




































AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

ICT and EFL Students’ Self-Regulation Mastery:  

Educational Meat or Poison? 
 

Ali Rahimi 

Bangkok University, Thailand 
rahimijah@yahoo.com 

Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli
 

Yasouj University, Iran 
raskari90@gmail.com 

 

 

Abstract  

This study used a pretest–posttest control group design to find out if application of ICTs including 

internet, e-mail, blogs, Skype, and PowerPoint could develop Iranian English students’ self-regulated 

learning. To this end, sixty (N=60) English students within the experimental and control groups took 

part in the study. While internet, e-mail, blogs, Skype, and PowerPoint were used as the main medium 

of instruction in the experimental group, in the control group the paper-based traditional method was 

used. A survey adapted from Lai and Gu (2011) was used to gather the data. The results of the study 

indicated a significant difference between the control and experimental groups in regard with their self-

regulated learning. That is to say, the experimental group taught through ICT tools acquired higher 

levels of self-regulation as compared with the control group instructed through the traditional teaching 

method. 

 

Keywords: ICT, self-regulation, EFL 

 

 

Introduction  

Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) has become a crucially prominent concept in education studies in 

recent years (Ellis & Folley, 2011).  According to Zimmerman and Schunk (2001), SLR involves self-

generated thoughts, feeling, and actions which are monitored and carried out by students toward 

attainment of their learning goals. In the same vein, Zimmerman (2001) argued that self-regulation 

encompasses three phases including forethought, performance, and evaluation that come into play 

frequently during learning process. In fact, SLR is associated with a good amount of skills and 

strategies encompassing, inter alia, goal setting, environment structuring, self-monitoring, help 

seeking, and task strategies (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001) which allow learners to reflect on their 

learning and assess their progress and consequently make the most of their learning activity. 

According to Boekaerts, Pintrich, and Zeidner (2000, p.751), “self-regulation involves  

cognitive,  affective, motivational  and  behavioral components that provide the individual 

with the capacity to adjust his or her actions and  goals to achieve the desired  results in light 

of changing environmental conditions”. These SLR components are developed as a result of 

the reciprocal interaction of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors (Schunk, 1989; 

Zimmerman, 1994). It is transparent that the active role of learner is at the heart of this 

understanding of learning (Fischer & Mandl, 2002). 

 

Teachers can support learners to develop self-regulated learning using different elements of 

instruction. The  literature showed the  prominence of  providing  learning environments that 

stimulate reflection and revision (Dettori & Giannetti, 2005), offer learners opportunities to monitor 

the essential dimensions of learning (Rosario, Nuñez Perez, & González-Pienda, 2004), and provide 

mailto:rahimijah@yahoo.com
mailto:raskari90@gmail.com


AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

opportunities to get and give feedback (Karamarsky & Zeichner, 2001). Hence, it is postulated that 

learning environments in which learners are involved and engaged play a pivotal role in their self-

regulated learning. Friedrich and Mandl (1997) maintained that persons, institutions, media in 

conjunction with methods and teaching practices can be considered as components of learning 

environments that if employed appropriately can lead to the learners becoming self-regulated.  

 

Within the realm of English language teaching, the shift in focus from learning of grammatical and 

lexical structures to the use of language to communicate for real purposes together with the explosive 

growth of Information Communication Technology (ICT) has brought about dramatic changes in 

teaching techniques and procedures. This trend has provided language learners with opportunities for 

continuous learning and effective use of language to communicate with people from different parts of 

the globe (Yuvienco & Huang, 2005). ICT tools are argued to be a learning tool in education in 

general (Md Yunus, 2007) and a great educational potential for language learning in particular 

(Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009; Zhao & Lai, 2007). According to Andrews (2000), ICT refers to 

multimedia technologies encompassing computer software, CD-ROM, the internet, mobile phone, 

television, film, e-mail, chat, blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.   

 

The role of technology in fostering and nurturing autonomy has been highlighted over the recent 

years. Watts and Lloyd (2001) found that in technology-embedded learning environments, language 

learners become self-organized and self-directive resulting in developing self-regulated learning. 

Healey (2002) held that self-regulated learning fostered and bolstered by means of ICT can 

considerably benefit language learners in that it can make them aware of their contribution to the 

teaching-learning process and further persuade them to take an active role in their own learning. 

Investigating the effects of adopting a technology-enhanced language learning framework on the 

students’ perceptions of their EFL classroom environment, Rahimi, Ebrahimi, and Eskandari (2013) 

found that a technology-enhanced language learning environment proved to be more efficient, learner-

centered and facilitative of learning. 

 

As noted above, learning environments in which learners are engaged, in large measure, influence the 

extent the learners need to employ self-regulated behaviors. If a learning environment is highly 

structured and controlled by the teacher, the learners need not be self-regulated in order to be 

successful in that learning environment. In contrast, the environment which engages the learners in 

employing helpful self-regulated behaviors such as planning, monitoring, and strategy use on their 

own is far more likely to develop SLR (Bernacki, Aguilar, & Byrnes, 2011). Given that using and 

working through technology-embedded learning environment for the purpose of successful language 

learning requires a host of strategies including, but not limited to, cognitive and metacognitive 

processes such as task analysis,  goal setting,  strategic planning, it is reasonable to expect that there 

will be a linkage between SLR and the learning environments in which ICT tools are incorporated. 

Based upon such reflections,  this study was an attempt to investigate if application of ICTs including 

internet, e-mail, blogs, Skype, and PowerPoint could develop Iranian English students’ self-regulated 

learning. In this study, the idea of self-regulated learning is a process in which the language learners 

used the ICTs for goal commitment regulation, metacognitive regulation, resource regulation, cultural 

learning regulation, social regulation and affection regulation. In other words, the learners used the 

ICTs as important sources and tools to reach their goal in learning the language more quickly and 

efficiently; to monitor and plan learning tasks; to seek and get access to a wide range of learning 

resources; to understand, appreciate, and interact with the target culture better; to connect with peer 

learners and native speakers of the language all over the world; to make the task of language learning 

more attractive and free of anxiety.  



AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

 

In effect, this study sought to answer the following question: 

Does incorporation of different forms of ICTs (including internet, e-mail, blogs, Skype, and 

PowerPoint) develop self-regulated learning of EFL learners? 

 

 

Method 

Participants  

Since it fell outside the realm of possibility to randomly select the participants, a total of sixty (n=60) 

Iranian female learners from two intact English conversation classes within the experimental and 

control groups were chosen to participate in the study. All the learners were in the age range of 16–21 

and were studying English at a language school.  

 

Instrument  

A survey adapted from Lai and Gu (2011) was used to gather the data. Lai and Gu drawing on socio-

cognitive models of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000, 2004; Zimmerman, 2000) as well as the 

available literature on contributions of technology to language learning (Ducate & Arnold, 2006; 

Zhao & Lai, 2007) developed this survey to explore language learners’ self-initiated use of technology 

to regulate the various aspects of their language learning experience. The survey consisted of 28 

Likert-items that measure the following six factors: (1) Goal Commitment Regulation, (2) Affective 

Regulation, (3) Social Connection Regulation, (4) Resource Regulation, (5) Metacognitive 

Regulation, and (6) Culture Learning Regulation. The participants were asked to indicate the degree 

to which they agreed with each of the statements using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 

(strongly agree).  

 

Procedure  

The participants took the pretest at the beginning of the semester. The treatment sessions lasted over 

10 weeks (two 90- minute sessions per week). The experimental e-learning class was provided with 

the ICT support method by a trained teacher and the control group with the paper-based traditional 

method on the same teaching materials. The teaching material used for the both groups was Four 

Corners (2) authored by Jack C. Richards and David Bohlke (2011). 

 

In the control group, the course was taught with the paper-based traditional method without the 

involvement of technology. The traditional method of teaching, here, refers to the method that 

incorporated the following main features: (1) lectures on teaching grammar and other aspects of 

language by the teacher, (2) listening to tape and repeat after the teacher, (3) nearly all 

communications are initiated by the teacher in the form of teacher-learner direction, and (4) 

assignments are marked and returned by the teacher without any further feedback.  

 

As for the experimental e-learning class, the learners were taught with incorporation of the relevant 

ICT instructional package including internet, e-mail, blogs, Skype, and PowerPoint. The teacher 

presented the teaching materials through PowerPoint and at times the participants delivered a lecture 

relevant to their course through PowerPoint. The participants had to submit their written assignments, 

as attachments, via email to the teacher to be marked and returned. Via email, the teacher sent the 

participants feedback, assignments, and relevant websites to be visited and reviewed for the next 

sessions. The participants were invited to discuss their language problems via email and the teacher 

provided email consultation on such problems. Another ICT tool that was employed in the 

experimental class was text or audio format chatting. Chat was included as part of the participants’ 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_2/189-0607509-9062338?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=David%20Bohlke&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank


AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

course in that they had to set up a Skype account and engage in either text or audio chat on topics the 

teacher emailed them in advance. Chat was in the form of teacher-learners or learners-learners with 

the teacher playing the role of a moderator. The last ICT tool was a blog, designed by the teacher, 

where the participants were invited to post news and comments, homework, links, what they are 

learning, and how they have learnt something. After the treatment session, the posttest was 

administered to the participants in both classes.  

 

Results and Discussion 

An Independent Sample t-test was used to determine whether there were significant inter-group 

differences. The analysis of the self-regulated learning scores (pretest) of the participants in the 

experimental and control groups indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in 

their mean scores on any of the self-regulated learning measures (Table 1). 

 

Table 1.  Independent Samples Test for self-regulated learning measures in the pretest 

 Experimental Control   

 (Pretest) (N=30) (Pretest) (N=30)   

  Mean S. D. Mean S. D. t p 

Goal Commitment Regulation  8.50 1.98 8.33 2.11 .57 .565 

Affective Regulation  10 1.25 9.53 1.11 .86 .388 

Social Connection Regulation  12.80 1.54 13 1.41 .79 .432 

Resource Regulation  10.70 1.11 11.03 2.03 1.25 .214 

Metacognitive Regulation  14.86 1.54 15.20 2.08 1.05 .294 

Culture Learning Regulation  6.90 1.21 7.16 1.39 .52 .602 

 

However, the results of posttest in table 2 revealed that the experimental group differed statistically 

and significantly from the control group on all the self-regulated learning measures. That is to say, 

compared with the participants in the control group at the posttest, the participants in the experimental 

group achieved statistically (P<0.05) higher mean scores on all self-regulated learning measures. 

  
Table 2. Independent Samples Test for self-regulated learning measures in the posttest 

 Experimental Control   

 (Posttest) (N=30) (Posttest) (N=30)   

 Mean S. D. Mean S. D. t p 

Goal Commitment Regulation  13.60 2.35 9.04 1.73 17.48 .000
* 

Affective Regulation  18.40 2.87 9.12 2.54 29.62 .000
* 

Social Connection Regulation  25.43 1.84 12.02 3.01 28.78 .000
* 

Resource Regulation  20.47 2.17 13.06 2.62 19.58 .000
* 

Metacognitive Regulation  26.86 2.37 12.74 2.71 31.53 .000
* 

Culture Learning Regulation  13.58 1.56 7.93 1.94 18.23 .000
* 

* p < .05 

 



AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

 

 

ICT contributed to goal commitment regulation  

As Zimmerman (2001) pointed out, the first phase in the process of self-regulated learning is 

“forethought” that involves the setting of goals and strategic planning. Goal setting deals with 

deciding upon specific outcomes of learning and strategic planning refers to purposive processes and 

actions the learners take to achieve their goal. 

 

As shown in Table 2, the mean score of the experimental group in goal commitment regulation 

(M=13.60, S.D. = 2.35) was significantly higher than that of the control group (M=9.04, S.D. = 1.73). 

Compared with the learners in the control group, the learners in the experimental group are assumed 

to construct their own meanings and goals from the resources and information available through 

different forms of the ICTs. As such, having access to language-related resources and tools available 

through ICTs, the experimental group could select and process materials congruent with their 

individual preferences and goals at any time and from any places. The results demonstrated that ICTs 

might help the learners to sustain their interest in achieving their language learning goal as well as 

help them to persevere in achieving their goal more quickly and efficiently.  

 

It is taken for granted that planning and choosing appropriate activities and strategies are vital for the 

language learners to achieve their language learning goals. ICTs, as Proske, Narciss, and Körndle 

(2011) pointed out, due to their unique features in providing multiple sources of information in 

multiple representation formats as well as establishing multiple interaction possibilities give the 

learners the chance of choosing from a large pool of information only those pieces essential and 

appropriate for their language learning goals. Hence, it can be concluded that learning environment 

differs to the extent that engages learners in self-regulated behaviors. In fact by facilitating a learning 

environment in which lots of interaction possibilities and multiple sources of information are 

available, ICTs help learners to become self-directed and accordingly develop their self-regulated 

learning behaviors.    

  

ICT contributed to affective regulation 

It has been argued that cognitive engagement alone cannot ensure effective learning as it requires 

affective and motivational support (Zimmerman, 2000). In the realm of language learning, affect has 

been considered as a core component of individual differences having a close bearing on second 

language learning (Ellis, 1994). Correspondingly, Schumann (1997) claimed that affect is associated 

with the degree of motivation and values learners are exhibiting during language learning process. 

Affective regulation as an aspect of SRL is concerned with regulating emotions and enhancing the 

attraction of learning. The result of the study indicated that ICT had a contributing role in regulating 

affective and emotional aspects of language learning in the experimental group (M=18.40, S.D. 

=2.87). It appears that the ICTs employed in the current study by maintaining the learners' interest and 

enthusiasm in learning the language had the capacity to decrease the boredom and further increase the 

enjoyment and emotional engagement of the learners with the language learning process. Not only do 

the ICTs facilitate collaborative learning but also they can pave the way for personalized and 

independent learning which is often absent in traditional classroom settings  In fact crossing the 

traditional boundaries of classroom context and providing opportunities for independent and 

individualized learning, the ICTs enabled the learners to choose their learning materials and worked 

on them in their own time, at their own pace, and at their own level. When using the ICTs, the 

learners had greater freedom and control over their learning without constant direction from the 

teacher. As such the ICTs made the task of language learning a relaxing process and more attractive to 



AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

the learners helping them to maintain their interest and enthusiasm. In this case, the ICTs helped the 

learners not only to monitor and regulate their cognitive activities but also facilitated the regulation of 

their emotional and motivational processes.  

  

ICT contributed to social connection regulation 

In addition to the cognitive activities, as Zimmerman (2001) held, social interactions play a leading 

role in development of self-regulated learning. Not only is SRL viewed and considered as an 

individual construct but also a social process with emphasis on the role of social environment and 

interaction in the SRL development (Diaz, Neal, & Amaya-Williams, 1990; Zimmerman, 2000; 

Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001).   

 

 The results indicated that the ICTs employed in the study bolstered the experimental group's social 

connection within the language learning perspective (M=25.43, S.D. = 1.84). The study indicated that  

learners could benefit from electronically mediated social interactions. That is to say, the ICTs foster 

self-regulated learning via social interactions and collaboration involving the learners within the class 

and the learners from other contexts in the world. As a matter of fact, the ICTs located the learners in 

a system of activities and interaction whereby they can use materials and tools to interact with each 

other and their surroundings. 

 

By means of ICTs such as Skype, blogs and internet, the participants in the experimental group were 

likely to connect with other learners all over the world in sharing and collaborative activities. Thus, 

they could search for encouragement and support from other learners of the language. This way, they 

could increase the time they spend on learning the language.  

 

ICT contributed to resource regulation 

As is shown in Table 2, the experimental group's mean score of resource regulation (M=20.47, S.D. = 

2.17) was significantly higher than that of the control group (M=13.06, S.D. =2.62). That is to say, the 

ICTs expanded the learners' learning experience beyond the language classroom. It created and 

increased opportunities to learn and use the language. Through the ICTs, the learners could seek 

learning resources and opportunities to help achieve their language learning goals.  

 

This shows that the learners in the experimental group by employing the ICTs could search for 

learning resources and opportunities to help achieve their goals. They were more likely to look for 

attractive language learning materials and experiences which were appropriate for their own needs 

and preferences. Hence, it can be assumed that the way the ICTs were employed in the present study 

expanded the participants' learning resources as well as created opportunities to learn and use the 

language either inside or outside the language classroom.  

 

ICT contributed to metacognitive regulation 

 The second phase of SLR according to Zimmerman (2001) is called "performance" in which  learners 

engage in metacognitive regulation that involves strategies, such as self-instruction, selecting new 

information sources, summarizing, making inferences, hypothesizing, elaborating and attention 

focusing (Bernacki, Aguilar, & Byrnes, 2011). In the present study, metacognitive regulation of the 

experimental group (M=26.86, S.D. =2.37) was significantly higher than that of the control group 

(M=12.74, S.D. =2.71). This demonstrates that the ICTs enabled the participants to select and plan 

learning tasks; to use relevant and appropriate materials; and to adjust their language learning goals. 

In this case, the result is in line with those of Puustinen and Pulkkinen (2001) who argued that self-

regulated learning is the process of employing and adjusting cognitive strategies monitored by one's 



AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

metacognition. Thus, it can be concluded that the different forms of ICTs employed in the present 

study promoted self-regulation as manifested in a better metacognitive knowledge about goal 

commitment and resource regulation. 

 

ICT contributed to culture learning regulation 

The integration of cultural knowledge into language learning has been emphasized and also drawn 

considerable attention (Hall, 1997; Damen, 1987). Mitchell and Myles (2004) stated that “language 

and culture are not separate, but are acquired together, with each providing support for the 

development of the other” (p. 235). Culture learning is defined as "the process of acquiring the 

culture-specific and culture-general knowledge, skills, attitudes required for effective communication 

and interaction with individuals from other cultures. It is a dynamic, developmental, and ongoing 

process which engages the learner cognitively, behaviorally, and affectively." (Paige et al., 2003, p. 

177). In this study, culture learning regulation refers to the process in which the participants use 

different forms of ICTs in order to seek answers to the questions about the language and culture and 

to interact with the target culture so that they can understand and appreciate the target culture better. 

The results depicted in Table 2 demonstrated that ICT played a significant role in culture learning 

regulation of the participants in the experimental group (M=13.58, S.D. =1.56). It seemed that the 

ICTs enhanced the participants' ability to explore the target culture themselves. By providing 

opportunities for the participants in the experimental group to interact with other learners or speakers 

of the target language either asynchronously or synchronously, the different forms of ICTs like 

internet, online chat through Skype, and e-mail appeared to be effective in increasing the participants' 

cultural knowledge and led to their culture learning regulation. It appears that the ICTs made 

understanding and appreciating the target culture better by enabling the participants to enter into 

intercultural communication. In this case, the results of the study support the findings of other 

researchers (e.g., Chapelle, 2001; Dudeney & Hockly, 2008) who found that technology should be 

encouraged in classes to expand the learners' cultural awareness and also help them to fashion and 

refashion their social identity in the target culture. In the same vein, the results of other studies 

revealed that cultural knowledge can be successfully acquired with the help of technology (e.g., 

Herron et al., 2000; Hertel, 2003). Thus, the use of technology in fostering cultural learning regulation 

is important in the EFL context where the learners do not have adequate access to the target language 

and its culture outside the classroom 

 

Pooling together, the results demonstrated that the different forms of ICTs including internet, e-mail, 

blogs, Skype, and PowerPoint helped the participants in the experimental group to regulate different 

aspects of their language learning experience that resulted in effective instruction (e.g., Boekaerts & 

Corno, 2005; Butler, 2002; Schunk, & Zimmerman, 1998). The study also makes a case for 

supporting the findings of other researchers (e.g., Bartolomé & Steffens, 2006; Brüggen, 2005; 

Carneiro, 2006; Steffens, 2006; Trigano; 2006; Veermans, De Jong, & Van Joolingen, 2000) who 

emphasized the acquisition of self-regulation skills through Information and Communication 

Technologies. Futhermore, the results reinforce the results of studies that underlined the contribution 

of self-regulation to the learners' metacognitive, cognitive, behavioral, contextual, and motivational 

processes (Pintrich, 2000; Wolters, 2003; Zimmerman, 2000). 

 

Conclusion 

The major findings of this study suggested that the different forms of ICTs including internet, e-mail, 

blogs, Skype, and PowerPoint helped to significantly develop English learners’ self-regulated 

learning. The findings suggest that the participants benefited from the technology-enhanced learning 

environment which had a significant effect on their goal commitment regulation, affective regulation, 



AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

social connection regulation, resource regulation, metacognitive regulation, and culture learning 

regulation. That is to say, technology-enhanced learning environment is a constructive process in 

which learners regulate and monitor their learning not only cognitively but also motivationally, 

contextually, and behaviorally. Thus, the ICTs make SRL skills easier to achieve, in that they provide 

the learners with the chance of selecting, managing, and evaluating their own learning  different 

cultural and educational settings.  

 

 

References  

Andrews, R. (2000). Learning, literacy and ICT: what’s the connection?. English in Education, 34(3), 

3-18. 

Bartolomé, A. & Steffens, K. (2006). Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning 

environments. Paper presented at the VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de Informática Educativa, 

San Jose, Costa Rica, Nov. 13-15, 2006. 

Bernacki, M. L., Aguilar, A. C. & Byrnes, J. P. (2011). Self-regulated Learning and Technology-

Enhanced Learning Environments: An Opportunity-Propensity Analysis. In G. Dettori & D. 

Persico (Eds.), Fostering Self-Regulated Learning through ICT (1-26). New York: Information 

Science Reference. 

Boekaerts, M. & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and 

intervention. Applied psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199-231. 

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R. & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: 

Academic Press.   

Brüggen, N. (2005). The Use of ILIAS in Student Projects to Foster Self-Regulated Learning. In R. 

Carneiro, K. Steffens & J. Underwood (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced 

Learning Environments (119-125). Proceedings of the TACONET conference, Lisbon, Sept. 23., 

2005. Portuguese Catholic University. 

Butler, D. L. (2002).  Qualitative approaches to investigating self-regulated learning: contributions 

and challenges.  Educational Psychologist, 31(1), 59-63. 

Carneiro, R. (2006). Motivating school teachers to learn: can ICT add value?.  European Journal of 

Education, 41 (3/4), 415-435. 

Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: the fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA: 

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 

Dettori G. & Giannetti, T. (2005). An analysis of the SRL potential of a Technology Enhanced 

Learning Environment based on Story Maker 2. ITD CNR Report n. 01-05, Genova, Italy. 

Diaz, R.M., Neal, C.J. & Amaya-Williams, M. (1990). The Social Origins of Self-Regulation. In L. 

Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociocultural 

Psychology (127-155). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (2006). Calling on CALL: from theory and research to new directions in 

foreign language teaching. San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction 

Consortium. 

Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Harlow: Pearson Longman. 

Ellis, C. & Folley, S. (2011). Using Student Assessment Choice and E-Assessment to Achieve Self-

Regulated Learning. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering Self-Regulated Learning 

through ICT (89-104). New York: Information Science Reference. 

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2002). Lehren und Lernen mit neuen Medien (Teaching and Learning with 

new media). In R.Tippelt (Ed.), Handbuch Bildungsforschung (Handbook Of Educational 

Research) (623-637). Opladen, DE: Leske & Budrich. 

Friedrich, H. F. & Mandl, H. (1997). Analyse und Förderung selbstgesteuerten Lernens (Analysis and 

Promotion of Self-regulated Learning). In F. E. Weinert & H. Mandl (Eds.), Psychologie der 



AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

Erwachsenenbildung, Enzyklopädie der Psychologie (Psychology of Adult Education) (237-293). 

Göttingen, DE: Hogrefe. 

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage 

Publications.  

Healey, D. (2002). Learner autonomy with technology: what do language learners need to be 

successful?  TESOL 2002, CALL-IS Academic Session. 

http://oregonstate.edu/~healeyd/tesol2002/autonomypres-withbiblio.doclast. 

Herron, C., Dubreil, S., Cole, S. P. & Corrie, C. (2000). Using instructional video to teach culture to 

beginning foreign language students. Calico Journal, 17(3), 395-429. 

Hertel, T. J. (2003). Using an e‐mail exchange to promote cultural learning. Foreign Language 

Annals, 36(3), 386-396. 

Karamarsky B. & Zeichner, O.  (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects 

of feedback and self-regulation learning. Educational Media International, 38 (2-3), 77-82. 

Lai, C. & Gu, M.  (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer 

Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335. 

Md Yunus, M. (2007). Malaysian ESL teachers’ use of ICT in their classrooms: expectations and 

realities. ReCALL, 19(1), 79-95. 

Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second language theories. London: Arnold. 

Paige, R. M., Jorstad, H. L., Siaya, L., Klein, F. & Colby, J. (2003). Culture Learning in Language 

Education: A Review of the Literature. In D.L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the Core: 

Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning (173-236). USA: Information Age 

Publishing. 

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in 

college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385-407. 

Pintrich, R. P. (2000). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. In M. Boekaerts, R. 

P. Pintrich & M. Zeinder (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (451-502). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press. 

Proske, A., Narciss, S. & Körndle, H. (2011). Exploring the Effects of an Optional Learning Plan 

Tool in Technology-Enhanced Learning. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering Self-

Regulated Learning through ICT (315-333). New York: Information Science Reference.  

Puustinen, M. & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: a review.  Scandinavian 

Journal of  Education Research,  45(3),  269-286. 

Rahimi, A., Ebrahimi, N. A., & Eskandari, Z. (2013). The effects of using technology and the internet 

on some Iranian EFL students’ perceptions of their communication classroom environment. 

Teaching English with Technology, (1), 3-19. 

Richards, J. C. & Bohlke, D. (2011). Four Corners Level 2 Student's Book B with Self-study CD-

ROM. Cambridge University Press. 

Rosario, P., Nuñez Perez J. C. & González-Pienda, J. A. (2004). Stories that show how to study and 

how to learn: An experience in the Portuguese school system. Electronic Journal of Research in 

Educational Psychology, 2(1), 131-144. 

Schumman, J. (1997). The neurobiological Affect in Language. Boston: Blackwell. 

Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning, from teaching to self-reflective 

practice. New York: The Guilford Press. 

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Regulated Learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & 

D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research, and 

Practice (83-110). New York: Springer. 

Steffens, K. (2006). Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: lessons of 

a European peer review. European Journal of Education, 41(3/4), 353-379. 

Thorne, S., Black, R.W.  & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in 

Internet interest communities and online gaming.  Modern Language Journal, 93, 802-821. 

Trigano, P. (2006). Self-regulated Learning in a TELE at the Université de Technologie de 

Compiègne: An analysis from multiple perspectives. European Journal of Education, 41, 3-4. 

Veermans, K., De Jong, T. & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2000). Promoting self-directed learning in 

simulation-based discovery learning environments through intelligent support. Interactive 

Learning Environments, 8(3), 229-255. 

http://oregonstate.edu/~healeyd/tesol2002/autonomypres-withbiblio.doclast


AsiaCALL Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2014 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2013 Proceedings, Ali Rahimi & Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli 

 

Watts, M. & Lloyd, C. (2001). Evaluating a classroom multimedia programme in the teaching of 

literacy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 35-52. 

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-

regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 38(4), 189-205. 

Yuvienco, J. C. & Huang, S. (2005). Exploring ELT teacher’s role within E-Learning from students’ 

perceptions.  Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 18(1), 183-200. 

Zhao, Y. & Lai, C. (2007). Technology and Second Language Learning: Promises and Problems. In 

L. L. Parker (Ed.), Technology-Mediated Learning Environments for Young English Learners: 

Connections in and out of School (167-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of Academic Self-Regulation: A Conceptual Framework for 

Education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-Regulation of Learning and 

Performance (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In M. 

Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (13-41). San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press. 

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001) (2nd ed.). Self-regulated learning and academic 

achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  

Zimmerman, B.J. (2001). Theories of Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An 

Overview and Analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning 

and Academic Achievement (1-37). Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

 

 


