Supporting Self-Regulated Learning

This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]On: 22 April 2015, At: 11:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership inLearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmet20

Supporting Self-Regulated Learningfor College Students with AspergerSyndrome: Exploring the “Strategiesfor College Learning” ModelBryan M. Nessa

a University of New HampshirePublished online: 12 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Bryan M. Ness (2013) Supporting Self-Regulated Learning for College Studentswith Asperger Syndrome: Exploring the “Strategies for College Learning” Model, Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 21:4, 356-377, DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2013.855865

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.855865

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmet20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13611267.2013.855865

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.855865

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Supporting Self-Regulated Learning for College Students withAsperger Syndrome: Exploring the “Strategies for College

Learning” Model

Bryan M. NessUniversity of New Hampshire

In this study, I piloted the feasibility, effects, and perceived acceptabilityof a peer mentoring intervention targeting academic achievement andself-regulated learning (SRL) for three college students with Aspergersyndrome. The approach, dubbed Strategies for College Learning (SCL),features individualized assessment of academic performance in targetcourses and direct instruction of learning and self-regulation strategiesunder the provision of a peer mentor. The pilot study resulted in success-ful implementation of SCL and the acquisition of numerous learningstrategies among participants. Qualitative data indicated participants feltSCL was both useful and acceptable. As the incidence of autism spec-trum disorders increases, so has the need to accommodate students withhighly individualized learning needs. The pilot is among the first toexplore peer mentoring as an approach at bolstering SRL and academicachievement for college students with Asperger syndrome. The limita-tions of the study are discussed as well as implications for future researchand practice.

Keywords: Asperger syndrome, college, self-regulated learning, strategyinstruction, mentoring

Introduction

A model for implementing contextually relevant, individualized learningstrategy instruction for college students with Asperger syndrome using asocial-cognitive theoretical framework is described in this paper. A pilotedpeer mentoring intervention grounded in self-regulated learning (SRL) wasdeveloped to explore the impact of teaching cognitive-based academicstrategies to struggling college students with Asperger syndrome. Three casesare presented to illustrate the intervention model, demonstrating howsocial-cognitive processes are linked to academic achievement, and

Bryan M. Ness, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of New Hampshire.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bryan M. Ness, Communica-tion Sciences and Disorders, University of New Hampshire, 4 Library Way, 151 Hewitt Hall,Durham, NH 03824, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 2013Vol. 21, No. 4, 356–377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.855865

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.855865

documenting the effects of self-regulated strategy instruction within andacross participants.

Students with ASD in Post-Secondary Education

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) encompass an array of developmentaldisabilities including autism, Asperger syndrome (sometimes labeled“Asperger’s syndrome” or “Asperger’s disorder”), and pervasive develop-mental disorder—not otherwise specified (National Institute of Child Health& Human Development [NIHCD], 2011). The incidence of school-age chil-dren diagnosed with ASDs has increased significantly over the last 10 yearsresulting in approximately 300,000 students with ASD served in primary andsecondary education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs; Sep-tember, 2009).

There is congruent evidence that the number of young people with ASDtransitioning into post-secondary education is also increasing. Data publishedfrom the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) revealed 46% ofthe participating students enrolled in some type of postsecondary education(Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Post-secondaryeducation is a priority for many students with ASD, particularly if studentshave experienced academic success in high school, are enrolled in high schoolstargeting post-secondary enrollment, and have parents supportive of collegeenrollment (Chiang, Cheung, Hickson, Xiang, & Tsai, 2011).

There is growing awareness that traditional academic accommodations(i.e. note taker, extra time for exams, etc.) may not sufficiently meet theunique needs of students with ASDs, and there remains a need to developand evaluate supports that can be tailored to individual students’ uniqueneeds and learning contexts (Camarena & Sarigiani, 2009; VanDergeijk,Klin, & Volkmar, 2008). Higher enrollment is contributing to emergingintervention research seeking to refine educational supports offered to collegestudents with ASDs. In particular, there is increasing recognition that social-cognitive skills related to daily living, self-advocacy, and academic supportsshould be included in programs offered to students with ASD in college(Adreon & Durocher, 2007; Baker & Welkowitz, 2005; Zager & Alpern,2010). At some institutions, seminar courses have been established forstudents with ASD covering topics related to post-secondary transitionsincluding campus life, social engagement, and study skills (Wenzel &Rowley, 2010). A consistent theme in this emerging literature is the need toaddress the academic implications of social and cognitive deficits thatcharacterize ASDs.

SUPPORTING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS 357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

An Explanatory Model: SRL

Social-cognitive theorists assert successful learning results from interactingsocial, cognitive, and contextual factors (e.g. Zimmerman, 1998). Self-regula-tion is a key cognitive process that allows for flexibility (e.g. problemsolving) during challenging academic work (Boekaerts, Maes, & Karoly,2005). Students’ capacity to self-regulate depends largely on utilizinglearning strategies, particularly when facing cognitive or motivational barriersduring new or challenging tasks (Boekaerts & Cascallar, 2006). SRLculminates in a systematic, self-evaluative approach to learning, oftenconceptualized as a three-phase cycle: (a) forethought, (b) performance, and(c) self-reflection. Forethought encompasses influential processes that set thestage for learning including goal setting, strategic planning, and self-efficacyenhancement. Performance includes using strategies such as informationseeking, rehearsal, and self-monitoring to regulate task completion. Finally,the self-reflection phase includes self-evaluation of learning, including assess-ing strategy effectiveness and making accurate attributions (Zimmerman,1998).

SRL skills become increasingly important for academic success in second-ary and post-secondary education due to increased contextual complexity(Rudolph, Lambert, Clark, & Kurlakowshy, 2001; Winters, Greene, &Costich, 2008). It is important for educators in these settings to understandeffective methods for bolstering SRL for struggling learners. As such,researchers seeking interventions to bolster SRL strategy use (e.g. timemanagement, organizational supports, and self-monitoring) are effective inimproving academic achievement for college students with learningdisabilities (Butler, 1995, 2003; Ruban, McCoach, McGuire, & Reis, 2003;Trainin & Swanson, 2005). Also, strategy instruction paradigms, most notablySelf-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), have been shown to promoteacademic achievement for other at-risk college students, particularly forwriting tasks (Valentine et al., 2009).

The Self-Regulation Empowerment Protocol (SREP; Cleary &Zimmerman, 2004) is a strategy instruction model designed to bolster SRLfor struggling students in secondary education. SREP is implemented by anadult mentor who evaluates the student’s SRL processes using interview,observation, and performance assessment procedures. The mentor and studentthen collaboratively set goals, and the mentor teaches the student strategiesto improve academic achievement. The overarching goals of SREP are asfollows: (a) To increase motivational beliefs; (b) to increase the student’srepertoire of learning strategies; and (c) to provide practice opportunities forapplying new strategies (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004).

At this time, there are no peer-reviewed studies examining the effect ofpeer mentoring on SRL for college students with ASD. There are differentmentoring models, and the most commonly cited example of educational

358 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

mentoring involves peer mentoring (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Peer mentoringcommonly connects an expert student with a less accomplished student(Leidenfrost, Strassbig, Schabmann, Spiel, & Carbon, 2011). Mentors engagea number of roles while supporting the academic achievement of theirmentees, but key attributes in mentoring include serving as a learning coach,advocate, and trusted friend (Colvin & Ashman, 2010). Peer mentoringseems to be particularly well suited for supporting struggling college studentswith ASD since personal rapport and psychosocial adaptation are emphasized(Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2000).

The present study was designed to address a number of gaps in theliterature dealing with post-secondary supports tailored for college studentswith ASD, specifically students identified with Asperger syndrome. In thisstudy, I piloted an intervention package, based largely on the SREP model,to guide academic mentoring and strategy instruction for college studentswith Asperger syndrome who are at risk for academic failure. The Strategiesfor College Learning (SCL) package is a theoretically grounded peer mentor-ing intervention targeting individualized, contextually relevant academicskills. Case studies are presented to illustrate the SCL components andelucidate the process for three college students with Asperger syndrome.

Methods

There were two goals of this study: (a) Pilot SCL and assess the outcomesfor three college students with Asperger syndrome and (b) evaluate theacceptability of the intervention. A case study approach was adopted toaddress these goals due to the exploratory nature of this study andheterogeneous intervention activities across participants.

Participants

I conducted the study over two academic semesters at a public university inthe northeast. After university IRB approval was obtained to conduct thestudy, participants were recruited. To protect potential participants’ confiden-tiality and autonomy, the author asked the disability services for students(DSS) administrator to recruit students. The inclusion criteria were asfollows: (a) Diagnosed with ASD; (b) current enrollment in courses at thehost university; (c) IQ within normal limits; (d) failing or at risk for academicfailure as defined by cumulative GPA at or near 2.0. Of the 12 students withASD who registered for DSS services at the time of this study, two met theinclusion criteria and agreed to participate during the fall semester. A thirdparticipant met the criteria and agreed to participate during the spring semes-ter. Stacy and John (pseudonyms are used to protect anonymity) participatedduring the fall semester, and Chad participated during the spring semester.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

Stacy and John had received accommodations in prior semesters; however,they were still failing or at risk for academic failure.

To ensure participants understood the nature of the study and their rights,the DSS administrator distributed consent letters to each before asking partic-ipants to email the researcher. The three participants then met with theresearcher who explained the nature of the project, reviewed the signedconsent letters, and verified each participant provided informed consent.Subsequent to obtaining informed consent, the author and DSS administratorverified ASD diagnosis by reviewing neuropsychological evaluationssubmitted by each student as a condition of receiving accommodations.

Stacy was a 21-year-old junior enrolled in her seventh consecutive semes-ter at the university, and she was pursuing a profession in a research labora-tory. Stacy’s major was plant biology. She was diagnosed with Aspergersyndrome at the age of 10. Stacy stated that despite certain learning chal-lenges associated with these diagnoses, she enjoyed high school and earned a3.2 GPA. However, Stacy did not attain that level of achievement in college,attributing the performance discrepancy to more difficult content and courserequirements in college, as well as struggling with increased expectations ofautonomy. In prior semesters, Stacy’s primary accommodations includedcourse-specific tutoring and classroom note takers. Stacy’s cumulative GPAwas 2.2 after six semesters. Stacy lived with her family and was enrolled infour courses and a lab during the study.

John was a 25-year-old student enrolled in his sixth year at the university.He was a biology major but stated he enrolled in college classes for personalsatisfaction and not for professional aspirations. John held junior status,though he was not a full-time student; he typically enrolled in 1–3 coursesper semester. John was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified “before elementary school,” but this diagnosis wasupdated and he was identified as having Asperger syndrome following a neu-ropsychological evaluation following his first year in college. The primarymanifestations of Asperger syndrome for John were limited social relations.Prior to this study, John’s accommodations included classroom note takers,tutoring, and a paid “mentor” for one semester who provided social supportand monitoring self-care and day-to-day activities. John’s cumulative GPAwas 2.15 at the onset of the study. John lived at home with his parents andwas enrolled in two classes during the study.

Chad was a 19-year-old freshman enrolled in his second semester. Chad’smajor was Political Science during the spring semester, but was planning tochange his focus to an undetermined hard sciences major. Chad’s profes-sional aspiration was to work in a research laboratory. He was diagnosedwith Asperger syndrome before he was enrolled in elementary school. Chadreported earning B’s and C’s in high school and indicated his SAT total scorewas very high. The transition experience was challenging in many ways forChad, and he attributed his difficulties to poor “time management”. After one

360 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

semester, Chad earned a 1.44 GPA and was placed on academic probation.Chad was then referred to the DSS office, and the DSS administratorsuggested he would be a good candidate to participate in this project. He hadnot received any academic accommodations or tutoring during his firstsemester. Chad was a full-time student enrolled in four courses and was theonly participant who lived in an on-campus dormitory at the time of thisstudy.

Intervention

The intervention was developed to address gaps identified by DSS andacademic supports/tutoring personnel in existing services offered to stu-dents with ASD at the host university. The intervention package, dubbedSCL, was a strategy instruction paradigm that involved matching partici-pants with a peer mentor. SCL was patterned after SREP and adoptedthree key features: SRL assessment, collaborative goal setting, and strategyinstruction. SCL builds on the SREP model by formalizing self-monitoringof goal attainment and, most distinctively, adopting a peer mentoringapproach.

SCL was developed as a formal, peer mentoring model, and as such wasinfused with three elemental features that define peer mentoring (Crisp &Cruz, 2009). First, college students served as mentors so they could sharerelevant experiences with the participants. Second, the mentors, whovoluntarily participated in the study, were selected based on expertise, eachdemonstrating superior academic achievement. Mentors were two graduatestudents and an undergraduate student enrolled in communication sciencesand disorders (CSD). CSD students were selected because of theircoursework concentration ASD and Asperger syndrome, experience withon-campus clinical practicum, and training in professional/clinical ethics. Inaddition to classroom training, the mentors received specialized training inboth ASDs and SRL prior to working with participating students. The men-tors attended two one-hour workshops before meeting with mentees. The firstworkshop was conducted by the primary investigator and focused on SRLstrategy instruction. The second workshop was conducted by another CSDfaculty member who is an expert in the cognitive-communication deficitsassociated with ASD. Third, SCL helped promote psychosocial relations, andmentors were instructed to create an open, equitable relationship by sharingtheir own academic experiences during the semester.

To facilitate mentor training and implementation fidelity, workshop hand-outs, research articles, and intervention procedures were presented to mentorsin a manual. The same intervention package, meaning identical content andsequence of events, was delivered to all three participants. Each mentoringsession was supervised by the researcher to promote uniform implementationacross participants. Students met with mentors once a week for one-hour


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

sessions at a clinical services facility on campus. The first session wasscheduled during the fourth week of the semester to ensure participantswould have sufficient experience with each class, including gradedassignments, to facilitate valid, objective baseline data collection.

SCL is an intervention package consisting of four components (seeFigure 1). The overarching goal was to promote a systematic, cyclical self-regulated approach to academic work (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004; Pintrich,2004). The first two to three mentoring sessions focused on the diagnosticassessment procedure described by Cleary and Zimmerman (2004)—dubbedmacroanalysis and microanalysis. Levels of specificity for macroanalysisincluded assessing which class students struggled with the most, which grad-ing criteria (e.g. exams, papers, assignments, etc.) resulted in lowest grades,and which strategies students were already using. Microanalysis was basedon a 15-item structured interview adapted from Cleary and Zimmerman

• Macroassessment

• Baseline data collection: problematic course, grading criteria, and strategy use

• Microassessment

• Semistructrured interview measuring SRL

Assessment

• Collaboratively articulate semester goals

• Complete "Goal Worksheet"

• Student assesses goal importance and ease of attainment

Goal setting

• Develop SRL strategy to meet student need

• E.g., organization, seeking information, social assistance seeking, etc.

• Mentor teaches strategy systematically

• Task analysis, modeling, and guided practice

Strategy

instruction

• Complete weekly self-monitoring worksheet

• Mentor feedback

Self-monitoring

Figure 1. SCL components and activities.

362 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

(2004), which mentors used to elucidate mentees’ use of strategies mappedonto the SRL cycle. For example, a forethought question was, Do you have agoal when you study? A performance question was, What do you do to keeptrack of how long you study? A self-reflection question was, How satisfiedare you with your performance on your last exam? Interviewing andperformance observation were used as primary assessment approaches sinceit was imperative to evaluate students’ learning processes under highlycontextualized and idiosyncratic conditions (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005).

The second component of SCL was goal setting. Establishing personallyrelevant goals is a powerful predictor in student acceptance and use of self-regulation strategies (Schunk, 1998). To lay the foundation for setting goals,the mentor summarized assessment findings with the mentee (i.e. target class,problematic grading criteria, microanalysis, etc.). Goals were collaborativelyarticulated to address these deficits, and a hard copy was produced by thementor for the purpose of monitoring progress throughout the semester (seeFigure 2).

To constrain and define the universe of goals associated with academicachievement, mentors attempted to target four academic skills: (a) improvedexam scores; (b) improved assignment completion rate and/or accuracy; (c)improved self-advocacy or accessing supports; (d) improved participation inclass. Once goals were articulated, mentees were asked to assess goal impor-tance and ease of attainment. This final step was necessary for mentors toaddress factors related to motivation and metacognition, variables closelyrelated to self-regulation and academic achievement (Linnenbrink & Pintrich,2002; Pintrich, 2004). See Figure 2 for an illustration of the goal worksheet.

Figure 2. SCL goal worksheet.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

The third component of SCL was strategy instruction. Strategy selectionwas guided by research and the mentees’ goals. Mentors were instructedto encourage strategies that are traditionally linked to self-regulation(Zimmerman & Pons, 1986). These included organization, seeking informa-tion, record keeping/note taking, environmental modifications, and socialassistance seeking. Once a strategy was selected, mentors taught the strategysystematically using task analysis, modeling, and guided practice while alsosharing how the strategy was used with their own academic material whenpossible (Butler, 2003; Zito, Adkins, Gavins, Harris, & Graham, 2007).

The fourth component was self-monitoring of goal attainment. Menteeswere encouraged to self-monitor goal attainment and strategy use each weekusing a template provided by the mentor. See Figure 3 for an illustration.Self-monitoring was incorporated to promote a cyclical pattern of planning,performance, and self-reflection as students progressed through the semester.The self-monitoring procedure was intended to enable mentors and menteesthe opportunity to modify strategies and plan for upcoming assignments.

Measures

The primary variables of interest were academic achievement and newlyacquired SRL skills. Academic achievement was measured using changes incumulative GPA and course grades during the intervention semester. GPAwas obtained by reviewing participants’ unofficial transcripts, and coursegrades were measured using online teaching software supported by the uni-versity. To quantify course grades, letter grades were assigned a point valueaccording to university criteria. An A equaled 4.0 points, an A− equaled3.67, B+ equaled 3.33, B equaled 3.0, and so forth. All courses were takenfor 4 credits. Course instructors were not explicitly made aware of students’participation in this pilot study.

Figure 3. Self-monitoring worksheet.

364 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

To assess participant acquisition of SRL skills and strategies, observa-tional data were recorded by the mentors during each meeting. Also, eachmentoring session was video recorded, and short summaries of each sessionwere written by a graduate student assistant. The summaries were reviewedby the researcher so a longitudinal record of strategy acquisition and usecould be observed. The written summaries were compared with session datafor reliability purposes.

Acceptability was measured qualitatively using a semi-structuredinterview administered by the researcher to each participant at the end of thesemester. It is important to assess the acceptability of behavioral interventionsto predict replication and long-term adherence, and interviews offer anunconstrained measure of social validity (Foster & Mash, 1999). Three ques-tions were asked during the final interview. Can you describe how you feelabout your academic experience this semester? Can you talk about how thementoring program impacted your learning this semester? Can you talk aboutyour experience with the mentor? Each interview was audio recorded andtranscribed for analysis.

Analysis

The data were analyzed using a case studies approach. Case studies are use-ful for establishing and replicating intervention procedures across a smallnumber of participants (Smith et al., 2007). Additionally, case studies arebeneficial for enabling researchers to document multiple intervention featuressimultaneously and collect initial data leading to more refined experimentalquestions (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Participant data were analyzed individ-ually and were not aggregated. The primary limitation of a case studyapproach in intervention research is the lack of experimental control, mean-ing it is impossible to conclusively attribute the outcome to the interventionsince extraneous variables may account for the change. Additionally, in thecase of multi-component intervention packages such as SCL, it is impossibleto control the influence of multiple interventions on the target behavior(Meline, 2010). Since SCL is an intervention package resulting in thedevelopment of contextually relevant, individualized strategy use, it wasimpossible to compare the relative impact of strategies across participantssince they may acquire different strategies.

To supplement individual treatment data and participants’ experience withSCL, exit interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The author reviewed eachtranscript and coded the narrative data thematically. Themes emerged fromthe data which reflected consistent responses across participants. For reliabil-ity purposes, a graduate student coded one of the three transcripts. In the caseof disagreement or ambiguous findings, codes were refined and the text wasre-analyzed until consensus was reached.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

Results

The case descriptions below are presented to report both the nature of thementoring activities and the various strategies developed for each participant.Each participant learned a number of strategies relative to their unique goals,and strategy use was validated by self-report and mentor observation. Quali-tative data are then presented documenting the acceptability of SCL.

SCL Cases

Stacy met with her mentor 10 times during the semester. Stacy and hermentor collaboratively decided to address three goals for one course: Twogoals pertaining to improving study skills (i.e. exams) and one related toaccessing supports. Stacy learned three new strategies and used themindependently by the end of the semester. She also made progress with socialassistance seeking by sending her first email to an instructor. Table 1 depictsthe strategies Stacy acquired as well as observational data for strategy use atthe end of the semester. Stacy’s semester GPA was 3.25, her best as a collegestudent, which boosted her cumulative GPA to 2.45. Her course gradeimproved from D to B.

John met with his mentor 10 times. John and his mentor sought to attaintwo goals—one related to improving assignment management and test prepa-ration, the other related to social assistance seeking—each targeting Calculus.The mentor helped John learn to organize his notes, assignments, and gradedmaterial in a notebook. John also learned to schedule and attend math tutor-ing 2–3 days a week independently by the end of the semester. The nextobjective was to improve John’s utilization of the math tutoring center oncampus. John and his mentor would review weekly Calculus assignments,circling difficult items for later review with a math tutor. John began to uselecture notes, keep his notebook organized, and planned/scripted specificquestions for his math tutor improved; however, he continued to require men-tor support of these strategies at the end of the semester. See Table 2 for asummary of John’s strategies and mentoring activity. John passed Calculuswith a C-, which was his first passing grade in four attempts at this course.His overall GPA decreased slightly from 2.18 to 2.15.

Chad met with his mentor for 11 sessions. Chad and his mentor targetedgoals for improving organization and seeking assistance for three of hiscourses. Chad’s organizational goals were addressed by teaching him to usean agenda for recording assignments and planning study sessions (i.e. time,location, and duration). The mentor taught Chad to monitor his assignmentcompletion and exam performance using the online Grade Book. Notably,during the initial assessment period, Chad reported using an organizer andGrade Book to monitor his academics; however, mentor observationsrevealed this was not the case suggesting incongruence between actual and

366 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

Table

1New

andEmerging

Strategies:Stacy

Strategy

TargetSRL

behavior

Descriptio

nObservatio

ndata

Paraphrasingandself-

questio

ning

Self-evaluatio

n;perspective

taking

Restate

contentverbally

orin

sentence

form

atGeneratingquestio

nsindependently

andspontaneouslyfortestpreparation

Generatequestio

nswith

mentorthat

reflect

analysisor

synthesisof

material(e.g.

compare/contrastquestio

ns)

Re-writin

gnotesusing

outlining

Organizing

material

hierarchically

Rew

rite

lecturenotesusingoutline

form

at;

organize

ordinate

andsubordinatecontent

Generatingoutlinesforalllecture

material;generalized

useacross

classes

Integratematerialfrom

instructor’sslides

asneeded

Concept

mapping

Organizing

materialvisually

Visually

graphordinate

andsubordinate

content

Selectiv

eusefortestpreparationand

course-specificcontent(e.g.

characteristicsof

Chinese

dynasties

Relationships

betweencontentareasdepicted

usingtext

bubblesandlin

esWritin

geffectiveem

ailsto

instructors

Seeking

inform

ation

from

asocial

source

Discuss

contentandoutcom

eof

effective

emailinteractionwith

mentor

Had

oneem

ailexchange

with

professor;verbalizes

importance

but

reportsreticence

Practiceeffectiveem

ailexchangeswith

mentor


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

Table

2New

andEmerging

Strategies:John

Strategy

TargetSRLbehavior

Descriptio

nObservatio

ndata

Develop

notebook

organizatio

nOrganization;

record

keeping

Datelecturenotes

Dated

lecturenotesindependently

butrequired

mentormonito

ring

tokeep

assignmentsandnotes

separate

Insertlecturenotes

chronologically

Separatelecturenotesfrom

ongoingandcompleted

assignments

Scheduletutoring

sessions

forCalculus

Seeking

inform

ation

from

asocial

source

Developed

weeklytutoring

schedule

with

mathcenter

oncampus

Regularly

attended

tutoring

sessions;he

attributed

passingCalculuslargelyto

tutoring

Planning/scripting

questio

nsfortutor

Seeking

inform

ation

from

asocial

source;

metacognitio

n

MentorandJohn

identified

difficultcalculus

problemson

homew

orkassignments

Benefittedfrom

thementorplanning

questio

nsforthetutors;continuedto

exhibitdifficulty

independently

recognizingandexplaining

areas

ofconfusion

Wrote

questio

nsin

preparationfortutoring

session

Mentoraskedfollo

w-up

questio

nsto

monito

reffects

oftutoring

368 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

Table

3New

andEmerging

Strategies:Chad

Strategy

TargetSRL

behavior

Descriptio

nObservatio

ndata

Organizer

Planningacadem

ictasks;record

keeping;

organizatio

n

Use

organizerto

plan

assignment

completion

Consistently

writesin

organizerwith

out

prom

ptingandlooksoneweekaheadin

organizer

Lookaheadin

organizerto

anticipateupcomingacadem

ictasksandassignments

Reportssometim

esnotcarrying

outplanned

sessions

Planandself-m

onito

rstudy

locatio

ns,duratio

ns,and

outcom

esOrganizer

alarm

Planning;

self-

monito

ring

Daily

alarm

reminding

Chadto

checkhisorganizerin

the

morning

tobetterplan

forthe

day

Integrated

into

daily

routine

Com

municatewith

instructors

Seeking

inform

ationfrom

asocial

source

Com

municatewith

instructors

with

quiz/exam

andassignment

concerns

Emailsinstructorswith

concerns

andattends

office

hours;sometim

esplansto

meetwith

aninstructor,butmeetin

gwas

notconsistently

attended.

Use

Grade

Bookto

checkgrades

Self-monito

ring

Check

BlackboardGrade

Books

foreach

classon

aweeklybasis

ChecksBlackboardgrades

once

aweekduring

mentoring

sessions;beganBlackboarddaily

tocheckposted

quizzesandreadings


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

perceived strategy use. There were no discrepancies between self-reportedand observed strategy use for the other participants. By self-report andmentor observation, Chad learned to incorporate his organizer into his dailyroutine and independently made entries as needed, although he reported notalways following through with his agenda. Chad’s social assistance seekinggoal was addressed by practicing effective email interactions with instructorsduring the mentoring sessions. His social assistance seeking was emerging asevidenced by emails sent to instructors; however, he did not consistentlyattend scheduled meetings or office hours once arranged. Finally, Chadlearned to access Grade Book, but only did so during mentoring sessions.See Table 3 for a summary of Chad’s strategy acquisition. Chad’s coursegrades improved in two classes, F to D and D to C for Media and Mathrespectively, while decreasing from A to D in Spanish. This earned him a1.33 semester GPA, slightly lower than his prior semester’s GPA of 1.44.Table 4 provides a summary of all course grade and GPA data.

SCL Acceptability

To gain the participants’ perception of their experience in SCL, the researcherconducted post-intervention interviews with each student after the semesterhad ended. The interviews ranged in duration from 15 to 30 min. Theanalysis revealed three themes presented below.

Responses to Question 1: SCL Contributed to a Positive AcademicExperience

Participating in SCL was generally perceived as enhancing a positiveacademic experience across participants. Students cited improvements inorganization, studying, and improved academics as key. For instance, Chadsaid,

Table 4Course Grade and GPA Data for All Participants

Student CourseCourse grade Overall GPA

Pre Post Point difference Pre Post

Stacy A&P D B +2.00 2.20 2.45John Calculus C C− −.33 2.18 2.15Chad Math D C +1.00 1.44 1.39

Spanish A D −3.00Media F D +1.00

370 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

I definitely had a lot of improvements. I learned a lot of habits I can use lateron that will help me not fall behind the way I did last semester … I communi-cated with my professors a good amount; definitely much more progress thissemester.

John was less satisfied with his overall academic experience, indicatingcontextual monotony diminished his enjoyment, “You know, it was just sotedious. It was like stuck in a rut if you will. Every day going to the same …building to the same classes, then going home, then going back to thatbuilding.” Stacy, on the other hand, was very positive, indicating SCLcontributed in a significant way. She said,

I’m pretty sure that it was one of my best ones (semesters) so far. I just thinkthat learning the techniques and stuff and learning the time management stuffhelped me, you know, enforce it in my other courses … It just made it a loteasier.

Responses to Question 2: SCL Seen as Effective and Relevant

Chad said, “I’ve learned to organize myself a lot better … it helped me keeptrack of my grades, it helped me stay ahead of my class and help me fromfalling being like I did last semester.” When asked about SCL, John stated,“It didn’t hinder it, but I don’t know, I can’t really think of any concreteways that it helped, but it didn’t hurt.” However, when prompted to recallspecific activities he completed, John remarked, “I used it (the Math Center)a lot more often. It helped me a lot.” Students seemed to perceive SCL asrelevant, meaning the objectives were directly related to academic success.For example, Chad remarked, “This one (SCL) seems a lot more active. Itseems to pursue results. I could come here and expect to walk away withsomething and I would be expected to come back.” Similarly, Stacy indicatedSCL “… was really helpful because I wasn’t always using the sametechnique. I was learning different techniques, which is good because, youknow, all the classes aren’t the same.”

Responses to Question 3: Importance of Personal Connection

The students indicated feeling personally connected to the mentor was animportant attribute. In Stacy’s case, she perceived her mentor understood thecharacteristics of ASD and developed a positive rapport, “It was a goodmatch.” Stacy said,

She just … I know that she understood, you know. It helps when peopleunderstand that you’re not, you know … you’re not trying to be rude whenyou’re not looking directly at them and not, you know, talking at them.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

On the other hand, John did not feel as connected to his mentor. “She wasOK,” he said, “But I didn’t, I wasn’t really able to interact with her outsideof class and yeah, I don’t really know much about her.” However, SCL wasmore person-centered than other supports according to John, “I actuallynoticed it, unlike other supports. Pretty much that I was actually able to seeit being, you know in effect. There was more of a face to it. A human face.”Chad made a similar remark, indicating that consistency was a beneficialaspect of SCL, “Working with (the mentor) was really positive. It was reallygood to always have a little bit of structure to return to and to havesomething solid that was consistent.” Finally, for Stacy, her mentor’sgraduate student status influenced her perception of SCL,

I guess it was more so that it (she) wasn’t one of my peers … you know, itwas someone who was already out there in the field, in a sense. It was morelike she was a professor, I guess.

Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to pilot SCL, exploring changes in SRL strate-gies and course grades for three students with Asperger syndrome, and assessthe perceived acceptability of the intervention package. SCL is a peer men-toring model that seeks to link individualized self-regulated strategy use withacademic success. Educators and researchers adopting a social-cognitiveperspective maintain that students learn self-regulatory strategies throughexperience and by observing expert models (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007).For students who do not acquire self-regulation strategies experientially, moreexplicit instruction is necessary (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). SRL inter-ventions such as SCL seek to improve academic functioning, in part, byexpanding the student’s repertoire of strategies (Cleary & Zimmerman,2004).

The primary contribution of this study is the demonstration of an interven-tion package targeting SRL for struggling students with Asperger syndrome,an area for which there is little or no published research. This study presentsa successful pilot of SCL as the components of the package were success-fully implemented and perceived as acceptable by the participants. This studypresents exploratory data suggesting peer mentoring grounded in SRL maybe particularly well suited to bolster learning strategy use among collegestudents with Asperger syndrome.

Exploring Potential Effects of SCL

All three participants learned and demonstrated numerous new SRL strate-gies, and this was an important outcome given their baseline academicachievement. Stacy’s case demonstrates a robust illustration of this effectsince she acquired a range of new skills and exhibited a marked improvement

372 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

in grades. The effect with John was less pronounced as he demonstratedfewer strategies, although he passed a course he had failed on three priorattempts so his experience was considered a success. There was very littleeffect of SCL on Chad’s grades, though he did learn a number of organiza-tional strategies.

Since this was a pilot study of SCL, the emphasis was on finalizing peermentoring procedures and collecting initial data in preparation for experimen-tal analysis. As such, the degree to which academic outcomes described inthis study can be directly attributed to SCL is limited. Since an experimentaldesign was not used, there was no experimental control for extraneousvariables, so factors other than the SCL could have, and likely did, impactstrategy use and course grades during this study. For example, since SCL isan intervention package, it is impossible to assess the individual contributionof each component. Similarly, since each participant learned different strate-gies, it is impossible to determine which strategies or which combination ofstrategies was most important. Any change in behavior has to be attributed tothe intervention package without the benefit of determining which strategywas most useful; an important efficiency limitation for interventionists. Also,since each participant had a different peer mentor, it may be assumed the out-comes were influenced by each mentor’s skill level or experience. In thefuture, it will be essential to use research designs that enable componentanalysis and control for extraneous variables in order to clearly explain theeffects of SCL on self-regulation and course grades.

In retrospect, incorporating neurotypical students in the pilot study wouldhave increased the interpretability of the results. A number of factors caninfluence course grades for students with Asperger syndrome, or any collegestudent for that matter, including class size, instructor attributes, and intrinsicinterest in a topic (e.g. VanDergeijk et al., 2008). Neurotypical classmateswould enable comparisons of many course-specific attributes, and othergroups of students receiving SCL would delineate the relative contribution ofthe intervention and extraneous factors.

There will need to be additional steps to control threats to internal andexternal validity in future research. For example, during the pilot study,strategy data and exit interviews were obtained by either the researcher or thepeer mentors. Data collected by impartial observers would improve thevalidity of the results. Additionally, an important outcome for academicinterventions is for newly acquired skills to generalize to untrained contexts(Kameenui & Simmons, 1990). Future research would benefit fromgeneralization measures to assess acquisition and use of self-regulatory skills.

Additionally, it will be important to closely account for participantattributes. For instance, Stacy and John lived off campus with their familieswhile Chad lived on campus in a dormitory. Chad was also the youngestparticipant. As a freshman, he was still transitioning from secondary educa-tion and this can introduce additional variables such as independent living


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

skills, disclosing disability to the proper resources, and adjusting to academicschedules (Adreon & Durocher, 2007). These factors could explain Chad’spoor overall academic achievement to a certain extent. Finally, baselineacademic skills clearly impacted the nature and course of SCL activities.Chad began the semester with the least refined academic skills and had theleast experience in college. As a result, the peer mentor dedicated a signifi-cant amount of time to basic self-regulatory skills such as regularly checkingcourse syllabi and monitoring scores on completed work. In contrast, Stacy’sskills were more refined and benefited from higher level peer mentoringfocused on learning new note taking and study skills. Student variabilityunderscores the importance of testing highly adaptive, contextually relevantintervention models instead of relying on one size fits all strategies (Ness &Middleton, 2012). However, student attributes may impact the internalvalidity of group experimental involving students with Asperger syndrome.

An important finding in this study was the importance of beginning SCLwithin the first month of the semester. Due to problems with social compe-tence and cognitive flexibility, some students on the autism spectrum maystruggle with new course requirements at the beginning of the semester (e.g.Kleinhans, Akshoomoff, & Delis, 2005). During exit interviews, both Stacyand John mentioned SCL helped them stay on track instead of falling behindas they did in previous semesters. It is self-evident that early academicsupports are critical for preventing failure in post-secondary education;however, this can be nearly impossible in post-secondary education sincedisclosing disability is entirely up to the student.

Acceptability of SCL

It is known peer mentoring is an effective pathway for providing interpersonal,psychosocial, and emotional support for college students (Crisp & Cruz,2009). Students who participated in this study indicated the social connectionand personal relevance distinguished SCL from other university supports,consistent with the extant literature (Valentine et al., 2009). Since peer mentor-ing relies on interpersonal relations and social deficits define ASD attributes,careful consideration of the mentor’s personality seems to be an important butunderstudied matter for college students with ASD (Grant-Vallone & Ensher,2000). The results of this study indicate interpersonal rapport affected the SCLexperience. Stacy and her mentor appeared to have the best rapport among thethree groups, which was validated during her exit interview. John and hismentor did not develop the same level of rapport as indicated by his interviewresponse, and this was consistent with his history of interpersonal conflict oncampus. Notably, all three mentors were female, while only one participantwas female. It is like gender in addition to personality style plays importantroles in the peer mentoring relationship for students with Asperger syndrome,particularly given the high incidence of ASDs among males.

374 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

Summary

College students with Asperger syndrome and other ASDs who struggle aca-demically present unique learning challenges, which may not be congruouswith existing supports in post-secondary education. SCL offers a theoreticallygrounded intervention package that may provide useful insights for peermentoring in post-secondary education, particularly for students withcomplex learning needs. SCL was successfully piloted across three universitystudents with Asperger syndrome and the findings suggested the interventionpackage may have contributed to improved academics and was perceived asa useful, acceptable intervention. While exploratory in nature, this study sug-gests additional, experimental evaluation of SCL may be warranted as thereis a need to understand how to best support struggling college students withAsperger syndrome. As the number of students with ASDs enrolled in post-secondary education increases, so does the need for appropriate, relevant,and effective academic supports.

Notes on contributorBryan M. Ness, PhD, is an assistant professor of Communication Sciences and Dis-orders at the University of New Hampshire. His research interests include self-regu-lation, metacognition, and self-regulated learning. He works collaboratively witheducators to study the effects of cognitive-communication disorders on self-regulatedlearning for students in secondary and post-secondary education.

ReferencesAdreon, D., & Durocher, J. (2007). Evaluating the college transition needs of

individuals with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention inSchool and Clinic, 42, 271–279.

Baker, L., & Welkowitz, L. (2005). Asperger syndrome: Intervening in schools,clinics, and communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward theintegration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Education PsychologyReview, 18, 199–210.

Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspectiveon assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review,54, 199–231.

Boekaerts, M., Maes, S., & Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulation across domains ofapplied psychology: Is there and emerging consensus? Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 54, 149–154.

Butler, D. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by post-secondary students withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 170–190.

Butler, D. (2003). Structuring instruction to promote self-regulated learning byadolescents and adults with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 11, 39–60.

Camarena, P., & Sarigiani, P. (2009). Postsecondary educational aspirations ofhigh-functioning adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and their parents.Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 115–128.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

Chiang, H., Cheung, Y. K., Hickson, L., Xiang, R., & Tsai, L. (2011). Predictive fac-tors of participating in post-secondary education for higher school leavers withautism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 685–696.doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1297-7

Cleary, T., & Zimmerman, B. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: Aschool-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles ofstudent learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537–550.

Colvin, J., & Ashman, M. (2010). Roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring rela-tionships in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,18, 121–134.

Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of theliterature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50, 525–545.

Foster, S., & Mash, E. (1999). Assessing social validity in clinical treatmentresearch: Issues and procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,67, 308–319.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7thed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Grant-Vallone, E., & Ensher, E. (2000). Effects of peer mentoring on types ofmentor support, program satisfaction and graduate student stress: A dyadicperspective. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 637–642.

Kameenui, E., & Simmons, D. (1990). Designing instructional strategies:The prevention of academic learning problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:MacMillian.

Kleinhans, N., Akshoomoff, N., & Delis, D. C. (2005). Executive functions in aut-ism and Asperger syndrome: Flexibility, fluency, and inhibition. DevelopmentalNeuropsychology, 27, 379–401.

Leidenfrost, B., Strassbig, B., Schabmann, A., Spiel, C., & Carbon, C. (2011). Peermentoring styles and their contribution to academic success among mentees: Aperson-oriented study in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership inLearning, 19, 347–364.

Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2002). Motivation as an enable for academicsuccess. School Psychology Review, 31, 313–327.

Meline, T. (2010). A research primer for communication sciences and disorders.New York, NY: Pearson.

National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. (2011). Autism spectrumdisorders. Retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/top-ics/asd.cfm

Ness, B., & Middleton, M. (2012). A framework for implementing individualizedself-regulated learning strategies in the classroom. Intervention in School andClinic, 47, 267–275.

Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16,385–407.

Ruban, L., McCoach, B., McGuire, J., & Reis, S. (2003). The differential impact ofacademic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among universitystudents with and without students with and without learning disabilities. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 36, 270–286.

Rudolph, K., Lambert, S., Clark, A., & Kurlakowshy, K. (2001). Negotiating thetransition to middle school: The role of self-regulatory processes. ChildDevelopment, 72, 929–946.

376 NESS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1297-7

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/asd.cfm

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/asd.cfm

Schunk, D. (1998). Teaching elementary school students to self-regulate practice ofmathematical skills with modeling. In D. Shunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.),Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 137–159).New York, NY: Guilford.

Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy andself-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & WritingQuarterly, 23, 7–25.

Smith, T., Scahill, L., Dawson, G., Guthrie, D., Lord, C., Odom, S., … Wagner,A. (2007). Designing research studies on psychosocial interventions in autism.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 354–366.

Trainin, G., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievementof college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28,261–272.

US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2009,September). Annual report to congress on the implementation of the individualswith disabilities education act, selected years, 1979 through 2007. RetrievedJune 6, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_050.asp

Valentine, J., Hirschy, A., Bremer, C., Novillo, W., Castellano, M., & Banister,A. (2009). Systematic reviews of research: Postsecondary transitions—Identifyingeffective models and practices. Louisville, KY: National Research Center forCareer and Technical Education.

VanDergeijk, E., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. (2008). Supporting more able students onthe autism spectrum: College and beyond. Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders, 38, 1359–1370.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After highschool: A first look at the post-school experiences of youth with disabilities (Areport from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2)). Menlo Park,CA: SRI International.

Wenzel, C., & Rowley, L. (2010). Teaching social skills and academic strategies tocollege students with Asperger syndrome. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42,44–50.

Winters, F., Greene, J., & Costich, C. (2008). Self-regulation of learning withincomputer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Education PsychologyReview, 20, 429–444.

Zager, D., & Alpern, C. (2010). College-based inclusion programming fortransition-age students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other DevelopmentalDisabilities, 25, 151–157.

Zimmerman, B. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: Ananalysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.),Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview forassessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American EducationalResearch Journal, 23, 614–628.

Zito, J., Adkins, M., Gavins, M., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2007). Self-regulatedstrategy development: Relationship to the social-cognitive perspective and thedevelopment of self-regulation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 77–95.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

13 2

2 A

pril

2015

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_050.asp

Documents

Supporting Self-Regulated Learning