Using CEFR Can Do Statements to Enhance Students' Self-Regulated Learning in Outcome-Based Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v14i1.10954Keywords:
CEFR Can Do Statements, mixed methods, outcome based education, self assessment, self regulated learningAbstract
Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) is essential for the successful implementation of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) because students are expected to actively monitor, evaluate, and regulate their own learning processes. However, previous studies have largely focused on the accuracy of self-assessment rather than its role in supporting learning regulation. This study investigated the effectiveness of CEFR Can Do Statements as a self-assessment strategy for enhancing students’ SRL. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed involving 60 Pharmacy and Midwifery students enrolled in English for Specific Purposes courses at Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram. Quantitative data were collected through a Self-Regulated Learning questionnaire and analyzed using paired-sample and independent-sample t-tests, while qualitative data were obtained through classroom observations, interviews, and Focus Group Discussions. The findings revealed a statistically significant improvement in students’ Self-Regulated Learning, with the experimental group outperforming the control group (p < .001). The intervention produced a large practical effect (Cohen’s d = 1.47). Qualitative findings indicated that self-monitoring, goal setting, reflective learning, and learning autonomy emerged as the most prominent themes, demonstrating meaningful changes in students’ learning behaviors. This study extends the role of CEFR Can Do Statements beyond language assessment by demonstrating their function as metacognitive tools that support learning regulation within an OBE framework. The findings suggest that CEFR-based self-assessment can serve as an effective strategy for promoting learner autonomy and strengthening the implementation of Outcome-Based Education in higher education.
References
A. Dragemark. Oscarson, “Self-assessment of writing in learning English as a foreign language: a study at the upper secondary school level,” p. 277, 2009.
B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview,” Theory Pract., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2002, doi: 10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2.
B. J. Zimmerman, “Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 166–183, 2008, doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909.
C. Piamsai and C. Piamsai, “Development and Use of CEFR Based Self-Assessment in a Thai Tertiary Context,” PASAA, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 81–126, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.58837/chula.pasaa.66.1.3.
“Companion volume COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES: LEARNING, TEACHING, ASSESSMENT”, Accessed: Jun. 01, 2026. [Online]. Available: www.coe.int/lang-cefr
D. L. Butler and P. H. Winne, “Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 245–281, 1995, doi: 10.3102/00346543065003245.
D. Little, “The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process,” Language Testing, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 321–336, Jul. 2005, doi: 10.1191/0265532205lt311oa.
E. Panadero, “A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research,” Front. Psychol., vol. 8, no. APR, p. 250270, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.
F. Faez, S. Majhanovich, S. K. Taylor, M. Smith, and K. Crowley, “The power of ‘Can Do’ statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a second language classrooms in Ontario,” Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1–19, 2011, Accessed: Feb. 16, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/edupub.https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19855/21653
G. M. J. Fastré, M. R. van der Klink, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer, “The effects of performance-based assessment criteria on student performance and self-assessment skills,” Advances in Health Sciences Education 2010 15:4, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 517–532, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9215-x.
H. L. Andrade, “A Critical Review of Research on Student Self-Assessment,” Front. Educ. (Lausanne)., vol. 4, p. 468374, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00087.
J. A. Ross, “The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment,” 2006, University of Maryland. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2026. [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/30005
J. H.McMillan, G. T. L. Brown, and L. R. Harris, “Student Self-Assessment<a class="ref page" href="/reference/hdbk_classroomassessment/n21.xml#fn1n21"><span class="hi-superscript">1</span></a>,” SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment, pp. 367–393, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.4135/9781452218649.
J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112, 2007, doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.
K. A. Vasu, Y. Mei Fung, V. Nimehchisalem, and S. Md Rashid, “Self-Regulated Learning Development in Undergraduate ESL Writing Classrooms: Teacher Feedback Versus Self-Assessment,” RELC Journal, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 612–626, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1177/0033688220957782.
M. Hirose and J. W. Creswell, “Applying Core Quality Criteria of Mixed Methods Research to an Empirical Study,” J. Mix. Methods Res., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 12–28, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1177/15586898221086346.
P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Assessment and classroom learning,” Int. J. Phytoremediation, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 7–74, 1998, doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102.
P. Glover, “Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students’ awareness of their speaking skills,” Language Awareness, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 121–133, May 2011, doi: 10.1080/09658416.2011.555556.
R. A. Bjork, J. Dunlosky, and N. Kornell, “Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 64, no. Volume 64, 2013, pp. 417–444, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-113011-143823/CITE/REFWORKS.
R. M. Harden, “Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: Is there a difference?,” Med. Teach., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 151–155, 2002, doi: 10.1080/0142159022020687.
Z. Yan and G. T. L. Brown, “A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1247–1262, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Moh. Fauzi Bafadal, Humaira, Muhammad Hudri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)
