Models of Self-Regulated Learning DA (2)

8/13/2019 Models of Self-Regulated Learning DA (2)

1/19

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2001

Models of Self-regulated Learning: a

reviewMINNA PUUSTINEN & LEA PULKKINENDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyvaskyla, PO Box 35 (Agora), 40351

Jyvaskyla, Finland

ABSTRACT Questions connected with the regulation of ones own cognitive processes attractincreasing numbers of researchers in psychology, as evidenced by the several different models of

self-regulation that have been developed over the past two decades. The aim of this article was

to present and compare the latest models of self-regulated learning (SRL), including those by

Boekaerts, Borkowski, Pintrich, Winne and Zimmerman. The models were compared on four

criteria (i.e. background theories, denitions of SRL, components included in the models and

empirical work). The results show that theoretical background is an important differentiating

feature. The two models that resembled each other more than any other two models (i.e. Pintrich

and Zimmerman) were inspired by the same background theory (i.e. social cognitive theory).

On the other hand, the models that differed most from the other models (i.e. Borkowski and

Winne) were also theoretically the farthest removed ones.

Key words: self-regulated learning; review; comparison; models

INTRODUCTION

The way in which people regulate their own cognitive processes has been a persistent

issue for researchers in various psychological disciplines. In the last two decades thetopic has gained particular attention and several new theoretical models of self-regu-

lation have emerged. This paper attempts to ll the need for a critical overview of

the latest developments in this eld.

According to a recent denition (Zeidner et al., 2000), self-regulation is con-

ceived of as an overarching construct covering aspects such as self-regulated learning

(SRL), the regulation of ones health and stress management, which in turn cover

lower level activities such as strategy use, self-observation and automaticity. This

paper is concerned with SRL which, according to the above denition, is character-

ised as an intermediate construct describing the ways in which individuals regulatetheir own cognitive processes within an educational setting.


2/19

270 M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

for review. Five models met these criteria. They include the models developed by

Boekaerts (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000), Borkowski (1996), Pintrich (2000),

Winne (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) and Zimmerman (2000a).

The models and the empirical studies relating to each one of them will be

reviewed, in alphabetical order, in the rst part of this article. This is followed by a

critical evaluation and comparison of the models.

REVIEW OF THE MODELS

Boekaerts Model of Adaptable Learning

Boekaerts (1992, 1995, 1996a, 1996b) developed a model of adaptable learning in

the classroom, affording appraisal a central role in the SRL process. Three kinds of

information were assumed to inuence the appraisals via a dynamic internal working

model, namely perception of the learning situation, domain-specic metacognitive

knowledge and the self-system, together with the associated motivational factors.

Appraisals were considered to be unique and they were assumed to direct students

behaviour in the classroom. Positively charged appraisals were assumed to lead to an

extension of the subject knowledge and skill and, more generally, to an expansion of

personal resources. Negatively charged appraisals, on the other hand, were supposed

to lead to ego protection aimed at preventing a loss of resources and well-being.

Adaptable, self-regulated learning was dened as a balance between these two types

of path.

Recently Boekaerts & Niemivirta (2000) put forward an extended and rened

version of the model of adaptable learning. They emphasised the non-unitary

character of the SRL process; SRL is assumed to necessitate interaction between

diverse (e.g. metacognitive, motivational and emotional) control systems. Another

aspect of importance in the new model is the distinction between optimal and

non-optimal conditions for SRL to occur. Optimal conditions refer to situations in

which an opportunity for learning and the felt necessity for learning are combined.

It is assumed that self-set learning episodes, including affectively charged personal

goals and learning in a natural context, correspond to the denition of optimalconditions more often than teacher-set learning episodes taking place in the class-

room.

The extended model is centred round goal processes. The origins of the goal

processes, and of the whole SRL process, are to be found in the identication,

interpretation and appraisal of the learning situation; they further lead to goal setting

and goal striving. Identication refers to the recognition of an input as an instance

of a class of situations, such as an instance of the class of achievement situations,

stressful situations, or socially unacceptable situations (Boekaerts & Niemivirta,

2000, p. 425). It is based on knowledge of the task, the instructions and the physicaland social context. Interpretations are assumed to be related to a personal, internal


3/19

Models of Self-regulated Learning 271

nitive knowledge, the interpretations are task-focused, and when the internal refer-

ence is self-related, the interpretations are self-focused. Appraisals, nally, are

divided into primary and secondary appraisals, the former relating to questions such

as Is this learning situation benign, neutral, or threatening for my well being? and

the latter to questions such as What is required to deal with the situation, and can

I handle it? (p. 427). The next steps in the SRL process consist of goal setting andthe actual goal striving, which, in turn, feeds back to metacognitive knowledge or

motivational beliefs.

Two general action patterns are described on the basis of the above elements.

The rst is a fast or automatic processing pattern, proceeding from situation

identication through primary appraisals directly to goal striving. This kind of

pattern would be activated in habitual, frequently repeated learning situations. The

second action pattern, on the other hand, corresponds to those learning situations

that demand consciousness and deliberation. It contains all the elements of the

model: identication, interpretation, primary and secondary appraisal, goal setting

and goal striving. Based on the interpretations, goal setting is either task- or

self-focused and goal striving positive or negative and problem- or emotion-focused.

Problem-focused goal striving is assumed to feed back to metacognitive knowledge,

whereas emotion-focused goal striving is assumed to feed back to motivational

beliefs. Finally, the authors (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000) emphasise that SRL

does not necessarily proceed in a linear way through the different phases of the

model. Students may backtrack to a previous phase or they may bypass phases.

Boekaerts (see, for example, Boekaerts, 1988, 1996b) has developed an on-line

motivation questionnaire (OMQ) to evaluate student cognitions and affects. Re-

spondents complete the OMQ twice: immediately before a learning task and after its

completion (or when the student gives up). The questionnaire focuses on students

appraisals, affects and learning intentions before the task and their effort, task

assessment and attributions and affects after completion of the task.

The OMQ was one of the questionnaires used in Seegers & Boekaerts (1993)

study. The study was aimed at examining the relationship between sixth graders

motivational beliefs concerning mathematics and their appraisals of concrete math-

ematics tasks on the one hand, and motivational beliefs and three outcome variables(i.e. learning intentions, emotional states and task performances) on the other. A set

of basic appraisals was identied in earlier studies; they included task attraction,

perceived relevance and subjective competence (i.e. a combination of outcome

expectations, perceived level of difculty and self-efcacy). It was hypothesised that

motivational beliefs would inuence outcome variables indirectly, via appraisals

(Seegers & Boekaerts, 1993; see also Boekaerts, 1999). The results gave support to

the hypothesis by revealing the existence of two routes linking the motivational

beliefs to the outcome variables, namely an effort- or value-directed route and an

outcome-directed route. The effort-directed pathway was related to the degree oftask orientation, with the value of the task and the pleasure experienced prior to


4/19


Seegers & Boekaerts (1993) value-directed pathway. In contrast, the outcome-di-

rected pathway had to be somewhat modied; two different paths led to negative

motivational beliefs, only one of them being related to appraisals.

Borkowskis Process-oriented Model of Metacognition

Borkowskis (see, for example, Borkowski et al., 2000) aim has been to contribute to

our understanding of successes and failures encountered in strategy generalisation.

Together with his colleagues, Borkowski (see, for example, Borkowski et al., 2000;

Pressleyet al., 1985, 1987, 1990) dened the characteristics of a good strategy user

or information processor. According to this denition, successful integration of

cognitive, motivational, personal and situational components underlie good infor-

mation processing.

Borkowski (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992; Borkowski, 1996; Borkowski &

Burke, 1996; Borkowski et al., 2000) further integrated these characteristics into aprocess-oriented model of metacognition. It describes the development of self-regu-

lation, referred to as executive functioning by the author, as proceeding from the

learning of lower level cognitive skills and becoming gradually linked to positive

motivational states.

The development of self-regulation begins when children are taught the use of

a learning strategy. They progressively gain knowledge about the attributes of that

particular strategy. With time, children learn to know other learning strategies.

Applying them in diverse contexts contributes to enlarge and enrich the specic

strategy knowledge available to them. Self-regulation emerges when children be-

come able to choose appropriate strategies and monitor their performance. As

strategic and self-regulatory or executive processes become well established, children

learn to recognise the utility of behaving strategically. Self-efcacy perceptions and

attributional beliefs also develop, thus linking strategy use to personal and motiva-

tional states. Important cognitive acts may now lead to feedback about success (or

failure) and its related causes. This feedback is assumed to have an important role

in shaping personalmotivational states which in turn energise the executive pro-

cesses necessary for future strategy selection (Borkowski, 1996). Further, childrens

general knowledge about the world and their domain-specic knowledge develop.

Domain-specic knowledge often sufces to solve problems alone, without learning

strategies. In its nal form, the model also includes a self-system, comprising task

orientation, self-worth, possible selves and learning goals (Borkowski, 1996;

Borkowski & Burke, 1996; Borkowski et al., 2000).

The most important individual element of the model is strategy selection and

use.

Not only are specic strategies essential for effective learning and problem

solving, they provide the context for training higher-level planning andexecutive skills explicitly as well as represent the basis for restructuring


5/19


Turner, 1990; Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1995) argues that successful generalis-

ation of previously learned skills and knowledge is based on these elements; self-

regulation, or executive functioning, activates the cognitive system and allows

strategic behaviour to occur, whereas motivational factors and attributions provoke

self-regulation in new and challenging situations. In addition, contextual factors

such as parents, teachers and the learning environments created by them, as well associal collaboration with peers, are judged to be important in developing exible,

adaptive learning (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1995; Borkowski et al., 2000).

Borkowski and his collaborators have carried out numerous studies on strategy

training or instruction and transfer of strategic skills, most often in children with

underachievement, hyperactivity or impulsivity. For example, Reid & Borkowski

(1987) examined the inuence of attribution and self-control training on the

maintenance and generalisation of strategic behaviour in second, third and fourth

graders with underachievement and hyperactivity. Three experimental conditions

were created: a self-control group, a self-control plus attribution group and a

strategy control group. All groups received specic memory strategy training. In

addition, the self-control group received a self-control training sequence through

modelling and direct practice. The self-control plus attribution group received, in

addition to the specic memory strategy training and self-control training, self-attri-

bution enhancing training, designed to inuence students beliefs concerning the

importance of effort in improving achievement. The control group received only

specic memory strategy training. The results showed that students in the self-con-

trol plus attribution group improved more than the others: on a three week post-test

they showed improved scores in attributions, self-control and strategy use and they

remained improved in strategy use on a long-term post-test completed 10 months

later. It was thus concluded that attribution and self-control training should be

included in treatments aimed at remedying strategic decits in children with under-

achievement and hyperactivity.

Borkowski & Muthukrishna (1995) provide another example of strategy train-

ing studies. They examined the role of contextual factors in the development of

strategy use. A guided discovery method was compared to direct strategy instruction

of mathematics in third graders. Discovery learning is based on a constructivistperspective and thus on students active engagement in the learning process;

students are not explicitly taught specic learning strategies but have chances to

invent them. Teachers roles consist of evaluating and redirecting students thinking

processes. Direct strategy instruction, on the other hand, consists of explicit strategy

teaching. It was hypothesised that discovery-based instruction would lead to better

performance, better capacity to solve problems presented in a different form or

context and better ability to think and communicate mathematically (deep strategy

processing) than the direct strategy instruction. It was further hypothesised that, as

compared with direct strategy instruction, guided discovery would contribute to thedevelopment of stronger beliefs and goals about the reasons for success. The study


6/19


nine weeks after the initial intervention. The results conrmed the hypotheses in that

the discovery learning condition led to better performance in the immediate post-

test and the long-term maintenance test than the direct strategy instruction in tasks

presented in a different form than during instruction. The discovery condition was

also related to more reported use of deep processing strategies, as well as to more

reported importance on the motivational goals and less importance on task extrinsicfactors, than the direct strategy condition.

Pintrichs General Framework for SRL

Pintrichs (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich, 1989, 2000; Pintrich & De Groot,

1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich et al., 1994, 2000) work on self-regulation

has been characterised by one overarching theme, the integration of motivational

constructs in SRL.

Recently, Pintrich (2000) developed a general framework for SRL. (The term

framework reects the fact that unlike other authors using a gurative representa-

tion of their SRL models, Pintrich presented his work in the form of a table.)

According to the framework SRL is composed of four phases, namely forethought,

monitoring, control and reection phases. For each phase, self-regulatory activities

are listed in four separate areas, including cognitive, motivational and affective,

behavioural and contextual areas. The self-regulatory activities taking place during

the forethought phase thus include, among other things, prior content knowledge

and metacognitive knowledge activation (cognitive area), efcacy judgements and

adoption of a goal orientation (motivation and affect area), time and effort planning

(behaviour area) and perceptions of task and context (context area). Similarly,

monitoring consists of awareness and monitoring of cognition, motivation, affect,

time use, effort and task and context conditions. Control activities refer to the

selection and adaptation of strategies for managing learning, thinking, motivation

and affect; for the regulation of effort and for task negotiation. Finally, reection

includes cognitive judgements, affective reactions, making choices and task and

context evaluation. The framework is presented as a heuristic, since it is notsupposed that all academic learning necessarily involves explicit self-regulation.

Furthermore, even if SRL is assumed, generally, to follow the above-mentioned time

ordered sequence, a more dynamic view of the process is not excluded.

Pintrich (2000) further analysed the role of motivation in SRL. More

specically, he discussed the way in which goal orientations (mastery and perform-

ance orientation in this case) are related to SRL. Mastery and performance orienta-

tions were considered from an approach versus avoidance viewpoint. Approach-

mastery oriented students would have their focus on learning, understanding and

mastering tasks. From the self-regulation viewpoint, these students would show themost positive results, including monitoring and control of their cognition during


7/19


avoidance-mastery oriented students seek to avoid situations in which they are liable

to make mistakes. In the absence of research on the avoidance-mastery orientation,

Pintrich (2000) assumed that it would be less benecial to SRL than the approach-

mastery orientation.

Approach-performance oriented students would be focused on being superior,

besting others and being the best at the task in comparison to others. Empiricalresults are somewhat contradictory, but suggest, globally, that the approach-

performance orientation could have some positive relationship to cognition and

motivation. In any case, it is judged to be more benecial to SRL than the

avoidance-performance orientation, which would be focused on avoiding inferiority

and not looking stupid in comparison to others, an approach judged non-adaptive by

Pintrich (2000).

The empirical research conducted by Pintrich reects his concern for a moti-

vated and self-regulated learner. In fact, most of his studies reported relationships

between students motivational orientation, self-regulated learning and academic

achievement. Furthermore, Pintrich and his collaborators have developed a self-

report questionnaire, the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ), in

order to assess motivational beliefs (e.g. self-efcacy, intrinsic value and test anxiety)

as well as use of learning strategies (i.e. cognitive, metacognitive and regulatory or

resource management strategies) in college students (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;

Pintrichet al., 1993). The MSLQ has been used in several empirical studies (see, for

example Garcia & Pintrich, 1996; Pintrich et al., 1994; VanderStoep et al.,, 1996;

see also Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). For example, Garcia and Pintrich (1996)

explored the effects of classroom autonomy (i.e. the degree to which students report

having the opportunity to participate in decision making concerning course policies)

on motivation and performance in college students. No explicit hypotheses were

formulated. Four motivation subscales of the MSLQ were included, namely intrinsic

goal orientation, task value, perceived self-efcacy and test anxiety. The results

indicated that motivational beliefs, intrinsic goal orientation, task value and per-

ceived self-efcacy were positively affected by the experience of classroom auton-

omy. Classroom autonomy was more closely related to motivational factors than to

performance.In another study, Pintrich and colleagues (VanderStoep et al., 1996) examined

college students knowledge, motivation and self-regulatory learning strategies in

three different disciplines, English, psychology and biology. It was hypothesised that

high achieving students would have better knowledge, more adaptive motivation and

report more use of self-regulatory strategies than low achieving students; no explicit

hypothesis was formulated concerning the generalisability of the results across the

disciplines. Students motivational beliefs (i.e. intrinsic orientation, task value and

self-efcacy) and self-regulated learning (i.e. rehearsal, elaboration, organisation and

metacognition) were again assessed using the MSLQ. Their domain-specic knowl-edge concerning the course material, on the other hand, was assessed with an


8/19


was observed only in psychology and biology. It was suggested that the method be

adjusted to better represent the nature of learning and instruction in English

courses.

Winnes Four-stage Model of Self-regulated Learning

According to Winne & Hadwin (1998) SRL has some of the properties of both an

aptitude and an event. An aptitude denotes a relatively stable personal attribute,

whereas an event is dened as a snapshot that freezes activity in motion, a

transient state embedded in a larger, longer series of states unfolding over time

(p. 534). The four-stage model of SRL presented by Winne and colleagues (Winne

& Hadwin, 1998; Winne & Perry, 2000; see also Butler & Winne, 1995; Winne,

1996) describes SRL as an event. Self-regulated learning, which is seen as an

inherent part of learning, is dened as metacognitively guided behaviour enabling

students to adaptively regulate their use of cognitive tactics and strategies in the face

of a task (Winne, 1996).

According to this model (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) SRL includes four distinct

stages. The rst stage of the model, task denition, is characterised by the percep-

tions that students generate about the task. Stage two is devoted to goal setting and

planning and third stage is that of enacting tactics and strategies planned in stage

two. The fourth and last stage, metacognitively adapting studying techniques with

an eye to future needs, refers to a process by which students critically examine the

things they came up with in the preceding stages, in the light of their meta-level

knowledge (Winne & Hadwin, 1998).

Each stage is supposed to share the same general structure, referred to as the

COPES (i.e. ConditionsOperationsProductsEvaluationsStandards) typology by

Winne & Hadwin (1998). Conditions include information about the task conditions

(e.g. time constraints, available resources and social context) and cognitive condi-

tions (e.g. interest, goal orientation and task knowledge) that inuence how the task

will be engaged. Operations are dened as the cognitive processes, tactics and

strategies students engage in when faced with a task, and products refer to infor-

mation created by operations in transforming conditions. A different product is thuscreated at each stage. Products can be internal (e.g. the inference drawn from an

attribution) or external (i.e. observable behaviour or performance). Evaluations

consist of internal or external feedback about the products. Finally, standards are the

criteria against which the products are monitored. Metacognitive monitoring is a

central element in Winnes model, producing internal feedback about the dis-

crepancy between products and standards at each stage. That feedback further

serves as a basis for future actions (Butler & Winne, 1995; Winne & Perry, 2000).

The model is described as recursive, in that the products of earlier stages are

assumed to update the conditions on which operations work during the next stage(Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Furthermore, even if learning processes are assumed to


9/19


Winne and colleagues have conducted several empirical studies on SRL as an

event. This has mainly been done using a trace methodology (Howard-Rose &

Winne, 1993; Winne et al., 1998, 2000). Traces refer to observable indicators of

cognition, such as annotation, created by students while studying (Winne & Perry,

2000). Winne et al. (2000), for example, explored the relationship between traces

and students self-reports of studying. University students lled in a self-reportquestionnaire concerning the use of seven studying tactics. Traces or the actual use

of the tactics were examined by analysing written traces (e.g. highlighting and

creating mnemonics) left by the students while working on chapters extracted from

their course textbooks. The correlations between students self-reports and their

actual use of study tactics proved to be low, suggesting that self-reports do not give

a very accurate picture of the tactics which students actually use.

Hadwin et al. (1997) investigated the role of context in university students

self-reports of studying. They developed a strategic learning questionnaire to exam-

ine students self-reports about their study tactics (e.g. planning and rehearsing),

resource use (e.g. textbook illustrations and textbook summary items) and goals

(e.g. understanding and memorising) in different learning contexts. Three different

contexts were chosen: reading for learning, completing a brief essay and studying for

an exam. The results showed that students reported varying tactics, resources and

goals according to the context of study. This was interpreted as reecting the rst

stage of Winne & Hadwins (1998) SRL model, according to which contextual

information inuences the perceptions students generate about a task (Winne et al.,

1998).

Zimmermans Social Cognitive Model of Self-regulation

Zimmermans (1989, 1990a,b, 1998, 2000a) social cognitive model of self-regu-

lation is based, as its name indicates, on Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory.

According to this model self-regulation involves three classes of determinants. In this

triadic reciprocal determinism, covert personal (i.e. self), behavioural and environ-

mental events are viewed as separable, but at the same time interdependent, factorsinuencing individuals functioning. Covert self-regulation involves monitoring and

adjusting cognitive and affective states. Behavioural self-regulation consists of self-

observing and strategically adjusting performance processes. Finally, environmental

self-regulation includes observing and adjusting environmental conditions or out-

comes (Zimmerman, 1990a, 1998).

According to Zimmerman (2000a) self-regulation is cyclical in nature. He

denes self-regulation as self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are

planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals (p. 14). In other

words, feedback obtained from prior learning experience is used to make adjust-ments to goals, strategy choice, etc. for subsequent efforts. These adjustments,


10/19


The cyclical phases of self-regulation include a forethought phase, a perform-

ance phase and a self-reection phase (Zimmerman, 2000a; see also Zimmerman,

1998). The forethought phase refers to processes that precede and prepare actions.

Two categories of processes are distinguished: processes relative to task analysis (i.e.

goal setting and strategic planning) and those relating to self-motivation beliefs (i.e.

self-efcacy, outcome expectations, intrinsic motivation or valuing and processversus outcome goal orientation). The performance or volitional control phase

includes two kinds of processes, namely self-control (i.e. self-instruction, imagery or

mental picture forming, attention focusing and task strategies) and self-observation

(i.e. self-recording and self-experimentation). Self-control processes help learners to

concentrate on the task and optimise their efforts; for example, task strategies aid

learning by reducing the task to its essential components and reorganising them in

a meaningful manner (Zimmerman, 2000a). Self-observation processes, on the

other hand, refer to tracing specic aspects of ones own performance. The last

phase, self-reection, contains two categories of processes closely related to

self-observation, self-judgement and self-reaction. Self-judgement refers to self-

evaluations of ones own performance and to causal attributions concerning the

results; self-reaction includes self-satisfaction, i.e. perceptions of (dis)satisfaction

and affect regarding performance and inferences about what will have to be changed

in future self-regulation demanding situations. Due to the cyclical nature of self-

regulation, self-reection further inuences forethought processes.

Self-regulatory skills, which are assumed to be context dependent, develop,

according to social cognitive theory (see, for example, Zimmerman, 1996, 2000a),

through four levels. The rst level corresponds to learning by modelling, i.e.

vicarious induction of a skill through observation. This observational level would be

attained when the learner can deduce the main features of the skill or strategy by

observing a model. The imitative level of self-regulation is dened as emulative

performance of a modelled skill while receiving social feedback. It is attained when

the learners performance approaches the general form of the model. The role of

social guidance, essential in these rst two levels, becomes less evident during the

last two. The third step is called the self-control level and corresponds to successful

application of a demonstrated skill when the model is no longer present and thefourth and last level, self-regulation, refers to adaptive use of a skill in changing

conditions. It is assumed that students who master each level in sequence will have

more facility in learning than others. However, possessing the capacities does not

automatically mean that they are used; motivational and environmental elements

inuence the nal decision.

Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to test this model. Self-

efcacy is undoubtedly the individual element that has been studied the most (see,

for example, Schunk, 1990, 1994; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1996, 1998). It refers to

perceptions about ones capabilities to attain designated levels of performance(Bandura, 1986; Zimmerman, 2000b). Otherwise, Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons


11/19


strategies, such as self-evaluating, organising and transforming and planning and

monitoring. Lately Zimmerman has focused his work on some specic domains,

such as self-regulated writing (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman &

Risemberg, 1997), acquisition of complex motor skills (Zimmerman & Kitsantas,

1997; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 1998) and self-regulating childhood asthma (Zim-

merman et al., 1999).Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons (1990) used SRLIS to examine the relationship

between students use of self-regulated learning strategies and their perceptions of

both verbal and mathematical self-efcacy. The results revealed, as hypothesised,

that both self-efcacy measures were correlated with the use of self-regulated

strategies. Grade (5th, 8th and 11th), giftedness (gifted versus regular), and gender

further specied the results. Older students self-efcacy surpassed that of younger

students; giftedness was related to high perceived self-efcacy; boys verbal self-

efcacy was signicantly higher than that of girls. There were no gender-related

differences in mathematical self-efcacy.

Zimmerman & Bandura (1994) studied the role of four self-regulatory factors

on writing attainment in university level students. These included self-efcacy

beliefs concerning academic achievement (i.e. beliefs concerning mastery of particu-

lar academic subjects), self-efcacy beliefs concerning self-regulation of writing (i.e.

beliefs in ones capacity to regulate ones own writing activities), self-evaluation and

goals. It was hypothesised that self-regulatory self-efcacy for writing would

inuence performance indirectly via self-evaluations and self-efcacy for academic

achievement. Self-efcacy for academic achievement and self-evaluation, on the

other hand, were hypothesised to exert a direct effect on writing attainments, but

also an indirect effect through goals. Two self-efcacy measures were used, one for

perceived academic self-efcacy and another for perceived self-regulatory efcacy.

Self-rating scales were completed at the beginning of a writing course and the results

were related to the students nal course grades reecting their writing attainments.

The results of a path analysis gave support to the inuential role of self-efcacy in

writing. They showed that, as hypothesised, self-efcacy for academic achievement

inuenced writing course grades directly, but also indirectly through goal setting.

The results concerning the self-regulatory efcacy for writing also conrmed thehypothesis: self-regulatory efcacy affected self-evaluations and students self-regu-

latory self-efcacy predicted their self-efcacy for academic achievement; the higher

the self-regulatory self-efcacy, the more condent the students were about their

academic achievement. Self-evaluations, on the other hand, affected grades only

indirectly, through goals.

COMPARISON OF THE MODELS

The models were compared on four criteria: the background theories of the authors,the denitions of SRL, the components included in the models and the empirical


12/19


Wellman, 1977), Brown (see, for example, Brown, 1978) and Sternberg (see, for

example, Sternberg, 1985), is the purest representative of the information-

processing perspective and the metacognitive research tradition. Zimmermans

model, on the other hand, reects Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory, under-

lining social foundations of thinking and behaviour. Pintrichs model too derives

mainly from the social cognitive approach, whereas Boekaerts has been mostlyinuenced by Kuhls (1985) Action Control Theory and by Lazarus & Folkmans

(1984) Transactional Stress Theory. Winne, nally, seems to have the most hetero-

geneous theoretical background. His model has been inuenced, among others, by

the work of Bandura and Zimmerman, Carver & Scheier (1990), Kuhl (Kuhl &

Goschke, 1994) and Paris & Byrnes (1989).

Two kinds of denitions of SRL seem to emerge, a goal-oriented denition and

a metacognitively weighted denition. Boekaerts, Pintrich and Zimmerman dene

SRL as a goal-oriented process. They emphasise the constructive or self-generated

nature of SRL and agree that monitoring, regulating and controlling ones own

learning includes cognitive but also motivational, emotional and social factors.

Borkowski and Winne, on the other hand, dene SRL as a metacognitively governed

process aimed at adapting the use of cognitive tactics and strategies to tasks.

It is important to add, however, that even if Borkowski and Winne do not include

goal orientations in their denitions, they both assume self-regulated learners (or good

information users, as Borkowski puts it) to be intrinsically motivated and goal-

oriented. Borkowskis good information users are assumed to have mastery goals and

in Winnes model goals are described as internal standards or criteria to which all

attainments are compared. Finally, both Borkowski and Winne assume SRL to

include cognitive but also motivational, emotional and social factors. In sum, the

differences in the denitions become blurred when one examines the models in more

detail, suggesting that it is the relative weight given to the component parts, more than

the components themselves, that varies from one model to another.

Even if the terminology varies from one model to another, all the authors

assume SRL to proceed from some kind of a preparatory or preliminary phase,

through the actual performance or task completion phase, to an appraisal or

adaptation phase. Table I sums up the components corresponding to these phasesfor each of the models. It shows that the preparatory phase of SRL includes task

analysis, planning and goal setting activities. It is based on self-knowledge, motiva-

tional beliefs and (meta)cognitive knowledge about the self, the task and the

situation and it prepares the individual for the forthcoming situation. The perform-

ance phase consists of strategy use and on-line self-regulatory and monitoring

activities, such as comprehension monitoring and resource allocation. The last phase

in SRL is the appraisal phase, including the evaluation of outcomes. Performance

feedback provides individuals with information about the efciency of their activity

and serves as a basis for attributions, comparisons and adaptations. Thus, all theauthors assume SRL to be cyclical in nature, in that those appraisals inuence


13/19


TABLEI. The components of the models of ve authors as a function of the three phases of the SRL process

SRL process

Author Preparatory phase Performance phase Appraisal phase

Boekaerts Identication, interpretation, Goal striving Performance feedbackprimary and secondary appraisal,

goal setting

Borkowski Task analysis, strategy selection Strategy use, strategy Performance feedback

revision, strategy

monitoring

Pintrich Forethought, planning, activation Monitoring, control Reaction and reection

Winne Task denition, goal setting, Applying tactics and Adapting metacognition

planning strategies

Zimmerman Forethought ( task analysis, Performance Self-reec tion

self-motivation) (self-control, (self-judgement,

self-observation) self-reaction)

most striking example is Winnes conception of an omnipresent metacognitive

monitoring process, accompanied by internal feedback. This distinguishes Winnes

model from all the others. In fact, most authors assume monitoring to take place

during the performance phase and feedback to occur in the appraisal phase, whereas

Winne argues that SRL is recursive, and that metacognitive monitoring can produce

internal feedback during any phase of the SRL process.

Another model that differs from all the others is that of Boekaerts. In her case

it is a question of emphasis: she mainly focuses on the preparatory phase of the SRL

process and treats the performance and the appraisal phases much more su-

percially. Boekaerts & Niemivirta (2000) even consider it beyond the scope of their

work to discuss the problem solving processes included in the performance phase of

SRL. This might reect Boekaerts concern for the distinction between the concepts

of SRL and problem solving (see Zeidner et al., 2000).

As far as the empirical research is concerned, two ma jor orientations seem toemerge, a motivation orientation and a strategy orientation. Boekaerts and Pintrich

are mainly motivation oriented in their research. They have both studied the

relationships between motivational factors and academic achievement and have

developed a questionnaire to assess motivational and cognitive elements inuencing

students learning. However, the variables included in the studies have been some-

what different. Boekaerts has focused on appraisals as a mediating factor in children,

whereas Pintrich has examined the effects of several variables, such as classroom

autonomy and discipline, on motivation, learning strategy use and achievement in

college students.Borkowskis and Winnes research is principally strategy oriented. Borkowskis


14/19


strategies has been found to have benecial effects on subsequent strategy use and

performance. Winne, on the other hand, has used a trace methodology to explore the

relationship between university students self-reported, contrasted with their actual,

use of study tactics.

Zimmermans research, nally, has been both motivation and strategy oriented.

His motivation-oriented research includes his work on self-efcacy and his strategy-oriented research consists of the development and use of a structured interview to test

students use of learning strategies. Learning strategy use has been found to correlate

with perceptions of self-efcacy.

Table II summarises the above results by comparing the models two by two on

the four criteria. It shows, rst of all, that the models of Pintrich and Zimmerman

resemble each other more than any other two models. Based on the social cognitive

tradition, the two models dene SRL as a goal-oriented process, proceeding from a

forethought phase through self-monitoring and self-control to self-reection. Further-

more, the empirical research conducted by the authors is quite similar; both have

studied students motivational orientation in relation to their use of self-regulated

learning strategies and academic achievement. The two models are not identical,

though; Pintrich has worked more on the role of goal orientations in SRL, for

example.

Table II further shows that the models of Boekaerts and Pintrich and Borkowski

and Winne, although not similar, are by no means totally different. The unifying

element for Boekaerts and Pintrich is that they have both worked on the role of

motivational factors and goal processes in SRL; Borkowski and Winne, on the other

hand, have dened SRL as a metacognitively governed process and have been more

interested in the role of tactics and strategy use in SRL.

At the same time, however, it is the models of Borkowski and Winne that show

the greatest points of difference from all other models. The results of the two-by-two

comparisons (Table II) reveal that there are important differences between these

models and all the others. Borkowski and Boekaerts, for instance, start from different

theoretical positions and in their denitions of SRL each emphasises aspects of the

process quite different from those focused on by the other. Their conceptions of the

SRL process are rather different; even if they globally agree on the unfolding of theSRL process, the weight that they give to each component is quite different. Finally,

Borkowski and Boekaerts have conducted different empirical research on SRL (see

Table II).

Taken together, the comparisons showed that the models were, globally, rather

different from each other: only two of the models were really similar and even these

were by no means identical. These results seem to indicate that the theoretical

background is an important differential feature. Firstly, and not surprisingly, the only

two authors (i.e. Pintrich and Zimmerman) to draw on the same background theory,

the social cognitive theory, were the ones who produced the most similar models.Furthermore, even if Boekaerts model has not explicitly been described as based on


15/19


TABLE II. Two by two comparisons between the ve authors SRL models on four criteria

Criterion

Authors Background Denition Components Research

BoekaertsBorkowski ( ) BoekaertsPintrich 5 ( ) ( 5 )

BoekaertsWinne ( ) ( )

BoekaertsZimmerman 5 ( ) ( )

BorkowskiPintrich ( )

BorkowskiWinne ( ) 5 ( ) ( 5 )

BorkowskiZimmerman ( )

PintrichWinne ( ) ( )

PintrichZimmerman 5 5 5 5

WinneZimmerman ( ) ( ) ( )

5 , very similar; ( 5 ), rather similar (more similar than dissimilar, minor differences); ( ), rather

dissimilar (more dissimilar than similar, major differences); , very dissimilar.

of information processing theory and Winne, whose model is also different from

most of the others, has the most heterogeneous theoretical background of all.

A major goal of any modern education, whether of children or adults, should be

the promotion of the development of self-regulatory skills and thus the creation of

opportunities for life-long learning. Self-regulated learners actively and au-

tonomously guide their own learning and update their knowledge whenever necess-ary. From this perspective it is particularly desirable that in the future we move

towards a more integrated conception of SRL, supported by a solid empirical

approach. This will undoubtedly contribute to the denition and development of

educational and re-educational aims and applications in this eld.

Finally, it is important to pay more attention to the empirical methods chosen

to test SRL. As we have seen, the empirical research has often been conducted using

questionnaires and inventories designed to evaluate the central concepts of the

models. However, it has been demonstrated that self-report measures do not

necessarily give a reliable picture of the self-regulation tactics students actuallyengage in (Winne et al., 2000). More naturalistic and empirically valid methods will

certainly result in a more dynamic and diversied appreciation of the nature of the

SRL phenomenon.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper was prepared as a part of the project Human Development and its Risk

Factors nanced by the Academy of Finland (Finnish Centre of Excellence Pro-

gramme no. 40166 for 19971999 and no. 44858 for 20002002).

REFERENCES


16/19


BOEKAERTS , M. (1988). Motivated learning: bias in appraisals. International Journal of Educational

Research, 12, 267280.

BOEKAERTS , M. (1992). The adaptable learning process: initiating and maintaining behavioural change.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 377397.

BOEKAERTS , M. (1995). The interface between intelligence and personality as determinants of classroom

learning. In D.H. SAKLOFSKE & M . ZEIDNER (eds), International Handbook of Personality and

Intelligence. New York, NY: Plenum Press.BOEKAERTS , M. (1996a). Personality and the psychology of learning. European Journal of Personality, 10,

377404.

BOEKAERTS , M. (1996b). Teaching students self-regulated learning: a major success in applied research.

In J. GEORGAS, M. MANTHOULI, E. BESEVEGIS & A. KOKKEVI (eds), Contemporary Psychology in

Europe: theory, research, and applications. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

BOEKAERTS , M. (1999). Motivated learning: The study of student 3 situation transactional units.

European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 4155.

BOEKAERTS , M. &NIEMIVIRTA, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: nding a balance between learning

goals and ego-protective goals. In M. BOEKAERTS, P.R. PINTRICH& M. ZEIDNER (eds),Handbook of

Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

BORKOWSKI, J.G. (1996). Metacognition: theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual Differences,

8, 391402.

BORKOWSKI, J.G., & BURKE, J.E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functioning:

an information processing perspective. In G.R. LYON& N.A. KRASNEGOR(eds),Attention, Memory,

and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

BORKOWSKI, J.G., & MUTHUKRISHNA, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom: working

models and effective strategy teaching. In M. PRESSLEY, K.R. HARRIS & J.T. GUTHRIE (eds),

Promoting Academic Literacy: cognitive research and instructional innovation. Orlando, FL: Academic

Press.

BORKOWSKI, J.G., & MUTHUKRISHNA, N. (1995). Learning environments and skill generalization: how

contexts facilitate regulatory processes and efcacy beliefs. In F.E. WEINERT& W. SCHNEIDER(eds),Memory Performance and Competencies: issues in growth and development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

BORKOWSKI, J.G., & TURNER, L.A. (1990). Transsituational characteristics of metacognition. In W.

SCHNEIDER& F.E. WEINERT (eds), Interactions among Aptitudes, Strategies, and Knowledge in Cogni-

tive Performance. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

BORKOWSKI, J.G., CHAN, L.K.S., & MUTHUKRISHNA, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacog-

nition: links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. SCHRAW& J. IMPARA (eds),Issues

in the Measurement of Metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements,

University of Nebraska.

BROWN, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. In R.

GLASER (ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology: Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

BUTLER, D.L., & WINNE, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis.

Review of Educational Research, 65, 245281.

CARVER, C.S., & SCHEIER, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affects: a

controlprocess view. Psychological Review, 97, 1935.

FLAVELL, J.H., & WELLMAN, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. KAIL& J.W. HAGEN(eds),Perspectives

on the Development of Memory and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GARCIA, T., & PINTRICH, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: the role of

self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H. SCHUNK& B.J. ZIMMERMAN (eds), Self-regu-

lation of Learning and Performance: issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GARCIA, T., & PINTRICH, P.R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the

college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 477486.HADWIN, A.F., WINNE, P.H., STOCKLEY, D.B., NESBIT, J.C., & WOSZCZYNA, C. (1997). Context moder-

ates students self reports about how they study paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the


17/19


KITSANTAS, A., & ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1998). Self-regulation of motoric learning: a strategic cycle view.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 220239.

KUHL, J. (1985). From cognition to behavior: perspectives for future research on action control. In J.

KUHL& J. BECKMANN (eds),Action Control: from cognition to behavior. Berlin, Germany: Springer-

Verlag.

KUHL, J., & GOSCHKE, T. (1994). A theory of action control: mental subsystems, modes of control, and

volitional conict-resolution strategies. In J. KUHL& J. BECKMANN (eds), Volition and Personality:action versus state orientation. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

LAZARUS, R.S., & FOLKMAN, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer.

PARIS, S.G., & BYRNES, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the

classroom. In B.J. ZIMMERMAN& D.H.SCHUNK(eds),Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achieve-

ment: theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

PINTRICH, P.R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college

classroom. In C. AMES & M.L. MAEHR (eds), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 6.

Motivation enhancing environments. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

PINTRICH, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. B OEKAERTS , P.R.

PINTRICH

& M. ZEIDNER

(eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.PINTRICH, P.R. & DE GROOT, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of

classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340.

PINTRICH, P.R. & GARCIA, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college

classroom. In M.L. MAEHR& P.R. PINTRICH(eds),Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 7.

Goals and self-regulatory processes. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

PINTRICH, P.R., ROESER, R.W., & DEGROOT, E.A.M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in

early adolescents motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 139161.

PINTRICH, P.R., SMITH, D.A.F., GARCIA, T., & MCKEACHIE, W.J. (1993). Reliability and predictive

validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 53, 801813.

PINTRICH, P.R., WOLTERS, C.A., & BAXTER, G.P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated

learning. In G. SCHRAW& J. IMPARA (eds),Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition. Lincoln, NE:

Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska.

PRESSLEY, M., FORREST-PRESSLEY, D.L., ELLIOTT-FAUST, D.J., & MILLER, G.E. (1985). Childrens use

of cognitive strategies, how to teach strategies, and what to do if they cant be taught. In M.

PRESSLEY & C.J. BRAINERD (eds), Cognitive Learning and Memory in Children. New York, NY:

Springer-Verlag.

PRESSLEY, M., BORKOWSKI, J.G., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: good strategy users

coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. VASTA (ed.), Annals of Child Development: Vol. 4.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

PRESSLEY, M., BORKOWSKI, J.G., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1990). Good information processing: what it is andhow education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 2, 857867.

REID, M.K., & BORKOWSKI, J.G. (1987). Causal attributions of hyperactive children: implications for

teaching strategies and self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 296307.

SCHUNK, D.H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efcacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol-

ogist, 25, 7186.

SCHUNK, D.H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efcacy and attributions in academic settings. In D.H.

SCHUNK& B.J. ZIMMERMAN (eds),Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: issues and educational

applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

SCHUNK, D.H., & ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1996). Modeling and self-efcacy inuences on childrens develop-

ment of self-regulation. In J. JUVONEN & K.R. WENTZEL (eds), Social Motivation: understandingchildrens school adjustment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

SCHUNK D H & ZIMMERMAN B J (eds) (1998) Self-regulated Learning: from teaching to self-reective


18/19


STERNBERG, R.J. (1985).Beyond IQ. A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

VANDERSTOEP, S.W., PINTRICH, P.R., & FAGERLIN , A. (1996). Disciplinary differences in self-regulated

learning in college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 345362.

WINNE, P.H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning

and Individual Differences, 8, 327353.

WINNE, P.H., & HADWIN, A.F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. HACKER & J.DUNLOSKY (eds), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, The Educational Psychology

Series. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

WINNE, P.H., & PERRY, N.E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. BOEKAERTS , P.R. PIN-

TRICH& M. ZEIDNER (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

WINNE, P.H., HADWIN, A.F., MCNAMARA, J.K., & CHU, S.T.L. (1998). An exploratory study of self-reg-

ulated learning when students study using CoNoteS2, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

WINNE, P.H., HADWIN, A.F.,STOCKLEY, D.B., & NESBIT, J.C. (2000). Traces versus self-reports of study

tactics and their relations to achievement. Unpublished report.

WOLTERS, C.A., & PINTRICH, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regu-

lated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26,

2747.

ZEIDNER, M., BOEKAERTS, M., & PINTRICH, P.R. (2000). Self-regulation: directions and challenges for

future research. In M. BOEKAERTS, P.R. PINTRICH& M. ZEIDNER (eds),Handbook of Self-regulation.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 81, 329339.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1990a). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: the emergence of a social

cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173201.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1990b). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educational

Psychologist, 25, 317.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1996). Enhancing student academic and health functioning: a self-regulatory per-

spective.School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 4766.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory

perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 7386.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (2000a). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. B OEKAERTS,

P.R. PINTRICH& M. ZEIDNER (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (2000b). Self-efcacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psy-

chology, 25, 8291.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J., & BANDURA, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory inuences on writing course

attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845862.ZIMMERMAN, B.J., & KITSANTAS, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: shifting from

process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 2936.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. &MARTINEZ- PONS, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing

student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614

628.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J., & MARTINEZ- PONS, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student

self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284290.

ZIMMERMAN,B.J.,&MARTINEZ- PONS, M. ( 1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating

grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efcacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,

5159.ZIMMERMAN, B.J., & RISEMBERG, R. ( 1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: a social cognitive perspec-

tive. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73101.


19/19

Documents

Models of Self-Regulated Learning DA (2)