Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Areas of Future Research

73

the research team) modeled the writing strategy by verbaliz-

ing the strategy’s steps and applying them to sample topics

and paragraphs. Students then received guided practice

(15 min), during which time they applied the steps under the

guidance of the teacher. The final 20 min of each session

were for self-regulated practice; students worked alone while

the teacher monitored their work.

The five-step writing strategy, which was displayed on a

board in front of the room during the sessions, was as follows:

What do I have to do?

1. Choose a topic to write about.

2. Write down ideas about the topic.

3. Pick the main ideas.

4. Plan the paragraph.

5. Write down the main idea and the other sentences.

Four different types of paragraphs were covered during the

instructional program; five sessions were devoted to each

paragraph type. The four types of paragraphs were descrip-

tive (e.g., describe a bird); informative (e.g., write about

something you like to do after school); narrative story (e.g.,

tell a story about visiting a friend or relative); and narrative

descriptive (e.g., describe how to play your favorite game).

The daily content coverage was the same for each of the

four types of paragraphs: Session 1, strategy Steps 1, 2, and

3; Session 2, strategy Step 4; Session 3, strategy Step 5;

Session 4, review of entire strategy; Session 5, review of en-

tire strategy without the modeled demonstration. Children

worked on two or three paragraph topics per session.

Children were assigned randomly to one of four experi-

mental conditions: product goal, process goal, process goal

plus progress feedback, and general goal (instructional con-

trol). Children assigned to the same condition met in small

groups with a member of the research team.

Prior to the start of instruction children were pretested on

writing achievement and self-efficacy. At the start of the first

instructional session for each of the four paragraph types,

children received a self-efficacy for improvement test, which

was identical to the self-efficacy pretest except children

judged capabilities for improving their skills at the five tasks

for the paragraph type to be covered during the sessions

rather than how well they could perform the tasks. On com-

pletion of instruction, children received a posttest that was

comparable to the pretest and evaluated their progress in

using the strategy compared with when the project began.

At the beginning of the first five sessions, the teacher ver-

balized to children assigned to the process-goal and to the

process-goal-plus-feedback conditions the goal of learning to

use the strategy’s steps to write a descriptive paragraph.

These goal instructions were identical for the other sessions,

except that the teacher substituted the name of the appropri-

ate type of paragraph.

Children assigned to the product-goal condition were told

at the start of the first five sessions to keep in mind that they

were trying to write a descriptive paragraph. For the remaining

sessions the teacher substituted the name of the appropriate

paragraph type. These instructions controlled for the effects of

goal properties included in the process-goal treatment.

The teacher told general-goal students at the start of every

session to try to do their best. This condition controlled for

the effects of receiving writing instruction, practice, and goal

instructions, included in the other conditions.

Each child assigned to the process-goal-plus-progress

feedback condition received verbal feedback three to four

times during each session; this feedback conveyed to chil-

dren that they were making progress toward their goal of

learning to use the strategy to write paragraphs. Teachers de-

livered feedback to each child privately during self-regulated

practice with such statements as, You’re learning to use the

steps and You’re doing well because you followed the steps

in order.

An important aim of these projects was to determine

whether students would maintain their use of the strategy

over time and apply it to types of paragraphs not covered

during instruction. Maintenance and generalization were fa-

cilitated in several ways. The progress feedback was de-

signed to convey to students that the strategy was useful for

writing paragraphs and would help promote their writing

achievement. Linking the strategy with four types of para-

graphs demonstrated how it was useful on different writing

tasks. The periods of self-regulated practice provided inde-

pendent practice using the strategy and built self-efficacy.

Succeeding on one’s own leads to attributions of successes

to ability and effort and strengthens self-efficacy. Results

showed that the process goal with progress feedback had the

greatest impact on achievement and self-efficacy to include

maintenance after 6 weeks and generalization to other types

of paragraphs; some benefits were also due to the process

goal alone.

AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH

Research on self-regulation has advanced tremendously in

the past few years, and we expect this trend to continue. At

the same time, there is much work to be done. In this section

we suggest some profitable areas for future research that will

contribute to our understanding of self-regulation processes

and that have implications for practice.

74

Self-Regulation and Learning

Self-Regulation and Volition

Volition has been of interest for a long time. Ach (1910) con-

ceived of volition as the process of dealing with implementing

actions designed to attain goals. More recently, action control

theorists (Heckhausen, 1991; Kuhl, 1984) proposed differen-

tiating predecisional processing (cognitive activities involved

in making decisions and setting goals) from postdecisional

processing (activities engaged in after goal setting). Predeci-

sional analyses involve decision making and are motivational;

postdecisional analyses deal with implementing goals and are

volitional. Thus, volition mediates the relation between goals

and actions and helps learners accomplish their goals.

Self-regulation is a broader process than is volition be-

cause self-regulation encompasses activities before, during,

and after performance (Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, volition

may be the aspect of self-regulation that occurs during per-

formance. Corno (1993) noted that volition helps keep learn-

ers on track and thwarts distractions.

From a practical perspective, students can be taught

volitional processes, such as metacognitive monitoring, emo-

tion control, and management of environmental resources.

There also may be different types of volitional styles or sta-

ble, individual differences in volition (Snow, 1989). Clearly

more research is needed on volition to show how it is part of

a self-regulatory system and on ways to enhance volition in

students.

Development of Self-Regulation in Children

We recommend greater exploration of self-regulatory pro-

cesses in children. Developmental psychologists have studied

extensively how various cognitive functions (e.g., memory,

metacognition) change with development (Meece, 1997).

There also have been many studies conducted on teaching self-

regulation strategies to children. A better link is needed be-

tween these two literatures.

For example, constructivists contend that individuals

form or construct much of what they learn and understand

(Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1995). In this view, children

are active learners and will try to discover meaning in mater-

ial to be learned and impose organization as needed. An im-

portant question is whether it is better to teach children

self-regulation strategies or facilitate their discovering these

strategies on their own.

This question could be investigated in various ways.

One means would be to compare the effectiveness of direct

and constructivist teaching approaches for acquiring self-

regulatory study methods. In the direct method, a teacher

might explain and demonstrate self-regulation methods, after

which students practice the methods and receive feedback. In

the constructivist context, the teacher might form student

groups and ask them to develop methods for studying given

material. To control for the effects of type of model, the direct

approach also could include peers as teachers.

As informative as this research might be, it does not address

the key role of home influence in self-regulation development.

There are wide variations in the extent to which parents and

caregivers use self-regulatory skills and attempt to teach these

skills to children. We recommend that longitudinal observa-

tional research be conducted. This research also would show

how much parents stress the importance of self-regulation

and encourage and reward their children for attempts at self-

regulation. The longitudinal nature of such research could

identify how parents’ teaching and children’s skills change as

a function of children’s developmental status.

Self-Regulation and the Curriculum

Research is needed on self-regulation in curriculum areas.

When self-regulatory processes are linked with academic

content, students learn how to apply these processes in a learn-

ing context. It is worthwhile to teach students to set goals, orga-

nize their schedules, rehearse information to be remembered,

and the like, but such instruction may not transfer beyond the

context in which it is provided.

Studies are needed in academic settings in which stu-

dents are taught self-regulatory activities and how to mod-

ify those activities to fit different situations. These studies

have the added benefit of showing students the value of self-

regulation. Students who learn strategies but feel they are not

especially useful are not likely to use them. Linking self-

regulation with the curriculum raises its perceived value as

students compare their work with prior efforts that did not

benefit from self-regulation.

An assignment that lends itself well to teaching self-

regulation and cuts across different curriculum areas is

writing a term paper. In middle schools it is common for

teachers to team for instruction; for example, a team of two or

three teachers might teach the same students language arts,

social studies, and science. Strategies for completing a term

paper could be taught by the language arts teacher and would

include such practices as setting goals and timelines, decid-

ing on a topic, organizing ideas, collecting information, out-

lining, writing, and revising. The science and social studies

teachers could pick up on these ideas and show students

how the ideas can be applied in these classes and what modi-

fications are needed. This approach has practical significance

for teaching and provides insight into methods for facilitating

transfer of self-regulation methods.

References

75

Self-Regulation Across the Life Span

We expect that self-regulation—like other processes—

continues to change across the life span, yet there is little re-

search on this point. We might ask how people regulate their

finances, family life, work schedules, and so forth. Unfortu-

nately there is little self-regulation research on individuals

after they leave formal schooling.

A fruitful area to examine—and one that receives much

publicity—is how adults use self-regulation to balance their

personal and professional lives. How well do they use goal

setting, monitoring of time spent, self-evaluation of the

process, and other strategies? What are good ways to teach

these skills? This research would have important develop-

mental and practical implications.

CONCLUSION

Self-regulation has become an integral topic in the study

of human learning. Various theoretical perspectives on self-

regulation have been advanced, and each has important

implications for research and practice. As self-regulation re-

search continues, we expect that the knowledge base of self-

regulation will be greatly expanded, and we will learn much

more about the operation of self-regulatory processes. More

intervention studies will show how to best improve individu-

als’ self-regulatory skills. In sum, we believe that research on

self-regulation will enhance our understanding of achieve-

ment processes and have important implications for teaching

and learning in and out of school.

REFERENCES

Ach, N. (1910). Uber den Willensakt und das Temperament [On the

will and temperament]. Leipzig, Germany: Quelle & Meyer.

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications

(3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and read-

ing. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research

(pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New

York: Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Jeffery, R. W. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and

rehearsal processes in observational learning. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 26, 122–130.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-

efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598.

Belfiore, P. J., & Hornyak, R. S. (1998). Operant theory and appli-

cation to self-monitoring in adolescents. In D. H. Schunk &

B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teach-

ing to self-reflective practice (pp. 184–202). New York: Guil-

ford Press.

Bell, D. R., & Low, R. M. (1977). Observing and recording chil-

dren’s behavior. Richland, WA: Performance.

Berk, L. E. (1986). Relationship of elementary school children’s

private speech to behavioral accompaniment to task, attention,

and task performance. Developmental Psychology, 22, 671–

680.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of

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

Borkowski, J. G., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (1979). Maintenance and gen-

eralization of skills and strategies by the retarded. In N. R. Ellis

(Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory and

research (2nd ed., pp. 569–617). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Borkowski, J. G., Johnston, M. B., & Reid, M. K. (1987). Metacog-

nition, motivation, and controlled performance. In S. J. Ceci

(Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological

aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 147–173). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Brigham, T. A. (1982). Self-management: A radical behavioral per-

spective. In P. Karoly & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Self-management

and behavior change: From theory to practice (pp. 32–59). New

York: Pergamon.

Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for proce-

dural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155–

192.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive

psychology and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Bryan, J. H., & Bryan, T. H. (1983). The social life of the learning

disabled youngster. In J. D. McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Cur-

rent topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 57–85). Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). An information processing

perspective on self-management. In P. Karoly & F. H. Kanfer

(Eds.), Self-management and behavior change: From theory to

practice (pp. 93–128). New York: Pergamon.

Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of voli-

tion and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2),

14–22.

Davidson, E. S., & Smith, W. P. (1982). Imitation, social compari-

son, and self-reward. Child Development, 53, 928–932.

Dowrick, P. W. (1983). Self-modelling. In P. W. Dowrick & S. J.

Biggs (Eds.), Using video: Psychological and social applica-

tions (pp. 105–124). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Fabricius, W. V., & Hagen, J. W. (1984). Use of causal attributions

about recall performance to assess metamemory and predict

strategic memory behavior in young children. Developmental

Psychology, 20, 975–987.

76

Self-Regulation and Learning

Flavell, J. H., Beach, D. R., & Chinsky, J. M. (1966). Spontaneous

verbal rehearsal in a memory task as a function of age. Child

Development, 37, 283–299.

Frauenglass, M. H., & Diaz, R. M. (1985). Self-regulatory functions

of children’s private speech: A critical analysis of recent chal-

lenges to Vygotsky’s theory. Developmental Psychology, 21,

357–364.

Fuson, K. C. (1979). The development of self-regulating aspects of

speech: A review. In G. Zivin (Ed.), The development of self-

regulation through private speech (pp. 135–217). New York:

Wiley.

Gitomer, D. H., & Glaser, R. (1987). If you don’t know it work on

it: Knowledge, self-regulation and instruction. In R. E. Snow &

M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction (Vol. 3,

pp. 301–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin, Germany:

Springer-Verlag.

Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick, K. (1986). Self-management methods. In

F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change: A

textbook of methods (3rd ed., pp. 283–345). New York: Pergamon.

Karoly, P. (1982). Perspectives on self-management and behavior

change. In P. Karoly & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Self-management

and behavior change: From theory to practice (pp. 3–31). New

York: Pergamon.

Kochanska, G., Tjebkes, T. L., & Forman, D. R. (1998). Children’s

emerging regulation of conduct: Restraint, compliance, and in-

ternalization from infancy to the second year. Child Develop-

ment, 69, 1378–1389.

Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmen-

tal perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 199–214.

Kosiewicz, M. M., Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J., & Graves, A. W.

(1982). Effects of self-instruction and self-correction procedures

on handwriting performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,

71–78.

Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and

learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of action

control. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental person-

ality research (Vol. 13, pp. 99–171). New York: Academic

Press.

Lan, W. Y. (1998). Teaching self-monitoring skills in statistics. In

D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learn-

ing: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 86–105). New

York: Guilford Press.

Licht, B. G., & Kistner, J. A. (1986). Motivational problems of

learning-disabled children: Individual differences and their

implications for treatment. In J. K. Torgesen & B. W. L. Wong

(Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning

disabilities (pp. 225–255). Orlando: Academic Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and

task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lodico, M. G., Ghatala, E. S., Levin, J. R., Pressley, M., & Bell,

J. A. (1983). The effects of strategy-monitoring training on

children’s selection of effective memory strategies. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 263–277.

Luria, A. R. (1961). The role of speech in the regulation of normal

and abnormal behavior (J. Tizard, Trans.). New York: Liveright.

Mace, F. C., Belfiore, P. J., & Shea, M. C. (1989). Operant theory

and research on self-regulation. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.

Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-

ment: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 27–50). New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Mace, F. C., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1988). Self-monitoring: Applica-

tions and issues. In J. Witt, S. Elliott, & F. Gresham (Eds.),

Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 489–502). New

York: Pergamon.

Mace, F. C., & West, B. J. (1986). Unresolved theoretical issues

in self-management: Implications for research and practice.

Professional School Psychology, 1, 149–163.

Martin, J. (1980). External versus self-reinforcement: A review of

methodological and theoretical issues. Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Science, 12, 111–125.

Meece, J. L. (1997). Child and adolescent development for educa-

tors. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribham, K. H. (1960). Plans and the

structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for

reactivity in self-monitoring. Behavior Modification, 5, 3–14.

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort

and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the under-

standing that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Develop-

ment, 49, 800–814.

O’Leary, S. G., & Dubey, D. R. (1979). Applications of self-control

procedures by children: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 12, 449–466.

Ollendick, T. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Child behavioral assess-

ment: Principles and procedures. New York: Pergamon.

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

achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 169–200). New

York: Springer-Verlag.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming

a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8,

293–316.

Paris, S. G., Newman, R. S., & McVey, K. A. (1982). Learning the

functional significance of mnemonic actions: A microgenetic

study of strategy acquisition. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 34, 490–509.

Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children’s reading strate-

gies, metacognition, and motivation. Developmental Review, 6,

25–56.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). New

York: International Publishers.