ABSTRACT. The role of learners’ self-regulation of learning and its impacts have been widely investigated at all levels of education (Pintrich, 1999; van Hout-Wolters, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002, 2015; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Cassidy, 2011; Kostons et al., 2012; Burkšaitienė, 2012, 2013, 2016; Vandevelde et al., 2015; Spruce & Bol, 2015; Beaumont et al., 2016; Schunk & Greene, 2018; Zeidner & Stoeger, 2019; Vosniadou et al., 2020; Porter & Peters-Burton, 2021;Winne & Azevedo, 2022; Backers et al., 2023; among others). In primary and secondary learning environments, it has been established that fostering self-regulated learning is meaningful and that its beneficial outcomes are likely to be achieved if a special training on how to promote learners’ self-regulated learning is provided to their teachers (Vandevelde et al., 2015; Porter & Peters-Burton, 2021

In higher education, self-regulated learning has in recent years become a prerequisite of academic success and developing lifelong learning skills (Cassidy, 2011). Research in this field has been focused on how students self-regulate their own learning to help them to develop key processes that they may lack, including goal setting, time management, learning strategies, self-evaluation, self-motivational beliefs, and seeking help or information (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; van der Veen & Peetsma, 2009; Abar & Loken, 2010; Cassidy, 2011; Kostons et al., 2012, etc.). Research findings show that students’ awareness of themselves as learners and the use of different methods of regulating one’s learning are the key factors leading to academic success (Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 2002, 2015; Burkšaitienė, 2012, 2013, 2016; Chen, 2016; Ruegg, 2018; Yang, 2016, Pham, 2021; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; among others). It has been reported that when used to promote students’ self-regulated learning, such methods as peer feedback, reflection journals and self-assessment tasks had a positive impact on students' learning, raised their awareness and promoted critical thinking (Klenowski & Lunt, 2008; Yang, 2016; Pham, 2021), as well as fostered engagement in the process of studying, directed students towards further learning and developed their creativity (Burkšaitienė, 2012, 2013, 2016).

Students’ self-regulated learning has been widely researched in many European countries, however, in Lithuania, it has not been investigated much (Burkšaitienė, 2012, 2013, 2016; Burkšaitienė et al., 2021; Horlenko, 2025). Therefore, the present study contributes to the research literature by presenting a Lithuanian perspective in the field and calls for further research.

The present research is based on the theory of self-directed learning. The most relevant theoretical assumption underlying this theory is that self-directed learning is a process which includes three phases (forethought, performance, and reflection) that promote active engagement in learning by fostering goal setting, self-monitoring, and reflection, which leads to academic success (Zimmerman, 2002, 2015). This theory is relevant for the present research since it stresses that effective use of self-regulating strategies can reduce discrepancies between students’ current understandings, their performance and the goal (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Besides, it emphasises that to promote self-regulated learning, it is critical to support and direct learners to move forward to the level of self-regulation at which they can identify and use the strategies that are the most effective to meet their goals, which is a path of raising the quality of  learning in higher education (Huang, 2018).

This study is part of larger mixed-method research conducted at four universities in Lithuania, with the participation of 309 third and fourth-year undergraduate students from various fields of studies, including technological sciences, social sciences and humanities. The study was guided by the research question: “Which processes of self-regulation do the students use in their studies?”. To answer the research question, an online survey consisting of 60 close-ended and a few open-ended questions was conducted.

The present study reports on the results of the analysis of students’ responses to one of the open-ended questions, i.e.: “What strategies do you use when you do not have all the necessary information for accomplishing given assignments?”. The data were collected from the responses provided by 140 students from two universities. To analyse the data, qualitative approach was chosen and inductive (bottom-up) content analysis was carried out. The suitability of this method for the present study is supported by the literature. According to Elo and Kyngäs, “it is used in cases where there are no previous studies dealing with the phenomenon or when it is fragmented” and allows to establish content-related categories that result in a comprehensive description of the phenomenon (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007, p. 107). The data were analysed in accordance with the procedure described by Elo and Kyngäs. During the first stage, the students' responses were read several times and units of analysis relevant to the research question were selected. This stage was followed by (1) open coding, which included writing down the headings that reflected all aspects of self-regulating strategies used by the students when they did not have enough information, which prevented them from fulfilling their academic assignments), (2) generating initial categories and grouping them under higher order headings, and (3) abstracting, which covered the process of naming each category, identifying subcategories and grouping them. During the last stage, extracts from the students' responses illustrating each subcategory were selected. To ensure reliability and validity of the results, inductive content analysis was conducted by two independent experts, who discussed their findings and made agreed decisions. The sample size of this study could be recognized as its main limitation not allowing for wide-scale generalisations. The research was carried out in line with the requirements of ethics. The questionnaire did not collect any personal data that could potentially identify the respondents. The respondents were provided with the information regarding the research purpose, the amount of time required to complete the survey and were informed that their responses will be used exclusively for the purposes of research. Students’ participation in the survey was anonymous and voluntary.

This study revealed four categories and five subcategories of self-regulating strategies used by the students, including (1) combining different self-regulating strategies, (2) relying exclusively on the strategy of searching the Internet, (3) seeking help from different stakeholders, and (4) taking no action. The general conclusion is that most study participants (n= 136) were aware of and adopted from one to three self-regulating strategies of seeking support and / or information necessary for the accomplishment of academic assignments. More specifically, 59 students combined different self-regulating strategies (they looked for information in university library resources, sought support from stakeholders within the academia and outside it, searched the Internet and / or contacted an online community of practice). A slightly smaller number of students (n = 56) relied solely on the strategy of searching the Internet when they faced the problem of lack of information. As they did not explain why they used exclusively this strategy, the reason of their choice remains not clear. It is also not clear what their prior experience of using self-regulating strategies was. What was surprising though, was the fact that no students mentioned that they used some Generative AI tools, which calls for a separate investigation. The finding that 21 students relied solely on the support provided by some experts in the field suggests that their choice is effective as it leads to quick solutions to a problem. On the other hand, these students could be encouraged to use more self-regulating strategies, too. The result that only four students did not use any self-regulating strategies is promising. It is worth mentioning that these students did not provide any explanations why they took no action. In this case, a solution could be to provide support to these students, which could foster the quality of their learning at the university.

Abar, B., & Loken, E. (2010). Self-regulated learning and self-directed study in a pre-college sample. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.09.002. Backers, L., De Smedt, F., & van Keer, H. (2023). Teachers as agents of self-regulated learning (SRL): Studying the relations between teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and SRL implementation across educational levels. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 52, 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00190-1 Beaumont, C., Moscrop, C., & Canning, S. (2016). Easing the transition from school to HE: scaffolding the development of self-regulated learning through a dialogic approach to feedback. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 331-350.3. Burkšaitienė, N. (2012). Peer feedback for fostering students’ metacognitive skills of thinking about learning in a course of English for law. Societal studies, 4(4), 1341-1355.4. Burkšaitienė, N. (2013). Project-based learning for the enhancement of self-regulated learning in a course of ESP. Radoša Personība: Zinātnisko Rakstu Krājums / Creative Personality. Riga: Riga pedagogy and education management academy, XI, 164-172. Burkšaitienė, Nijolė; Stojkovič, Nadežda. (2016). Students’ reflections in a course of Modern English and creative writing: a path towards self-regulated learning. Language and Contexts, 7(1, part 2), 212-225. Burkšaitienė, N.; Leščinskij, R.; Suchanova, J.; Šliogerienė, J. (2021). Self-Directedness for sustainable learning in university studies: Lithuanian students’ perspective. Sustainability, 13, 9467. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169467. Cassidy, S. (2011). Self-regulated learning in higher education: identifying key component processes. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 989-1000. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 18–33. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 8–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487. Horlenko, K. (2025). In teachers’ view: exploring teacher professional vision for student self-regulated learning in the classroom: Doctoral dissertation. Pintrich, P. R., (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), p. 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4. Porter, A. N., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2021). Investigating teacher development of self-regulated learning skills in secondary science students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103403. Zeidner, M., & Stoeger, H. (2019). Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): A guide for the perplexed. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 9–51. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In: M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education, 85–110. Erlbaum. Zimmerman, B. J. (2015). Self-regulated learning: theories, measures, and outcomes. In: International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 541–546. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26060-1300.