Self-regulated learning and scientific reading in pre-service teachers. An exploratory study

Design of the research

According to Ato et al. (2013), this research proposes a non-experimental study using a selective descriptive strategy, in this particular case recording the behaviour of the sample studied. In terms of the methodological component, the research is descriptive in that it seeks to detail specific characteristics of the target population through the estimation of sample parameters (Ato et al., 2013). As the variables were measured at a single point in time and in a group of participants with common characteristics (degree studied and university), but it is unknown whether the study variables are correlated, the design is cross-sectional (Ato et al., 2013; Spector, 2019).

Participants

The sample consisted of 1,253 students from a Spanish public university enrolled in a Bachelor's degree in Early Infant Education (32.7%) and a Bachelor’s degree in Primary Education (67.3%). Participation in research represents 34.12% of the total number of students in these programmes at the sampled university. The Bachelor's degree in Primary Education has more than twice as many groups as the Bachelor’s degree in Infant Education and 50% more enrolments. The mean age of the participants is 20.78 years (range 18-49 years; SD = 3.257). Men accounted for 24.3% of those surveyed, while 74.9% said they were women. These data correspond to the gender ratio of the population in these grades, where 71.45% are female and 28.54% are male. Although the university does not provide information on other gender identifications, the survey includes options such as 'prefer not to answer' and 'other gender', with a low percentage of responses received that were excluded from further analysis due to lack of representativeness.

Almost 60% of the sample entered university with a bachelor's degree in social sciences or humanities, and less than 1% of the prospective teachers had a previous university degree (table 1).

Procedure

In this study, the main variables were the number of articles read in the previous semester and the self-regulation learning skills of education students. Data collection was deliberately conducted in the second semester to ensure that first year students would provide data on their university reading. Despite the fact that final year students complete the final year dissertation, the faculties surveyed schedule this subject in the second semester, thus avoiding a distortion of the scientific reading data related to the completion of the theoretical framework of the final year dissertation.

Participants were selected by convenience sampling during compulsory classes in the first two weeks of the second semester. Consent was obtained from the responsible teacher to use 20 minutes of the session, and equipment with internet access was provided to ensure equal access to participation. Ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection under reference CEIS-631156-N6M6, and participants gave informed consent. The online survey was securely stored on university servers, and those who chose not to participate remained in the classroom without written consent.

Instrument

An electronic questionnaire (appendix A) was designed to collect data using internet-connected devices. The tool began by emphasising that participation was voluntary and anonymous, and asked again for permission to start the survey. Socio-demographic data were collected, including gender, level of education (early childhood or primary), years since first enrolling in the level (hereinafter “year”), and previous studies that allowed access to university.

Participants were then asked to specify the number of scientific articles they had read in the previous four months, choosing from six options: none, one or two, three or four, five to seven, eight to ten and more than ten articles. This closed choice was based on previous literature (Alcocer-Vázquez & Zapata-González, 2018, Larrañaga-Rubio & Yubero, 2005). In addition, scientific reading may be considered irrelevant by respondents, resulting in inaccurate responses to an open-ended question (Schwarz et al., 2008). The decision to include six response options is intended to avoid central tendency response bias (Baka et al., 2012).

Finally, the questionnaire included Hernández-Barrios and Camargo-Uribe’s (2017) Spanish adaptation for university students of the Self-Regulation Strategy Inventory−Self-Report (SRSI-SR) ) data-toggle="popover" data-trigger="hover" data-reff="#ref11-421" title="Cleary, 2006" class="type-bibr">Cleary, 2006). The adapted SRSI-SR is a valid measure for assessing students' self-regulation learning strategies, which has already been used in the context of higher education (Hernández-Barrios & Camargo-Uribe, 2017). The tool (appendix A), with an adaptive subscale with three factors (Factor II: Organisation of the environment; Factor III: Information seeking; Factor IV: Task organisation) and a maladaptive subscale with only one factor (Factor I: Inadequate regulation habits), assesses self-regulation strategies for learning. The 18 items are answered on a Likert-type frequency scale (never, rarely, almost always, always). The result of the inventory can be used as an indicator of the general learning self-regulation ability of education students with good reliability indices (FI: inappropriate regulation habits [ $\alpha$ = .725]; FII: organisation of the environment [ $\alpha$ = .816]; FIII: information seeking [ $\alpha$ = .791]; FIV: task organisation [ $\alpha$ = .775]; total scale Cronbach’s alpha of .81) (Hernández-Barrios & Camargo-Uribe, 2017).

Data analysis

Non-parametric tests for data analysis were performed using the SPSS statistical package (v.29).

SRL scores were calculated on the SRSI-SR scale, adapted from Hernández-Barrios and Camargo-Uribe (2017). A scale of zero to ten points was established for both the total scale score and for the maladaptive (FI) and adaptive (FII, FIII and FIV) subscales in order to conduct a descriptive exploration of the variable.

Average SRL scores were compared according to groups defined by socio-demographic variables. The variables gender (male and female values) and grade (infant & primary education values) were examined using the Mann-Whitney test. The data for the variable year (values: first, second, third and fourth) were analysed using the Kruskall-Wallis test.

As with the previous variable, the range of scientific articles was examined descriptively using contingency tables with the percentages observed for each range of articles read per categorical demographic variable (gender, year and class). The hypothesis of independence of the variables was then tested using Pearson’s ${\chi }^2$ test. The comparison of the range of articles read with the socio-demographic variables was made using the same statistical tests described for the comparison with SRL.

Finally, possible differences in SRL scale scores were examined as a function of the range of scientific articles read by the participants. As this was a comparison of six independent groups (each level of the variable ‘range of articles read’), Kruskall-Wallis one-factor ANOVA was used.

To assess the effect size in analyses showing significant differences involving a dichotomous categorical variable that creates two independent groups (gender, grade), the A statistics proposed by Vargha et al. was used. (2000). This approach makes it possible to estimate the magnitude of the effect without assuming normal distributions or equality of variances and is characterised by its intuitive interpretation: the closer it is to 1, the greater the effect of the variable under consideration. It should be noted that this A statistic corresponds to the area under the COR curve provided in the SPSS statistical package ) data-toggle="popover" data-trigger="hover" data-reff="#ref26-421" title="Pardo & San-Martín, 2015" class="type-bibr">Pardo & San-Martín, 2015). To use this statistic when analyses are significant but involve non-dichotomous categorical variables, post-hoc pairwise comparison tests were used to create the dichotomy with that pair.

A correlation test between the variable self-regulation of learning and scientific reading is also included.

Self-regulated learning (SRL)

Table 2 shows the means for the total sample of Bachelor of Teacher Education students for the three possible scores offered by the adapted SRSI-SR scale.

Table 3 shows the descriptive analysis of the socio-demographic variables in relation to the score of each factor and subscale in SRL according to the adapted SRSI-SR instrument.

Significant group differences were found for the gender variable for all scores provided by the adapted SRSI-SR scale. All differences have moderate effect sizes ranging from A = .548 to A = .665 (table 4).

When the sample was examined for the course variable (table 5), a significant difference was only found for the FII (p = .014). The pairwise comparison shows that this difference is between the first year group and the fourth year group (p = .029) and between the fourth year group and the second year group (p = .011). Both differences show a moderate effect size with values of .586 and .592 for the A statistics (table 6).

Scientific reading in teacher education students

The response percentages found for the variable range of articles read by the sample of prospective teachers were obtained (figure 1).

Figure 1Percentage response to a variable range of articles read in the last four months 

The comparison of the groups generated from the responses to the socio-demographic variables (table 7) does not show significant differences in science reading by grade studied (early childhood vs. primary education) but does show significant differences by gender (p = .015), with a moderate effect size (A = .545) in favour of females. Similarly, the Kruskal-Wallis analysis revealed significant differences in reading range according to the grade studied (p < .001). Post-hoc pairwise tests show differences between first year students and their peers in the next year (p = .000) and between second year students and third year students (p = .000). Both differences have a moderate effect size (table 8).

Self-regulated learning in relation to the range of articles read

The analysis of the means of the individual subscales of the SRSI-SR shows significant differences in all of them (table 9).

The subsequent pairwise comparison shows which reading ranges on each scale of the adapted SRSI-SR instrument show significant differences (table 10).

Self-regulated learning (SRL)

In the context of the first proposed objective, the assessment of SRL in Infant or Primary Education teacher students, the scores on the adapted SRSI-SR instrument range from six to eight on a scale of zero to ten, reflecting medium to high scores. The maladaptive subscale shows lower scores that do not reach the pass mark. The total score is slightly lower than the previous validation by Hernández-Barrios and Camargo-Uribe (2017), with an average of 4.5 compared to 5.4 previously recorded. However, in the organisation of the environment factor (FII), the current study shows an average of 8.05, exceeding the 6.9 of Hernández-Barrios and Camargo-Uribe (2017). Repeat study, a factor present in the previous study, was not considered, which may explain some of the differences found in the sample.

The trainee teachers surveyed show excellent performance on the adaptive subscale and good environmental and task organisation strategies. However, their inadequate habits for self-regulation of learning result in a lower overall SRL score than described by the data of Hernández-Barrios and Camargo-Uribe (2017). Students surveyed need to improve their understanding of complex topics, ask their teachers when they don't understand something and avoid distractions while studying to improve their overall SRL scores.

On all SRL scores with the SRSI-SR scale, female students significantly outperform their male peers. The findings are consistent with previous research highlighting the superior ability of female student teachers to manage their own learning (Baldan-Babayigit & Guven, 2020; Larruzea-Urkixo & Cardeñoso-Ramírez, 2020). At the overall SRL level, similar to previous research (Larruzea-Urkixo & Cardeñoso-Ramírez, 2020), there are no differences between infant and primary education, although in detail the sample studied shows a significant difference in the organisation of the task, with infant students performing slightly better than primary students.

Differences in self-regulation of learning between students in different years of the Bachelor of Education programme are minimal in this study. Fourth year students show significantly less organisation of the learning environment than first and second year students. These findings contradict previous literature suggesting better self-regulated learning scores for students in their final years of undergraduate study (Baldan-Babayigit & Guven, 2020; Severini et al., 2020). This discrepancy could be due to differences in the sample sizes of the courses analysed, with final year students accounting for the smallest proportion of participants.

Scientific reading in teacher education students

The second objective was to examine the readership profile of university students in scientific publications. Both men and women tend to have read one or two articles. In terms of studies, students of Infant Education teacher are more likely to have read three or four articles, while primary students are more likely to have read one or two. Regarding Masters’ students, only the first year students mainly choose the option ‘one or two items’, while in the following three years the preference shifts to three or four items.

There are no differences in science reading between infant and primary education teacher students. However, there are significant gender differences in student teachers, with a moderate effect in favour of women. According to previous literature, university students have limited time to read, which makes it difficult to consolidate a reading habit. They prefer to read literary or self-help texts rather than scientific texts related to their education. In this sense, their contact with informative texts is reduced to those that are compulsory and essential to pass the subjects in the curriculum, using the reading of informative texts as an instrument (Alcocer-Vázquez & Zapata-González, 2021; García-Gutiérrez et al., 2019; Granado & Puig, 2014). A study conducted at the University of Delhi (India) found that social science students tend to read for academic purposes, compared to technology students who seek to acquire more knowledge (Khatri, 2021).

Another important finding of this study is that students read less during the first four months of the first year of these programmes, with most students choosing not to read any articles at all. This finding is consistent with the underdeveloped reading habit described by Cardona-Puello et al. (2018) among incoming students in various Colombian university programmes. The data also show that - comparatively - more reading takes place in the second year than in the first and third year, so it cannot be said that there is an increase in the scholarly reading profile of prospective teachers towards the end of their initial training.

Self-regulated learning in relation to scientific reading in trainee teachers

The final research objective was to investigate whether there were differences in self-regulated learning according to the range of scientific articles read over a four-month period. The data confirm significant differences on all scales of the adapted SRSI-SR questionnaire. The mean scores for the SRL, the Adaptive Scale, and the information search and organisation of the activity factors have worse mean scores in the 'no articles' range compared to all other options except ‘one or two articles’ read per semester. The largest effect is found when comparing those who read no articles with those who read more than ten. In general, the ability to self-regulate learning improves with increased scientific reading. There are no significant differences between those who read no articles and those who read one or two, with improvements found from three articles per semester.

Although there are mixed results in the literature on the relationship between SRL and academic performance (García-Pérez et al., 2021; Larrueza-Urkixo & Cardeñoso-Ramírez, 2020), the data from this study confirm that reading scientific articles can explain the improvement in SRL scores of the sample of prospective teachers analysed. In fact, the lack of academic reading habits in the data collected correlates with a low level of SRL skill development, which negatively affects the ability to engage in critical reading and thus the development of critical thinking in university students.

Encouraging the practice of academic reading has been suggested to improve the SEL performance of future teachers (Afdal et al., 2022; García-Gutiérrez et al., 2019), as reading scientific articles is important for academic success and the ability to read these types of texts improves with practice and continued exposure (Hubbard & Dunbar, 2017).