Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

bet	17/153
Sana	16.07.2017
Hajmi	9.82 Mb.
	#11404

1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 153

Theoretical Formulations

65

conditioning results do not completely generalize to humans;

human conditioning often occurs quickly with one or a few

pairings of conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus,

in contrast to the multiple pairings required with animals.

Pavlov believed that conditioning differences between humans

and animals were due to the human capacity for language and

thought. Stimuli may not produce conditioning automatically;

people interpret stimuli in light of their prior experiences.

Although Pavlov did not conduct research on the second signal

system, subsequent investigations have validated his beliefs

that human conditioning is complex and that language plays a

mediational role.

Luria (1961) focused on the child’s transition from the

ﬁrst to the second signal system. Luria postulated three stages

in the development of verbal control of motor behavior. Ini-

tially, the speech of others directed the child’s behavior (ages

1.5–2.5). During the second stage (ages 3–4), the child’s

overt verbalizations initiated motor behaviors but did not

necessarily inhibit them. In the third stage, the child’s private

speech became capable of initiating, directing, and inhibiting

motor behaviors (ages 4.5–5.5). Luria believed this private,

self-regulatory speech directed behavior through neurophys-

iological mechanisms. The mediational and self-directing

role of the second signal system is embodied in Vygotsky’s

theory (discussed later).

Production, Mediational, and Continued-Use Deﬁciencies

Many investigations have attempted to determine what fac-

tors determine why children do not use private speech when

doing so would be desirable. A distinction is drawn between

production and mediational deﬁciencies in spontaneous use

of private speech (Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966). A

production deﬁciency is a failure to generate task-relevant

verbalizations (e.g., rules, strategies, information to be re-

membered) when they could improve performance. A media-

tional deﬁciency occurs when task-relevant verbalizations are

produced, but they do not affect subsequent behaviors

(Fuson, 1979).

Young children produce verbalizations that do not neces-

sarily mediate performance. Children eventually develop the

ability to verbalize statements that mediate performance, but

they may not produce relevant verbalizations at the appropri-

ate times. With development, children learn to verbalize

when it might beneﬁt their performances. This developmen-

tal model ﬁts better in situations calling for simple types of

verbal self-regulation (e.g., rote rehearsal) than it does when

complex verbalizations are required. For the latter, produc-

tion and mediational deﬁciencies may coexist and may not

follow a simple progression (Fuson, 1979).

Ample research demonstrates that after children are trained

to produce verbalizations to aid performance, they often dis-

continue use of private speech when no longer required to ver-

balize (Schunk, 1982b). A continued-use deﬁciency arises

when students have an inadequate understanding of the strat-

egy, as they might when they receive insufﬁcient instruction

and practice using the strategy (Borkowski & Cavanaugh,

1979). Teachers can remedy this problem by providing re-

peated instruction and practice with spaced review sessions. A

continued-use deﬁciency also might arise when students asso-

ciate the strategy with the training context and do not under-

stand how to transfer it to other tasks. Use of multiple tasks

during training helps students understand uses of the strategy.

Strategies often must be modiﬁed to apply to different tasks.

When slight modiﬁcations prove troublesome, students bene-

ﬁt from explicit training on strategy modiﬁcation.

Continued-use deﬁciencies can also occur when learners

do not understand that use of private speech beneﬁts their

performances. They might believe that verbal self-regulation

is useful, but that it is not as important for success as

such factors as personal effort or time available (Fabricius

& Hagen, 1984). To promote maintenance of verbal self-

regulators, researchers suggest providing learners with strat-

egy value information, or information that links strategy use

with improved performance (Baker & Brown, 1984; Paris

et al., 1983; Schunk & Rice, 1987).

Strategy value can be conveyed by instructing students to

use the strategy because it will help them perform better, in-

forming them that strategy use beneﬁted other students, and

providing feedback linking strategy use with progress in skill

acquisition (Borkowski & Cavanaugh, 1979). Research shows

that strategy value information enhances performance, contin-

ued strategy use, and strategy transfer to other tasks (Lodico,

Ghatala, Levin, Pressley, & Bell, 1983; Paris, Newman, &

McVey, 1982).

Strategy value information also raises self-efﬁcacy, which

promotes performance through increased effort and persis-

tence (Schunk & Rice, 1987). Students who beneﬁt most

from strategy training are those who work at tasks nonsys-

tematically and who doubt their academic capabilities (Licht

& Kistner, 1986). Strategy value information implicitly con-

veys to students that they are capable of learning and suc-

cessfully applying the strategy, which engenders a sense of

control over learning outcomes and enhances self-efﬁcacy

for skill improvement.

Social Constructivist Theory

Social constructivist theory of self-regulation is grounded

in theories of cognitive development. These developmental

66

Self-Regulation and Learning

theories have certain core assumptions (Paris & Byrnes,

1989).

Developmental theories stress the notion that people are in-

trinsically motivated to learn. From birth onward, people are

motivated to actively explore, understand, and control their

environments. Understanding transcends the literal informa-

tion acquired. People impose meaning on their perceptions

and form beliefs according to their prior experiences.

Mental representations change with development. Infants

and toddlers represent their worlds in terms of action and

sights. With development, learners use verbal codes (e.g., lan-

guage, mathematical notation) to represent what they know.

There are progressive reﬁnements in levels of understand-

ing. The process of reconciling what one knows and what one

encounters never ends. Progressive reﬁnements are stimu-

lated by internal reorganizations and reﬂections, as well as by

physical experiences, social guidance, and exposure to new

information.

Development places limits on learning. Readiness for learn-

ing includes maturation and prior experiences. Learning pro-

ceeds best when learners have the potential to learn and are

exposed to information commensurate with their readiness.

Finally, reﬂection and reconstruction stimulate learning.

Although formal teaching methods can produce learning, the

primary motivation behind learning comes from within and

involves an intrinsic need to reexamine one’s knowledge and

behaviors. Learners construct theories about what they are

able to do and why.

Construction of Theories

Social constructivists view self-regulation as the process of

acquiring beliefs and theories about their abilities and com-

petencies, the structure and difﬁculty of learning tasks, and

the way to regulate effort and strategy use to accomplish

goals (Paris & Byrnes, 1989). These theories and beliefs are

constrained by development and change as a consequence of

development and experience.

For example, research shows that children’s earliest attri-

butions (perceived causes of outcomes) are nondifferentiated,

but that with development a distinct conception of ability

emerges (Nicholls, 1978). After this differentiation occurs,

children realize that performance may not match abilities and

that other factors (e.g., effort, help from others) inﬂuence per-

formance. Children’s theories about the causes of academic

outcomes reﬂect this developmental progression.

In like fashion, researchers have shown how children con-

struct theories about the use and value of strategies. Children

are taught methods to use on different tasks and construct

their own versions about what works best for them. Strategy

information includes the strategy’s goals, the tasks for which

it is appropriate, how it improves performance, and how

much effort it requires to use (Borkowski, Johnston, & Reid,

1987). Although strategies typically are task speciﬁc, there

are common elements across different strategies such as goal

setting and evaluation of progress (Pressley et al., 1990).

In the course of theory construction it often happens that

learners are erroneous because not all instances are provided

as examples and children must often improvise solutions. In

mathematics, for example, erroneous strategies that nonethe-

less lead to solutions (albeit inaccurate) are known as buggy

algorithms (Brown & Burton, 1978). When learning subtrac-

tion, children may acquire the belief that column by column,

they take the smaller number away from the larger number

regardless of whether that means they subtract from top to

bottom or from bottom to top. This buggy algorithm gener-

ates solutions and can lead to a false sense of perceived

competence for subtraction, which yields gross mismatches

between what children believe they can do and their actual

successes.

Vygotsky’s Theory

The Russian psychologist Vygotsky’s work is relevant to

the social constructivist tradition. Vygotsky emphasized the

role that language plays in self-regulation. Vygotsky (1962)

believed that private speech helped to develop thought by

organizing behavior. Children employed private speech to un-

derstand situations and surmount difﬁculties. Private speech

occurred in conjunction with children’s interactions in the so-

cial environment. As children’s language facility developed,

words spoken by others acquired meaning independent of their

phonological and syntactical qualities. Children internalized

word meanings and used them to direct their behaviors.

Vygotsky hypothesized that private speech followed

a curvilinear developmental pattern: Overt verbalization

(thinking aloud) increased until age 6 or 7, after which it de-

clined and became primarily covert (internal) by ages 8–10.

However, overt verbalization could occur at any age when

people encountered problems or difﬁculties. Research shows

that although the amount of private speech decreases from

about ages 4 or 5 to 8, the proportion of private speech that is

self-regulating increases with age (Fuson, 1979). In many

research investigations, the actual amount of private speech

is small, and many children do not verbalize at all. Thus, the

developmental pattern of private speech seems more com-

plex than the pattern originally hypothesized by Vygotsky.

Another Vygotskiian concept is the zone of proximal devel-

opment, or the amount of learning possible by a student given

the proper instructional conditions. Tasks that a student cannot

Theoretical Formulations

67

do alone but can with some assistance fall into the zone. As

teachers or peers provide scaffolding to assist in the process,

learners are increasingly able to operate independently. Even-

tually the zone is changed to reﬂect new, higher-order learning.

Social Cognitive Theory

In the social cognitive theoretical framework, self-regulation

is construed as situationally speciﬁc—that is, learners are not

expected to engage in self-regulation equally in all domains.

Although some self-regulatory processes (e.g., goal setting)

may generalize across settings, learners must understand

how to adapt processes to speciﬁc domains and must feel ef-

ﬁcacious about doing so. This situational speciﬁcity is cap-

tured in Zimmerman’s (1994, 1998) conceptual framework

comprising six areas in which one can use self-regulatory

processes: motives, methods, time, outcomes, physical envi-

ronment, and social environment. Self-regulation is possible

to the extent that learners have some choice in one or more of

these areas. When all aspects of a task are predetermined,

students may learn, but the source of control is external

(i.e., teachers, parents, computers).

Reciprocal Interactions

According to Bandura (1986), human functioning involves

reciprocal interactions between behaviors, environmental

variables, and cognitions and other personal factors (Fig-

ure 4.1). This reciprocity is exempliﬁed with an important

construct in Bandura’s theory: perceived self-efﬁcacy, or be-

liefs about one’s capabilities to learn or perform behaviors at

designated levels (Bandura, 1997). Research shows that stu-

dents’ self-efﬁcacy beliefs inﬂuence such actions as choice of

tasks, persistence, effort, and achievement (Schunk, 1995). In

turn, students’ behaviors modify their efﬁcacy beliefs. For ex-

ample, as students work on tasks they note their progress to-

ward their learning goals (e.g., completing sections of a term

paper). Progress indicators convey to students that they are

capable of performing well, which enhances self-efﬁcacy for

continued learning.

The interaction between self-efﬁcacy and environmental

factors has been demonstrated in research on students with

learning disabilities, many of whom hold low self-efﬁcacy

for performing well (Licht & Kistner, 1986). Individuals in

students’ social environments may react to them based on at-

tributes typically associated with them rather than based on

what students actually do. Teachers may judge such students

as less capable than average learners and hold lower acade-

mic expectations for them, even in content areas in which stu-

dents with learning disabilities are performing adequately

(Bryan & Bryan, 1983). In turn, teacher feedback can affect

self-efﬁcacy. Persuasive statements (e.g., I know that you can

do this) can raise self-efﬁcacy.

Students’ behaviors and classroom environments inﬂu-

ence one another. Consider a typical instructional sequence in

which the teacher presents information and asks students to

direct their attention to an overhead. Environmental inﬂuence

on behavior occurs when students turn their heads without

much conscious deliberation. Students’ behaviors often alter

the instructional environment. If the teacher asks questions

and students give incorrect answers, the teacher may reteach

some points rather than continue the lesson.

Subprocesses of Self-Regulated Learning

Self-regulation has been conceptualized as involving three

key subprocesses: self-observation, self-judgment, and self-

reaction (Bandura, 1986; Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986; Karoly,

1982). These subprocesses are not mutually exclusive; rather,

they interact. While observing aspects of one’s behavior, one

may judge them against standards and react positively or

negatively. One’s evaluations and reactions set the stage

for additional observations of the same behavioral aspects or

others. These subprocesses also do not operate independently

of the learning environment; environmental factors can assist

the development of self-regulation. We discuss only the latter

two subprocesses because self-observation is substantially

similar to self-monitoring (described earlier).

Self-Judgment

Self-judgment refers to comparing present performance with

one’s goal. The belief that one is making goal progress en-

hances self-efﬁcacy and sustains motivation. Students who

ﬁnd a task to be easy may think that they set their goal too low

and may set it higher the next time. Furthermore, knowing that

similar others performed a task can promote self-efﬁcacy and

motivation; students are apt to believe that if others can suc-

ceed, they can as well (Schunk, 1987). Students who believe

they have not made acceptable progress will not become

Figure 4.1

Reciprocal interactions in human functioning.

Personal

Variables

Environmental

Variables

Behaviors

68

Self-Regulation and Learning

discouraged if they feel efﬁcacious about succeeding and

believe that a different strategy will produce better results.

Self-Reaction

Self-reactions to goal progress exert motivational effects

(Bandura, 1986). Students who judge goal progress as ac-

ceptable and who anticipate satisfaction from goal accom-

plishment will feel efﬁcacious about continuing to improve

and motivated to complete the task. Negative evaluations will

not necessarily decrease motivation if students believe they

are capable of improving, such as by working harder. Moti-

vation will not increase if students believe they lack the abil-

ity to succeed or to improve.

Instructions to people to respond evaluatively to their perfor-

mances can affect motivation. People who believe they can per-

form better persist longer and work harder (Kanfer & Gaelick,

1986). Evaluations are not intimately tied to level of perfor-

mance. Some students are content with a B in a course, whereas

others want only an A. Assuming that people believe they are

capable of improving, higher goals lead to greater effort and

persistence than do lower goals (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Cyclical Nature of Self-Regulation

The interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental

factors during self-regulation is a cyclical process because

these factors typically change during learning and must be

monitored (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Zimmerman, 1994). Such

monitoring leads to changes in an individual’s strategies,

cognitions, affects, and behaviors.

This cyclical nature is captured in Zimmerman’s (1998)

three-phase self-regulation model (Table 4.2). The fore-

thought phase precedes actual performance and refers to

processes that set the stage for action. The performance

(volitional) control phase involves processes that occur dur-

ing learning and affect attention and action. During the self-

reﬂection phase—which occurs after performance—people

respond to their efforts.

Table 4.2 shows that various self-regulatory processes

come into play during the different phases. Social cognitive

theorists postulate that students enter learning situations with

goals and varying degrees of self-efﬁcacy for attaining these

goals. During performance control, they implement learning

strategies that affect motivation and learning. During periods

of self-reﬂection, learners engage in self-evaluation.

RESEARCH FOCUS AREAS

This section reviews some key areas of research on self-

regulation. A comprehensive review is beyond the scope of

this chapter; readers should consult other sources (Bandura,

1986, 1997; Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Schunk &

Zimmerman, 1994, 1998). The research in this section

focuses on self-regulation in learning settings. We begin by

reviewing research that sought to identify self-regulatory

processes; then we discuss research exploring the relation of

processes to one another and to achievement outcomes. We

conclude by describing an intervention project.

Identiﬁcation of Self-Regulatory Processes

A number of researchers have sought to identify the types of

self-regulatory processes that students use while engaged in

academic tasks. Many of these studies also have determined

whether the use of processes varies as a function of individ-

ual difference variables.

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) developed a struc-

tured interview in which students were presented with eight

different learning contexts (e.g., writing a short paper, taking

a test, completing a homework assignment). For each, they

were asked to state the methods they would use. Fourteen cat-

egories of self-regulated learning processes were identiﬁed

(Table 4.3).

TABLE 4.3

Categories of Self-Regulated Learning Processes