' self-regulation. The final template contained the information in the draft template plus the emerging themes from all the interviews which were analyzed using the same methods. The aspects of the teacher were classified into positive and negative aspects. However, based on the analysis of emerging themes, each aspect was also sub-divided into two categories; personal features and professional features (see Table 2).

Table 2.

The final template with emerging themes

Higher education students' SL Positive aspects of the teacher that influence students' SL Negative aspects of the teacher that influence students' SL
  • Being independent

  • Putting effort in my studies

  • Focusing on my learning

  • Surrounding myself with a positive learning environment

  • Being in touch with the language

  • Being responsible

  • Finding methods and materials that suit me

  • Finding different ways to solve tasks

  • Forcing myself to improve

  • Motivating myself

  • Giving myself rewards

  • Planning what to do

  • Using the internet

  • Desire to prove myself

  • Asking for advice, help, and tips.

  • Preparing for the class

  • Being a strategy user

Personal aspects
  • Being supportive

  • Being likeable, having a positive image

  • Having a good opinion of the student

  • Being respectful

  • Being encouraging

  • Appreciating the effort of students

  • Understanding

Professional aspects
  • Promoting students' independent work

  • Constant positive and meaningful feedback

  • Giving tips and advices

  • Explicitly teaching learning strategies

  • Being meaningful, giving meaningful homework and tasks

  • Being flexible

  • Being proficient

  • Focusing on students' interest and needs

  • Correcting errors in a nice way

  • Offering help

  • Being always available

  • Constant checking

Personal aspects
  • Being arrogant

  • Being rude

  • Being too strict

  • Not showing interest in students

  • Being too nice (there should be a balance)

  • Being too easy going

Professional aspects
  • Giving superficial feedback

  • Giving too positive or too negative feedback

  • Shaming students' opinions

  • Forcing a single way to do things

  • Overload of homework

  • Not enough explanation

  • Threatening evaluation

  • Being teacher-centered

  • Showing demotivation to teach

  • Having many standards

  • Limiting students' opinions

Results and discussion

The interviews focused on obtaining information on how ELT English major students carry out their self-regulation process and what influence the teacher has on this process. In this section, based on the emerging themes found in the data analysis, the results will be described and discussed.

In order to answer the first research question, data related to the participants' views on their own self-regulation will be discussed first. As far as the participants' way of taking charge of their own learning is concerned, it is important to highlight that although they were all higher education students, some of them expressed their lack of knowledge regarding learning strategies since they had not explicitly been taught about them. It was interesting to see that the participants who mentioned that they had never been taught how to self-regulate were participants that came from Asian and Middle Eastern countries. This could suggest that amongst the participants, nationality and culture might have an influence on how these students self-regulate their learning; however, this claim is beyond the scope of this research and would require further studies to be conducted.

According to the findings, there are multiple ways in which students take charge of their own learning. The results indicated that the participants of this study used a series of cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral strategies in their learning process. These strategies included surrounding themselves with a good learning environment, finding methods and strategies that suited them the best, using learning strategies adequately, motivating themselves, planning their activities, and asking for advice, help, and tips from peers or the teacher. All these strategies answer to some of the definitions of self-regulation described in the literature review (Hadi et al., 2014; Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Pons, 1986).

In addition, the fact that participants look for strategies and methods that suit them the most agrees with the basis of Zimmerman's (1989) cyclical model, which defines self-regulation as a cycle based on constant monitoring that allows students the chance to recognize the changes that can be done in order to achieve their goals. Participants also described several of the 14 types of self-regulatory strategies described by Zimmerman and Pons (1986). George expressed this in the following way:

For me, taking responsibility for your own learning is not only the teacher’s duty to teach me because I can also do a lot to improve myself, and not specifically in high school, but I think in the university we are definitely required to be able to do so… I think here, it is a must because you have a lot of readings to do… I try to read everything from week to week; I try to manage my time efficiently so I try not to leave everything to the last minute. Furthermore, I always try to look for things I do not understand. (George)

These findings agree with what was stated by Zimmerman and Pons (1986), who claimed that self-regulation implies the use of a series of cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, and motivational strategies, such as the ones above described by the participants of this study. The interviews yielded a significant amount of information about the students' views on their self-regulation process. In order to answer the second and third research questions, information about positive and negative aspects of the teacher's work and personality was obtained. Concerning personality aspects, the teacher overall needs to have a positive, likable, and supportive personality. In the words of one of the participants:

I think that personality is important because I feel it when I like the teacher I kind of have to impress or do my best because I like him or her, and I want to be the best in his or her class… But it is different if you don’t really like the teacher because, I don’t know, he or she is too demanding or you are afraid of them, I feel like I am too lazy to even show up. (Mathew)

And as regards professional aspects, the teacher needs to be proficient in their subject matter, and be understanding and flexible with the amount of homework given to students.

If the teacher is really proficient it encourages me to work more in order to satisfy him or her and prepare more like extra for him since he is so proficient that I am afraid that he would ask something that I don’t really know. (Denisse)

In addition, they need to create situations in which the students can make their own choices, familiarize themselves with learning strategies in an explicit way, and receive meaningful feedback:

I think it is better if they give us detailed feedback and not only just “uhm it’s good” or “uhm it’s bad” … if they give you detailed feedback right there you know what you should work on, what you should practice. (Danna)

The participants also provided interesting insights about some negative aspects of the teacher's work or personality that influence their self-regulation process. Personality-wise, teachers need to avoid being rude or impolite. However, participants also believe teachers should not indulge students since they might take learning too lightly. As a consequence, there should be a balance. In Kate's words, “if students couldn't finish the work with their best effort, the teacher should encourage them and should be patient but if they are too patient and too kind, students would get lazy and mess around.” Teachers should also avoid being rude and impolite and should show interest in students' needs. Regarding the professional side of the teacher, they should avoid superficial and exclusively positive feedback since highlighting the negative parts with constructive criticism is also helpful in students learning or as Ally stated “negative feedback is of course also needed for me to see my mistakes but they can be seen in a supportive manner”. Other aspects included the way in which teachers handle tasks, homework, and tests and how these should always aim at helping and satisfying students' needs. Overall, the classes should not be teacher-centered and students must have a voice.

It can be stated that, as regards personality, the results about the teacher's likeability, supportive character, good image, being encouraging, respectful, and appreciative towards students agree with the findings of Patrick and Smart (1998) and Kim and Maccann (2017), who through qualitative and quantitative research stated that the teacher's personality affected the students' performance and outcomes in their learning and in order to positively influence such outcomes the teacher must be respectful, have a systematic way of teaching and overall has to make a good impression on the students. Having a negative performance and results can affect the way students perceive their own capabilities, that is to say, their self-efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, can significantly affect the way students set their goals, use learning strategies, and their motivation in completing tasks and goals (Valle et al., 2003).

As far as the teacher's professional aspect is concerned, participants provided some interesting insights into how the teacher should handle homework, tasks, and overall, the way of teaching in order to enhance their self-regulation. Participants agreed that the teacher must give them enough autonomy, avoid aggressive testing, be proficient and available in the class, and provide meaningful feedback. This is to say, a type of feedback that allows students to clearly see the areas that they need to work on. For them, autonomy means giving students choices and a lower amount of homework so that they can have time to schedule their activities in the way that suits them the most. This agrees with what Perry et al. (2000) stated in their study in which they pointed out the ways in which the teacher can promote self-regulation in students. Amongst these, there are some that are in line with what the participants expressed, such as offering students choices and opportunities to voice their opinion and ideas, providing no more or less support than needed, an evaluation that needs to be as unthreatening as possible, and offering a proper amount of constructive feedback.

All of the participants agreed that being a self-regulated learner required being independent. They all expressed how in order to self-regulate they make their own decisions and take independent actions outside of the class and without the help of the teacher. However, they all also expressed how the teacher has an important influence on the decisions they make on the way they take responsibility for their own learning. For example, the participants mentioned how their actions are driven by wanting to be respected and liked by the teacher. If they get positive realistic and justified positive feedback from the teacher, by internalizing extrinsic motivation, they will be more motivated to learn intrinsically as well, which, in turn, will have a positive effect on their self-regulation. This agrees with Self-Determination Theory, which focuses on how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can influence autonomous actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985 as cited in Deci & Ryan, 2014).

The participants also mentioned their desire to prove themselves to the teacher, to prove they are good learners. This agrees with introjected self-regulation, which is characterized by people's desire to show their capability in order to preserve a positive self-image. It was also indicated in the results how important it was for the students to complete their homework and tasks. As was explained before, although it is a manifestation of being extrinsically motivated, choosing to do homework because it is considered important for your goals is a self-regulated behavior. It is noteworthy to mention that the results did not show any data regarding integrated regulation¸ which is the most autonomous extrinsically motivated behavior. Nevertheless, a significant part of the results shows that participants' extrinsic influence on the teacher is internalized. Therefore, it drives the students' way of taking responsibility for their own learning.

It was interesting to notice that the literature available on the teacher's influence on self-regulation focuses only on what the teacher should do in order to enhance self-regulation but it does not provide hints as to what they should avoid. The results of this study indicated that, in their view, the participants think that there are some negative aspects of the teachers' personality that affect the way students take charge of their learning. These include being strict and authoritarian, being rude, not caring, and being too nice.

Participants believe the teacher should have a nice personality. However, it was surprising to hear from the students that being too nice would influence negatively the way they view the teacher and the class. That is to say, they would take the teacher and the class too lightly. Consequently, participants believe being too nice is a negative aspect of the teacher that influences the way they take on their self-regulation. However, it was not surprising that students believe the teacher being too strict and authoritarian affects their self-regulation adversely. They claimed that these aspects obstructed their autonomy. This finding confirms the results of Stipek et al.'s (1995) research, in which they compared child-centered programs (focused on children's interests) with the didactic-centered program (focused on activities and the teacher). Their research suggested that children in a didactic-focused program demonstrated a lack of independence, poor aptitudes, and lower expectations for their future.

Regarding the teacher's work, participants also believe that being teacher-centered is a negative aspect of the teacher that would affect their self-regulation, as it obstructs their autonomy by limiting their choices. Farrah stated that “when the teacher is the most present part of the class and you feel that the learners are absent, just talking non-stop. This way discourages the learners” (Farrah). It was also interesting to hear from the students that they considered that too much homework obstructs their autonomy, especially, when they are not given enough time to complete it. Denisse stated that “when the task is only sent one day before the deadline, this prevents me from anything like from thinking even. I'm just panicking… I don't read I don't understand what I am looking for” (Denisse). This goes in line with Valle et al.'s (2003) research, which suggested that the difficulty of the task along with having the necessary knowledge and skills to complete such a task increases positive outcomes in self-regulation processes, such as the setting of goals or use of strategies. Having an overload of homework can be considered a difficult assignment that might affect students' self-regulation, especially if they do not have the time to do it their way. Another negative aspect of the teacher is not providing enough feedback. This finding agrees with Green (2019), who believes that feedback should be meaningful for students but overall it should be a conversation rather than a one-sided monologue.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to obtain an overview of higher education students' self-regulation and to explore their views on the teacher's influence on their SR process. The results indicated that higher education students in the context investigated use cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, and motivational strategies in order to self-regulate. These strategies are to surround themselves with a good learning environment, to look for methods and strategies that suit them the best, to use learning strategies adequately, to encourage themselves, to plan their activities, and to ask for advice, help, and tips from peers or their teachers. However, the results also showed that not all higher-education students had been taught about learning strategies or self-regulatory strategies. This can have important implications for the way higher education students are viewed since they are believed to successfully carry out their university studies autonomously. Therefore, it is advised that university teachers should not assume that their students are familiar with the notions of learning strategies and self-regulatory learning behavior. As a result, it might be necessary to raise awareness of these issues in university seminars and lectures.

Regarding the teacher's influence on students' self-regulation process, the emerging themes of this study revealed some positive and negative aspects of the teacher's work or personality that influence students' self-regulation processes. When it comes to the positive aspects, the teacher's positive, likable, understanding, and supportive personality, as well as flexibility, seem to enhance students' self-regulation. And when it comes to professional aspects, the teacher's proficiency and willingness to promote situations in which the student can be autonomous seem to increase students' self-regulation. In addition, teachers also need to provide meaningful feedback and show interest in students' needs, and to teach about learning strategies in an explicit way. For the negative aspects, on the other hand, teachers need to avoid being rude, disrespectful, or impolite. However, there should be a balance between being too nice and too permissive, since students might not take them very seriously. Regarding the professional side of the teacher, they should avoid superficial feedback. This is to say, teachers should provide detailed feedback so that students can easily identify the areas that need improvement. Teachers should balance the positive and negative feedback they provide. Finally, classes should not be teacher-centered but students should have a say in the way classes are carried out. It is important to emphasize that even though there were more emerging themes pertaining to the teacher's professional aspect, the personality aspects of the teacher seem to have a deeper impact on students' SRL. This could have important implications for the way university teachers plan and organize their classes, as well as the way they choose to behave towards their students in the classroom.

Although the main objectives of this study were fulfilled as the research questions were answered, there were some limitations regarding the participants involved in the research. The participants came from different parts of the world, which means that they had different educational backgrounds. Although the resultant cultural differences could open an interesting line of research in the future, they might have also influenced the outcomes of this paper. Apart from examining how different educational, cultural backgrounds affect students' self-regulation, it might also be interesting to conduct the same interview study in different contexts, such as secondary schools or corporate environments in order to gain a deeper insight into self-regulation, as well as the role the teacher plays in promoting or obstructing it.

References

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 126.

  • Baumeister, R. F. , Vohs, K. D. , & Tice, D. M. (2007). The Strength Model of Self-Control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bown, J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language learning: A situated view. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 570583.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carver, C. S. , & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Autonomy and self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 284291. JSTOR.

  • Crabtree, B. F. , & Miller, W. L. (1999). Using codes and code manuals. In Doing qualitative research (pp. 163177). SAGE.

  • Csizér, K. , & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 1936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Boston: Springer Science.

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • El-Henawy, W. , Dadour, E. S. , Salem, M. M. , & El-Bassuony, J. M (2010). Self-regulated learning in English language instruction.

  • Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

  • Green, S. (2019). What students don’t make of feedback in higher education: An illustrative study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 8394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hadi Mahmoodi, M. , Kalantari, B. , & Ghaslani, R. (2014). Self-regulated learning (SRL), motivation and language achievement of iranian EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 10621068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.517.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kim, L. E. , & Maccann, C. (2017). Instructor personality matters for student evaluations: Evidence from two subject areas at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morse, J. M. , & Richards, L. (2002). README FIRST for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. SAGE Publications.

  • Paris, S. G. , & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Patrick, J. , & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 165178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230205.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perry, N. , & VandeKamp, J. O. K. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support young children’s development of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Education Research, 33, 821843. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00052-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perry, N. E. , VandeKamp, K. O. , Mercer, L. K. , & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 515. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 6878. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 5467. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stipek, D. , Feiler, R. , Daniels, D. , & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00866.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Valle, A. , Cabanach, R. G. , Núñez, J. C. , González-Pienda, J. , Rodríguez, S. , & Piñeiro, I. (2003). Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimensions of learning: An empirical test of a hypothetical model. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 557580. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025443325499.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wallace, M. J. (1997). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32953512.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Winne, P. H. , & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531566). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50045-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts , P. R. Pintrich , & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1339). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zimmerman, B. J. , & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614628. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163093.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

APPENDIX A

The final version of the interview guide

Thank you for volunteering to take part in the interview. The interview is part of my MA research, whose aim is to explore the views of English majors on the teacher's role in students taking responsibility for their own learning in their studies. Please answer the questions honestly. In order to be able to prepare and analyse the data, I would like to record our conversation as long as you agree, but the data obtained from it will be treated anonymously during the research. Participation in my research is voluntary.

  1. Introductory questions

    • - How old are you?

    • - What foreign language are you learning/studying?

    • - How long have you been learning (studying) the language?

    • - What level are you at?

    • - Why are you learning/studying it?

    • - Do you consider yourself a language learner or a language user? Why?

    • - Why did you choose this major?

  2. How do higher education students take responsibility for their own learning with the help of the teacher?

    • - How do teachers train you to obtain some strategies to improve your own learning?

    • - How do teachers motivate you to use strategies that help you learn more effectively?

    • - How is the teacher involved in the way you plan/schedule your learning?

    • - How is the teacher involved in setting your goals?

    • - How is the teacher involved in monitoring your development?

    • - How is the teacher involved in monitoring your results?

    • - How is the teacher involved in helping you evaluate your results?

    • - What do you do when you experience difficulty in a task?

    • - What aspects of the teacher make you want to be better in your learning?

  3. What aspects of the teacher's work and personality improve students' way of taking responsibility for their own learning?

    • - What do you understand by taking responsibility for your own learning?

    • - There are multiple ways for students to take responsibility for their own learning. To what extent do you think it's important for students? Why do you think so?

    • - How does the teacher create a positive learning environment that facilitates taking responsibility for your own learning?

    • - How does the teacher train you to know what to do in order to improve your learning?

    • - How does the teacher make you aware of potential learning strategies?

    • - How does the teacher help you to choose appropriate strategies?

    • - What influence does the teacher's opinion have on your expectation for your future?

    • - How does your teacher help you to make more decisions about your own learning?

    • - How do you feel if the teacher doesn't take into account your opinion when choosing the types of tasks or activities?

    • - How does your teacher involve you in your own evaluation?

    • - What kind of support do you get from your teacher that helps you complete your tasks successfully?

  4. What aspects of the teacher's work and personality prevent students from taking responsibility for their own learning?

    • - How does a teacher create a bad learning environment?

    • - How can a teacher communicate learning strategies in a non-effective way?

    • - How can a teacher prevent students from solving complex tasks?

    • - How can a teacher prevent the development of students' independent work in the language learning process?

    • - What kind of evaluation discourages you?

    • - How does threatening testing affect the way you prepare for class?

    • - How should a teacher handle students making mistakes?

    • - What aspects of the teacher do not encourage your learning?

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 126.

  • Baumeister, R. F. , Vohs, K. D. , & Tice, D. M. (2007). The Strength Model of Self-Control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bown, J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language learning: A situated view. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 570583.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carver, C. S. , & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Autonomy and self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 284291. JSTOR.

  • Crabtree, B. F. , & Miller, W. L. (1999). Using codes and code manuals. In Doing qualitative research (pp. 163177). SAGE.

  • Csizér, K. , & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 1936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Boston: Springer Science.

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • El-Henawy, W. , Dadour, E. S. , Salem, M. M. , & El-Bassuony, J. M (2010). Self-regulated learning in English language instruction.

  • Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

  • Green, S. (2019). What students don’t make of feedback in higher education: An illustrative study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 8394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hadi Mahmoodi, M. , Kalantari, B. , & Ghaslani, R. (2014). Self-regulated learning (SRL), motivation and language achievement of iranian EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 10621068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.517.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kim, L. E. , & Maccann, C. (2017). Instructor personality matters for student evaluations: Evidence from two subject areas at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morse, J. M. , & Richards, L. (2002). README FIRST for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. SAGE Publications.

  • Paris, S. G. , & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Patrick, J. , & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 165178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230205.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perry, N. , & VandeKamp, J. O. K. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support young children’s development of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Education Research, 33, 821843. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00052-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perry, N. E. , VandeKamp, K. O. , Mercer, L. K. , & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 515. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 6878. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 5467. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stipek, D. , Feiler, R. , Daniels, D. , & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00866.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Valle, A. , Cabanach, R. G. , Núñez, J. C. , González-Pienda, J. , Rodríguez, S. , & Piñeiro, I. (2003). Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimensions of learning: An empirical test of a hypothetical model. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 557580. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025443325499.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wallace, M. J. (1997). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32953512.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Winne, P. H. , & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531566). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50045-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts , P. R. Pintrich , & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1339). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zimmerman, B. J. , & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614628. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163093.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Top

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Helga DORNER

Associate Editors 

  • Csíkos, Csaba (Eötvös Lorand University, Hungary)
  • Csizér, Kata (Eötvös Lorand University, Hungary)
  • Dorner, Helga (Central European University, Hungary)

 

Editorial Board

  • Basseches, Michael (Suffolk University, USA)
  • Billett, Stephen (Griffith University, Australia)
  • Cakmakci, Gültekin (Hacettepe University, Turkey)
  • Damsa, Crina (University of Oslo,Norway)
  • Dörnyei, Zoltán (Nottingham University, UK)
  • Endedijk, Maaike (University of Twente, The Netherlands)
  • Fejes, Andreas (Linköping University, Sweden)
  • Guimaraes, Paula (University of Lisbon, Portugal)
  • Halász, Gábor (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Hansman, Catherine A. (Cleveland State University, USA)
  • Kroeber, Edith (Stuttgart University, Germany)
  • Kumar, Swapna (University of Florida, USA)
  • MacDonald, Ronald (University of Prince Edward Island, Canada)
  • Marsick, Victoria J. (Columbia University, USA)
  • Martensson, Katarina (Lund University, Sweden)
  • Matei, Liviu (Central European University, Hungary)
  • Matyja, Malgorzata (Wroclaw University of Economics, Poland)
  • Mercer, Sarah (University of Graz, Austria)
  • Nichols, Gill (University of Surrey, UK)
  • Nokkala, Terhi (University of Jyvaskyla, Finland)
  • Ostrouch-Kaminska (Uniwersytet Warminsko-Mazurski, Poland)
  • Pusztai, Gabriella (University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • Ramesal, Ana (Barcelona University, Spain)
  • Reischmann, Jost (Bamberg University, Germany)
  • Rösken-Winter, Bettina (Humboldt, Germany)
  • Ryan, Stephen (Waseda University, Japan)
  • Török, Erika (Pallasz Athéné University, Hungary)
  • Wach-Kakolewicz, Anna (Poznan University of Economics and Business, Poland)
  • Watkins, Karen E. (University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia)

 

 

 

Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation
Editorial Office
Eötvös Loránd University
Faculty of Education and Psychology
Institute of Research on Adult Education and Knowledge Management
Address: 1075 Budapest, Kazinczy u. 23-27. HUNGARY

E-mail: jalki@ppk.elte.hu

2020  
CrossRef Documents 0
CrossRef
Cites
8
CrossRef H-index 4
Days from submission to acceptance 130
Days from acceptance to publication 222

 

2019  
WoS
Cites
4
CrossRef
Documents
14

 

Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge none
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2016
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
2
Founder Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
Founder's
Address
H-1053 Budapest, Hungary Egyetem tér 1-3.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2631-1348 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Feb 2022 0 0 0
Mar 2022 0 0 0
Apr 2022 0 0 0
May 2022 0 0 0
Jun 2022 0 0 0
Jul 2022 0 135 102
Aug 2022 0 16 2