本研究旨在修訂一份適合國內中學生的科學學習後設認知量表，藉以了解我國中學生科學學習後設認知能力，盼能提供中學教師促進學生科學學習後設認知之參考。修訂後的科學學習後設認知量表計30題，包含「學習連結能力」、「監控、評鑑與計劃」、「科學學習自我效能」、「學習風險意識」、「專注力控制」等五個分量表。以台灣地區國一至高三學生為研究對象，方便取樣選取7所國中、4所高中，計有1128人為正式樣本。研究工具包含科學學習後設認知量表、一百年第一次國民中學學生基本能力測驗－自然科試卷和一百學年度大學學力測驗－自然科試卷。
本研究結果顯示：在效度分析方面，除了透過專家審查建立內容效度外，在建構效度上，經探索性因素和驗證性因素分析顯示，各題目測量之因素符合理論構念，且量表的理論架構可得到實徵資料的支持，與Thomas、Anderson和Nashon（2008）所發展的科學學習後設認知量表（SEMLI–S）相吻合，並符合區辨效度的條件。
在信度分析上，分量表和總量表之內部一致性信度值介於0.87～0.96；經過兩個月的重測信度值介於0.69～0.86，顯示修訂後的「科學學習後設認知量表」具有良好的信度。基於研究結果，本研究提出相關建議，以供研究者與教育工作者參考使用。

This paper adapts the scale, Self-Efficacy and Metacognition Learning Inventory–Science (SEMLI–S), into the Science Learning Metacognition Scale as to more appropriately measure high school students’ use of metacognition in science learning with the attempts to explore their metacognitive science learning ability and to contribute to high school scientific education. The modified scale applies 30 items and five sub-scales: Constructivist Connectivity, Monitoring, Evaluation & Planning, Science Learning Self-efficacy, Leaning Risks Awareness, and Control of Concentration, targeting at 1128 high school students from 7 junior high schools and 4 senior high schools in Taiwan. The instruments applied to this paper include the Science Learning Metacognition Scale , the 2011 First Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students– Subject: Natural Science, and 2011 General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT)– Subject: Natural Science.
The findings of this paper suggest: Referring to the validity examination, specialists’ inspection can build up the content validity. As for the construct validity, the factors measured in each question correspond to the theoretical concepts when undertaking both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Moreover, it indicates the theoretical structure of the scale can sustain itself with confirmatory facts, which harmonizes the Self-Efficacy and Metacognition Learning Inventory-Science (SEMLI–S) developed by Thomas, Anderson, & Nashon (2008), and satisfies the condition of the discriminant validity.
In regard to the reliability examination, the coefficient of internal consistency (0.87~0.93) and that of the test-retest reliability (0.69~0.86) demonstrate acceptable reliability in the scale and the subscales. Based on the findings, this paper develops further implications and suggestions which may assist the future research and teaching use.

目錄
謝誌………………………………………………………………………………… I
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………… Ⅱ
英文摘要…………………………………………………………………………… Ⅲ
目錄………………………………………………………………………………… Ⅳ
圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………… Ⅵ
表目錄……………………………………………………………………………… Ⅶ

第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究動機………………………………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題…………………………………………………… 4
第三節 名詞釋義………………………………………………………………… 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制………………………………………………………… 6

第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 後設認知的意涵與發展………………………………………………… 7
第二節 後設認知評量方式……………………………………………………… 15
第三節 後設認知與學習成就之相關研究……………………………………… 30
第四節 科學學習後設認知量表（SEMLI–S）之發展………………………… 37

第参章 研究方法
第一節 研究對象………………………………………………………………… 41
第二節 研究工具………………………………………………………………… 47
第三節 研究流程………………………………………………………………… 54
第四節 資料處理與分析………………………………………………………… 55

第肆章 研究結果與討論
第一節 「科學學習後設認知量表」之項目分析……………………………… 59
第二節 「科學學習後設認知量表」之效度分析……………………………… 63
第三節 「科學學習後設認知量表」之信度分析……………………………… 93
第四節 不同科學學習後設認知能力的學生在科學學習成就之表現………… 95

第伍章 研究結論與建議
第一節 研究結論………………………………………………………………… 97
第二節 研究建議………………………………………………………………… 99

參考文獻
一、中文部分………………………………………………………………………102
二、英文部分………………………………………………………………………106

附錄一 量表施測須知及紀錄……………………………………………………114
附錄二 「科學學習後設認知量表」正式問卷…………………………………116


圖目錄
圖3-2-1研究架構圖…………………………………………………………………49
圖3-2-2自然科試題鑑別度和通過率之分布圖……………………………………53
圖3-3-1研究流程圖…………………………………………………………………54
圖4-2-1標準化一階因素測量模式之假設模型徑路圖……………………………77
圖4-2-2標準化二階因素測量模式之假設模型徑路圖……………………………79


表目錄
表3-1-1預試樣本人數分配表………………………………………………………42
表3-1-2正式樣本人數分配表………………………………………………………43
表3-1-3重測信度樣本人數分配表…………………………………………………45
表3-1-4後設認知與科學學習成就差異之國中生樣本人數分配表………………45
表3-1-5後設認知與科學學習成就差異之高中生樣本人數分配表………………46
表3-2-1自然科測驗各題答對率及鑑別指數表……………………………………51
表3-2-2自然科測驗答對率及鑑別指數描述性統計表……………………………53
表4-1-1預試量表之項目分析結果總表……………………………………………61
表4-2-1科學學習後設認知量表之題目修正前後對照表…………………………63
表4-2-2 KMO與Bartlett檢定表……………………………………………………70
表4-2-3因素間之相關矩陣…………………………………………………………71
表4-2-4採用主軸法，選取斜交轉軸法之探索性因素分析結果…………………72
表4-2-5採用主軸法，選取直交轉軸法之探索性因素分析結果…………………73
表4-2-6 「科學學習後設認知量表」二階驗證性因素分析之參數估計表………81
表4-2-7科學學習後設認知五成份模式之整體適配度各項指標考驗結果………89
表4-2-8各測量變項之因素負荷量及信效度檢驗結果……………………………90
表4-2-9 「科學學習後設認知量表」之區辨效度…………………………………92
表4-3-1 「科學學習後設認知量表」之內部一致性信度 …………………………93
表4-3-2 「科學學習後設認知量表」之重測信度…………………………………94
表4-4-1國三學生科學學習後設認知高、低分組之科學學習成就差異性分析…95
表4-4-2高三學生科學學習後設認知高、低分組之科學學習成就差異性分析…96

一、中文部分
大學入學考試中心（2011）。100學年度學科能力測驗統計圖表。線上檢索日期：2011年6月25日。網址http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/SatStat/100SATStat/100SATStatIndex.htm
王文科（1993）。教育研究法（二版）。台北：五南。
王子華、王國華、王麗龍、黃世傑（2002）。大學普通生物學後設認知量表的發展。測驗統計年刊，10，75–100。
王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧（2008）。教育測驗與評量－教室學習觀點。台北：五南。
王美蓉（2006）。網路後設認知閱讀策略訓練對南台灣高中生英語閱讀成效及網路學習認知之研究。國立高雄師範大學英語學系博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
牟宗燦（2010，11月）。大考中心與大學考招合作的新契機。大學入學考試中心選才電子報，195（11），1–8。
汪榮才（1990）。國小六年級資優生與普通生在數學解題中之後設認知行為。台南師院初等教育學報，3，199–243。
吳明隆（2007）。結構方程模式－AMOS的操作與應用。台北：五南。
吳明隆（2009）。SPSS操作與應用－問卷統計分析實務（二版）。台北：五南。
吳明隆、張毓仁（2010）。結構方程模式－實務應用祕笈。台北：五南。
吳青蓉、張景媛（2003）。國中生英語學習歷程模式之驗證。教育心理學報，35（2），121–140。
吳青蓉（2004）。在溝通脈絡下的結構取向教學對國中生英語學習表現影響之研究。教育心理學報，35（3），269–294。
林志中（1999）。後設認知策略對資優兒童科學解決能力影響之研究。師大學報：科學教育類，44（1&2），61–81。
林清山、張景媛（1993）。國中生後設認知、動機信念與數學解題策略之關係研究。教育心理學報，26，53–74。
林頌恩（1997）。專家與生手的解題後設認知研究。科學與教育學報，1，1–18。
邱皓政（2010）。量化研究與統計分析。台北：五南。
凃金堂（1995）。國小學生後設認知、數學焦慮與數學解題表現之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
胡永崇（1995）。後設認知策略教學對國小閱讀障礙學童閱讀成效之理解。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文，未出版，彰化市。
柯志恩（2004）。後設認知導向之創造思考模式在教學之應用。課程與教學季刊，7（1），15–30。
教育部（2003）。「國中基本學力測驗、技專統一入學測驗、大學學科能力測驗、指定科目考試、全國各研究所考試等考試相關問題檢討與規劃」專案報告。線上檢索日期：2011年1月10日。網址：http://www.edu.tw/content.aspx?site_content_sn=1431
教育部（2007）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要－自然與生活科技學習領域。線上檢索日期：2011年1月10日。網址：http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php
陳密桃（1990a）。後設認知的評估方法。教育文粹，20，196–209。
陳密桃（1990b）。國民中小學童的後設認知及其與閱讀理解之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳正昌、陳新豐、程炳林、劉子健（2007）。多變量分析方法－統計軟體應用。台北：五南。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。
陳李綢（1991）。思考模式、學術經驗與認知策略訓練對大學生後設認知與智力的影響。教育心理學報，24，67–90。
陳李綢（1992）。國小男女後設認知能力與數學作業表現的關係研究。教育心理學報，25，97–109。
郭秀緞（2006）。以認知負荷理論探討數學問題設計與後設認知策略教學對國小高年級學生數學解題之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
郭靜姿（1994）。不同閱讀能力學生成敗歸因方式、策略運用與後設認知能力之比較。師大學報，39，284–325。
郭靜芳（1997）。國小資優生後設認知與推理思考能力相關之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市。
曾望超（2004）。國小教師創意教學與學生後設認知能力、創造力及問題解決能力之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系課程與教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
張春興（1988）。知之歷程與教之歷程：認知心理學的發展及其在教育上的應用。教育心理學報，21，17–38。
張新仁（1992）。國中地理學習之後設認知研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
張景媛（1990）。不同後設認知能力的大學生在學業成績與認知適應上的差異。測驗年刊，37，143–162。
張昇鵬（2003）。資賦優異學生及普通學生後設認知能力與創造思考能力之比較研究。特殊教育學報，17，95–120。
張昇鵬（2004）。資賦優異學生與普通學生後設認知能力與批判思考能力之比較研究。特殊教育學報，20，57–102。
張淑娟（1997）。高一學生後設認知能力與數學解題能力關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
張瑛真（2007）。青少年後設認知量表編製之研究。國立台東大學教育學系碩士論文。未出版，台東市。
楊宗仁（1990）。國中生地理科學習之研究－後設認知取向。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
楊芷芳（1994）。國小不同後設認知能力兒童的閱讀理解能力與閱讀理解策略之研究。國立台中師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
楊明家（1997）。國小六年級不同解題能力學生在數學解題歷程後設認知行為之比較研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東市。
蔡涵婷（2007）。台中地區國三學生數學解題與後設認知之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學數學系教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
謝旭洲（2008）。社會統計與資料分析。台北：威仕曼文化。
藍雅慧、張景媛（2004）。知情意整合的國中生數學學習歷程模式之建構。教育心理學報，35（3），201–220。


二、英文部分
Afflerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. Volume III (pp. 163–179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press: Author.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298–320.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
Baird, J.R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry, and conceptual change. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 183–200). London: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prent-Hall.
Blank, L.M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding, Science Education, 84, 486–506.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. Hillsdale. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Borkowski, J. G., Estrada, T. M., Milstead, M., & Hale, C. A. (1989). General-solving skills: Relation between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 57–70.
Borkowski, J. G., Day, J. D., Saenz, D., Dietmeyer, D., Estrada, T. M., & Groteluschen, D. (1992). Expanding the boundaries of cognitive interventions. In Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective. New York: Spring–Verlag.
Byrnes, J. P. (1996). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional approach to evaluating Learning Potential (pp.82–114). New York: Guilford.
Chen, L.-J., Ho, R.-G., & Yen, Y.-C. (2010). Marking Strategies in Metacognition-Evaluated Computer-Based Testing. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (1), 246–259.
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22, 14–22.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Development and instructional analysis of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2),131–142.
Curwen, M. S., Miller, R. G., White-Smith, K. A., & Calfee, R. C. (2010). Increasing teachers’ metacognition students’ higher learning during content area literacy instruction: findings from the read-write cycle project. Issues in Teacher Education, 19, 127–151.
Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S.-W., Lam, T.-F., & Downing, W.-K. (2009). Problem-based learning and the development of metacognition. High Educ, 57, 609–621.
Flavell, J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Rensnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: John Wiley.
Flavell, J.H., Speer, J. R., Green, F. L., & August, D. L. (1981). The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(5), 1–65.
Flavell, J. H. , Friedrichs, A.G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental Changes in memorization process. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324–340.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.
Gilbert, J.K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J.K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 9–27), Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A Global Perspective. Upper Sadder River, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Hutchinson, N. L. (1992). The challenge of compontial analysis: Cognitive and meta-cognitive instruction in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 249-257.
Jacobs, N. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 225–278.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111–117.
Larson, C. B. (2009). Metacognition: New research developments. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Lee, C. B., Teo, T., & Bergin, D. (2009). Children's use of metacognition in solving everyday problems: an initial study from an Asian context. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(3), 89–102.
Legg, A. M., & Locker, L. (2009). Math Performance and Its Relationship to Math Anxiety and Metacognition. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 471–486.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Montague, M., Bos, C.S., & Doucette, M. (1991). Affective, cognitive, and metacognitive attributes of eight-grade mathematical problem solvers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 145–151.
National Research Council. (1996). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, (7th Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, (3th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
O’Neil, H., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89, 234–245.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55(6), 2083–2093.
Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19–33.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated leaning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Schraw, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition: implications of the buros symposium. In G. Schraw, & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition, (pp. 297–322). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Schraw, G., & Impara, J.C. (Eds.). (2000). Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J., & Hartley, K.D. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139.
Shamir, A., & Mevarech, Z. R., & Gida, C. (2009). The assessment of meta-cognition in different contexts individualized vs. peer assisted learning. Metacognition Learning , 4, 47–61.
Spada, M. M., Hiou, K., & Nikcevic, A.V. (2006). Metacognitions, emotions, and
procrastination. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarter, 20(3), 319–326.
Spada, M. M., Georgiou, G. A., & Wells, A. (2010). The relationship among metacognitions, attentional control, and state anxiety. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 39(1), 64–71.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of
children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51–79.
Sungur, S. (2007). Contribution of motivational beliefs and metacognition to students' performance under consequential and nonconsequential test conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(2), 127-142.
Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students' metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 45–62.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.
Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C.J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 222–259.
Thomas, G. (2003). Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for investigating the metacognitive orientations of science classroom learning environments: The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale–Science (MOLES–S). Learning Environment Research, 6, 175–197.
Thomas, G., Anderson, D., & Nashon ,S. (2008). Development of an Instrument Designed to Investigate Elements of Science Students' Metacognition, Self-Efficacy and Learning Processes: The SEMLI–S. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1701–1724.
Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Groen, M. G. M. (1993). Thinking aloud: Does it affect regulatory processes in learning. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 18, 322–330.
Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.
Veenman, M. V. J., Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 30–43.
Wellman, H. (1985). The origins of metacognition. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. MacKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 1–31). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Wells, A., & Gartwright-Hatton, S. (2004). A short form of the meta-cognitions questionnaire: Properties of the MCQ–30. Behavior Therapy, 42, 385–396.
Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI user’s manual. Clearwater, Florida: H & H Publishing Inc.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. (2002). LASSI user’s manual (2nd ed.). Clearwater, Florida: H & H Publishing Inc.
Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster C.,Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition Learning , 4, 63–85.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91.
Yilmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Topcu, M. S. (2010). Investigating the relationships among elementary school students epistemological beliefs, metacognition, and constructivist science learning environment. J Sci Teacher Educ, 21, 255–273.
Zabrucky, K. M., & Agler L. L. (2009). Metacognition in Taiwan: Students’ calibration of comprehension and performance. International Journal of Psychology, 44(4), 305–312.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.