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

3, 2001

Models of Self-regulated Learning: a review

MINNA PUUSTINEN & LEA PULKKINEN
Department of Psychology, University of Jyva skyla , PO Box 35 (Agora), 40351 Jyva skyla , Finland

Questions connected with the regulation of ones own cognitive processes attract increasing numbers of researchers in psychology, as evidenced by the several different models of self-regulation that have been developed over the past two decades. The aim of this article was to present and compare the latest models of self-regulated learning (SRL), including those by Boekaerts, Borkowski, Pintrich, Winne and Zimmerman. The models were compared on four criteria (i.e. background theories, de nitions of SRL, components included in the models and empirical work). The results show that theoretical background is an important differentiating feature. The two models that resembled each other more than any other two models (i.e. Pintrich and Zimmerman) were inspired by the same background theory (i.e. social cognitive theory). On the other hand, the models that differed most from the other models (i.e. Borkowski and Winne) were also theoretically the farthest removed ones.
ABSTRACT

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

INTRODUCTION The way in which people regulate their own cognitive processes has been a persistent issue for researchers in various psychological disciplines. In the last two decades the topic has gained particular attention and several new theoretical models of self-regulation have emerged. This paper attempts to ll the need for a critical overview of the latest developments in this eld. According to a recent de nition (Zeidner et al., 2000), self-regulation is conceived of as an overarching construct covering aspects such as self-regulated learning (SRL), the regulation of ones health and stress management, which in turn cover lower level activities such as strategy use, self-observation and automaticity. This paper is concerned with SRL which, according to the above de nition, is characterised as an intermediate construct describing the ways in which individuals regulate their own cognitive processes within an educational setting. There exist many SRL models of high quality in the literature, but only those that have emerged or that have been considerably developed further during the past decade and that have several empirical studies in support of them have been retained
ISSN 0031-3831 print; ISSN 1430-1170 online/01/030269-18 2001 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research DOI: 10.1080/00313830120074206

270

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

for review. Five models met these criteria. They include the models developed by Boekaerts (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000), Borkowski (1996), Pintrich (2000), Winne (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) and Zimmerman (2000a). The models and the empirical studies relating to each one of them will be reviewed, in alphabetical order, in the rst part of this article. This is followed by a critical evaluation and comparison of the models.

REVIEW OF THE MODELS Boekaerts Model of Adaptable Learning Boekaerts (1992, 1995, 1996a, 1996b) developed a model of adaptable learning in the classroom, affording appraisal a central role in the SRL process. Three kinds of information were assumed to in uence the appraisals via a dynamic internal working model, namely perception of the learning situation, domain-speci c metacognitive knowledge and the self-system, together with the associated motivational factors. Appraisals were considered to be unique and they were assumed to direct students behaviour in the classroom. Positively charged appraisals were assumed to lead to an extension of the subject knowledge and skill and, more generally, to an expansion of personal resources. Negatively charged appraisals, on the other hand, were supposed to lead to ego protection aimed at preventing a loss of resources and well-being. Adaptable, self-regulated learning was de ned as a balance between these two types of path. Recently Boekaerts & Niemivirta (2000) put forward an extended and re ned version of the model of adaptable learning. They emphasised the non-unitary character of the SRL process; SRL is assumed to necessitate interaction between diverse (e.g. metacognitive, motivational and emotional) control systems. Another aspect of importance in the new model is the distinction between optimal and non-optimal conditions for SRL to occur. Optimal conditions refer to situations in which an opportunity for learning and the felt necessity for learning are combined. It is assumed that self-set learning episodes, including affectively charged personal goals and learning in a natural context, correspond to the de nition of optimal conditions more often than teacher-set learning episodes taking place in the classroom. The extended model is centred round goal processes. The origins of the goal processes, and of the whole SRL process, are to be found in the identi cation, interpretation and appraisal of the learning situation; they further lead to goal setting and goal striving. Identi cation refers to the recognition of an input as an instance of a class of situations, such as an instance of the class of achievement situations, stressful situations, or socially unacceptable situations (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000, p. 425). It is based on knowledge of the task, the instructions and the physical and social context. Interpretations are assumed to be related to a personal, internal reference (i.e. metacognitive knowledge or motivational beliefs), leading inevitably to different interpretations of the same learning situation by different students. Furthermore, it is assumed that when the internal reference is made up of metacog-

Models of Self-regulated Learning

271

nitive knowledge, the interpretations are task-focused, and when the internal reference is self-related, the interpretations are self-focused. Appraisals, nally, are divided into primary and secondary appraisals, the former relating to questions such as Is this learning situation benign, neutral, or threatening for my well being? and the latter to questions such as What is required to deal with the situation, and can I handle it? (p. 427). The next steps in the SRL process consist of goal setting and the actual goal striving, which, in turn, feeds back to metacognitive knowledge or motivational beliefs. Two general action patterns are described on the basis of the above elements. The rst is a fast or automatic processing pattern, proceeding from situation identi cation through primary appraisals directly to goal striving. This kind of pattern would be activated in habitual, frequently repeated learning situations. The second action pattern, on the other hand, corresponds to those learning situations that demand consciousness and deliberation. It contains all the elements of the model: identi cation, interpretation, primary and secondary appraisal, goal setting and goal striving. Based on the interpretations, goal setting is either task- or self-focused and goal striving positive or negative and problem- or emotion-focused. Problem-focused goal striving is assumed to feed back to metacognitive knowledge, whereas emotion-focused goal striving is assumed to feed back to motivational beliefs. Finally, the authors (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000) emphasise that SRL does not necessarily proceed in a linear way through the different phases of the model. Students may backtrack to a previous phase or they may bypass phases. Boekaerts (see, for example, Boekaerts, 1988, 1996b) has developed an on-line motivation questionnaire (OMQ) to evaluate student cognitions and affects. Respondents complete the OMQ twice: immediately before a learning task and after its completion (or when the student gives up). The questionnaire focuses on students appraisals, affects and learning intentions before the task and their effort, task assessment and attributions and affects after completion of the task. The OMQ was one of the questionnaires used in Seegers & Boekaerts (1993) study. The study was aimed at examining the relationship between sixth graders motivational beliefs concerning mathematics and their appraisals of concrete mathematics tasks on the one hand, and motivational beliefs and three outcome variables (i.e. learning intentions, emotional states and task performances) on the other. A set of basic appraisals was identi ed in earlier studies; they included task attraction, perceived relevance and subjective competence (i.e. a combination of outcome expectations, perceived level of dif culty and self-ef cacy). It was hypothesised that motivational beliefs would in uence outcome variables indirectly, via appraisals (Seegers & Boekaerts, 1993; see also Boekaerts, 1999). The results gave support to the hypothesis by revealing the existence of two routes linking the motivational beliefs to the outcome variables, namely an effort- or value-directed route and an outcome-directed route. The effort-directed pathway was related to the degree of task orientation, with the value of the task and the pleasure experienced prior to undertaking it functioning as mediating factors. The outcome-directed route, on the other hand, was related to the in uence of fear of showing failure as well as lack of capacity. The results of Boekaerts and Otten (see Boekaerts, 1999) con rmed

272

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

Seegers & Boekaerts (1993) value-directed pathway. In contrast, the outcome-directed pathway had to be somewhat modi ed; two different paths led to negative motivational beliefs, only one of them being related to appraisals. Borkowskis Process-oriented Model of Metacognition Borkowskis (see, for example, Borkowski et al., 2000) aim has been to contribute to our understanding of successes and failures encountered in strategy generalisation. Together with his colleagues, Borkowski (see, for example, Borkowski et al., 2000; Pressley et al., 1985, 1987, 1990) de ned the characteristics of a good strategy user or information processor. According to this de nition, successful integration of cognitive, motivational, personal and situational components underlie good information processing. Borkowski (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992; Borkowski, 1996; Borkowski & Burke, 1996; Borkowski et al., 2000) further integrated these characteristics into a process-oriented model of metacognition. It describes the development of self-regulation, referred to as executive functioning by the author, as proceeding from the learning of lower level cognitive skills and becoming gradually linked to positive motivational states. The development of self-regulation begins when children are taught the use of a learning strategy. They progressively gain knowledge about the attributes of that particular strategy. With time, children learn to know other learning strategies. Applying them in diverse contexts contributes to enlarge and enrich the speci c strategy knowledge available to them. Self-regulation emerges when children become able to choose appropriate strategies and monitor their performance. As strategic and self-regulatory or executive processes become well established, children learn to recognise the utility of behaving strategically. Self-ef cacy perceptions and attributional beliefs also develop, thus linking strategy use to personal and motivational states. Important cognitive acts may now lead to feedback about success (or failure) and its related causes. This feedback is assumed to have an important role in shaping personalmotivational states which in turn energise the executive processes necessary for future strategy selection (Borkowski, 1996). Further, childrens general knowledge about the world and their domain-speci c knowledge develop. Domain-speci c knowledge often suf ces to solve problems alone, without learning strategies. In its nal form, the model also includes a self-system, comprising task orientation, self-worth, possible selves and learning goals (Borkowski, 1996; Borkowski & Burke, 1996; Borkowski et al., 2000). The most important individual element of the model is strategy selection and use. Not only are speci c strategies essential for effective learning and problem solving, they provide the context for training higher-level planning and executive skills explicitly as well as represent the basis for restructuring attributional beliefs and enhancing self-ef cacy. (Borkowski et al., 2000) As re ected by this citation, links between personal and motivational variables and self-regulation form the focus of Borkowskis model. Borkowski (Borkowski &

Models of Self-regulated Learning

273

Turner, 1990; Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1995) argues that successful generalisation of previously learned skills and knowledge is based on these elements; selfregulation, or executive functioning, activates the cognitive system and allows strategic behaviour to occur, whereas motivational factors and attributions provoke self-regulation in new and challenging situations. In addition, contextual factors such as parents, teachers and the learning environments created by them, as well as social collaboration with peers, are judged to be important in developing exible, adaptive learning (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1995; Borkowski et al., 2000). Borkowski and his collaborators have carried out numerous studies on strategy training or instruction and transfer of strategic skills, most often in children with underachievement, hyperactivity or impulsivity. For example, Reid & Borkowski (1987) examined the in uence of attribution and self-control training on the maintenance and generalisation of strategic behaviour in second, third and fourth graders with underachievement and hyperactivity. Three experimental conditions were created: a self-control group, a self-control plus attribution group and a strategy control group. All groups received speci c memory strategy training. In addition, the self-control group received a self-control training sequence through modelling and direct practice. The self-control plus attribution group received, in addition to the speci c memory strategy training and self-control training, self-attribution enhancing training, designed to in uence students beliefs concerning the importance of effort in improving achievement. The control group received only speci c memory strategy training. The results showed that students in the self-control plus attribution group improved more than the others: on a three week post-test they showed improved scores in attributions, self-control and strategy use and they remained improved in strategy use on a long-term post-test completed 10 months later. It was thus concluded that attribution and self-control training should be included in treatments aimed at remedying strategic de cits in children with underachievement and hyperactivity. Borkowski & Muthukrishna (1995) provide another example of strategy training studies. They examined the role of contextual factors in the development of strategy use. A guided discovery method was compared to direct strategy instruction of mathematics in third graders. Discovery learning is based on a constructivist perspective and thus on students active engagement in the learning process; students are not explicitly taught speci c learning strategies but have chances to invent them. Teachers roles consist of evaluating and redirecting students thinking processes. Direct strategy instruction, on the other hand, consists of explicit strategy teaching. It was hypothesised that discovery-based instruction would lead to better performance, better capacity to solve problems presented in a different form or context and better ability to think and communicate mathematically (deep strategy processing) than the direct strategy instruction. It was further hypothesised that, as compared with direct strategy instruction, guided discovery would contribute to the development of stronger beliefs and goals about the reasons for success. The study consisted of ve phases: a pre-test, an intervention (discovery learning, direct strategy teaching, direct teaching plus discovery or control), an immediate post-test, a short-term maintenance test four weeks later and a long-term maintenance test

274

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

nine weeks after the initial intervention. The results con rmed the hypotheses in that the discovery learning condition led to better performance in the immediate posttest and the long-term maintenance test than the direct strategy instruction in tasks presented in a different form than during instruction. The discovery condition was also related to more reported use of deep processing strategies, as well as to more reported importance on the motivational goals and less importance on task extrinsic factors, than the direct strategy condition.

Pintrichs General Framework for SRL Pintrichs (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich, 1989, 2000; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich et al., 1994, 2000) work on self-regulation has been characterised by one overarching theme, the integration of motivational constructs in SRL. Recently, Pintrich (2000) developed a general framework for SRL. (The term framework re ects the fact that unlike other authors using a gurative representation of their SRL models, Pintrich presented his work in the form of a table.) According to the framework SRL is composed of four phases, namely forethought, monitoring, control and re ection phases. For each phase, self-regulatory activities are listed in four separate areas, including cognitive, motivational and affective, behavioural and contextual areas. The self-regulatory activities taking place during the forethought phase thus include, among other things, prior content knowledge and metacognitive knowledge activation (cognitive area), ef cacy judgements and adoption of a goal orientation (motivation and affect area), time and effort planning (behaviour area) and perceptions of task and context (context area). Similarly, monitoring consists of awareness and monitoring of cognition, motivation, affect, time use, effort and task and context conditions. Control activities refer to the selection and adaptation of strategies for managing learning, thinking, motivation and affect; for the regulation of effort and for task negotiation. Finally, re ection includes cognitive judgements, affective reactions, making choices and task and context evaluation. The framework is presented as a heuristic, since it is not supposed that all academic learning necessarily involves explicit self-regulation. Furthermore, even if SRL is assumed, generally, to follow the above-mentioned time ordered sequence, a more dynamic view of the process is not excluded. Pintrich (2000) further analysed the role of motivation in SRL. More speci cally, he discussed the way in which goal orientations (mastery and performance orientation in this case) are related to SRL. Mastery and performance orientations were considered from an approach versus avoidance viewpoint. Approachmastery oriented students would have their focus on learning, understanding and mastering tasks. From the self-regulation viewpoint, these students would show the most positive results, including monitoring and control of their cognition during strategy use, positive and adaptive self-ef cacy beliefs and time and effort management. The hypothetical avoidance-mastery orientation, on the other hand, would relate to escaping imperfection; instead of focusing on learning and progress,

Models of Self-regulated Learning

275

avoidance-mastery oriented students seek to avoid situations in which they are liable to make mistakes. In the absence of research on the avoidance-mastery orientation, Pintrich (2000) assumed that it would be less bene cial to SRL than the approachmastery orientation. Approach-performance oriented students would be focused on being superior, besting others and being the best at the task in comparison to others. Empirical results are somewhat contradictory, but suggest, globally, that the approachperformance orientation could have some positive relationship to cognition and motivation. In any case, it is judged to be more bene cial to SRL than the avoidance-performance orientation, which would be focused on avoiding inferiority and not looking stupid in comparison to others, an approach judged non-adaptive by Pintrich (2000). The empirical research conducted by Pintrich re ects his concern for a motivated and self-regulated learner. In fact, most of his studies reported relationships between students motivational orientation, self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Furthermore, Pintrich and his collaborators have developed a selfreport questionnaire, the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ), in order to assess motivational beliefs (e.g. self-ef cacy, intrinsic value and test anxiety) as well as use of learning strategies (i.e. cognitive, metacognitive and regulatory or resource management strategies) in college students (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 1993). The MSLQ has been used in several empirical studies (see, for example Garcia & Pintrich, 1996; Pintrich et al., 1994; VanderStoep et al.,, 1996; see also Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). For example, Garcia and Pintrich (1996) explored the effects of classroom autonomy (i.e. the degree to which students report having the opportunity to participate in decision making concerning course policies) on motivation and performance in college students. No explicit hypotheses were formulated. Four motivation subscales of the MSLQ were included, namely intrinsic goal orientation, task value, perceived self-ef cacy and test anxiety. The results indicated that motivational beliefs, intrinsic goal orientation, task value and perceived self-ef cacy were positively affected by the experience of classroom autonomy. Classroom autonomy was more closely related to motivational factors than to performance. In another study, Pintrich and colleagues (VanderStoep et al., 1996) examined college students knowledge, motivation and self-regulatory learning strategies in three different disciplines, English, psychology and biology. It was hypothesised that high achieving students would have better knowledge, more adaptive motivation and report more use of self-regulatory strategies than low achieving students; no explicit hypothesis was formulated concerning the generalisability of the results across the disciplines. Students motivational beliefs (i.e. intrinsic orientation, task value and self-ef cacy) and self-regulated learning (i.e. rehearsal, elaboration, organisation and metacognition) were again assessed using the MSLQ. Their domain-speci c knowledge concerning the course material, on the other hand, was assessed with an ordered tree technique based on students sorting important concepts from their course. The results con rmed the hypothesis in that knowledge, motivation and self-regulation distinguished high and low achieving students. However, this result

276

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

was observed only in psychology and biology. It was suggested that the method be adjusted to better represent the nature of learning and instruction in English courses. Winnes Four-stage Model of Self-regulated Learning According to Winne & Hadwin (1998) SRL has some of the properties of both an aptitude and an event. An aptitude denotes a relatively stable personal attribute, whereas an event is de ned as a snapshot that freezes activity in motion, a transient state embedded in a larger, longer series of states unfolding over time (p. 534). The four-stage model of SRL presented by Winne and colleagues (Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Winne & Perry, 2000; see also Butler & Winne, 1995; Winne, 1996) describes SRL as an event. Self-regulated learning, which is seen as an inherent part of learning, is de ned as metacognitively guided behaviour enabling students to adaptively regulate their use of cognitive tactics and strategies in the face of a task (Winne, 1996). According to this model (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) SRL includes four distinct stages. The rst stage of the model, task de nition, is characterised by the perceptions that students generate about the task. Stage two is devoted to goal setting and planning and third stage is that of enacting tactics and strategies planned in stage two. The fourth and last stage, metacognitively adapting studying techniques with an eye to future needs, refers to a process by which students critically examine the things they came up with in the preceding stages, in the light of their meta-level knowledge (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Each stage is supposed to share the same general structure, referred to as the COPES (i.e. ConditionsOperationsProductsEvaluationsStandards) typology by Winne & Hadwin (1998). Conditions include information about the task conditions (e.g. time constraints, available resources and social context) and cognitive conditions (e.g. interest, goal orientation and task knowledge) that in uence how the task will be engaged. Operations are de ned as the cognitive processes, tactics and strategies students engage in when faced with a task, and products refer to information created by operations in transforming conditions. A different product is thus created at each stage. Products can be internal (e.g. the inference drawn from an attribution) or external (i.e. observable behaviour or performance). Evaluations consist of internal or external feedback about the products. Finally, standards are the criteria against which the products are monitored. Metacognitive monitoring is a central element in Winnes model, producing internal feedback about the discrepancy between products and standards at each stage. That feedback further serves as a basis for future actions (Butler & Winne, 1995; Winne & Perry, 2000). The model is described as recursive, in that the products of earlier stages are assumed to update the conditions on which operations work during the next stage (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Furthermore, even if learning processes are assumed to generally proceed from stage 1 through stages 2 and 3 to stage 4, it is admitted that the system is weakly sequenced and that, consequently, different patterns may also exist.

Models of Self-regulated Learning

277

Winne and colleagues have conducted several empirical studies on SRL as an event. This has mainly been done using a trace methodology (Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993; Winne et al., 1998, 2000). Traces refer to observable indicators of cognition, such as annotation, created by students while studying (Winne & Perry, 2000). Winne et al. (2000), for example, explored the relationship between traces and students self-reports of studying. University students lled in a self-report questionnaire concerning the use of seven studying tactics. Traces or the actual use of the tactics were examined by analysing written traces (e.g. highlighting and creating mnemonics) left by the students while working on chapters extracted from their course textbooks. The correlations between students self-reports and their actual use of study tactics proved to be low, suggesting that self-reports do not give a very accurate picture of the tactics which students actually use. Hadwin et al. (1997) investigated the role of context in university students self-reports of studying. They developed a strategic learning questionnaire to examine students self-reports about their study tactics (e.g. planning and rehearsing), resource use (e.g. textbook illustrations and textbook summary items) and goals (e.g. understanding and memorising) in different learning contexts. Three different contexts were chosen: reading for learning, completing a brief essay and studying for an exam. The results showed that students reported varying tactics, resources and goals according to the context of study. This was interpreted as re ecting the rst stage of Winne & Hadwins (1998) SRL model, according to which contextual information in uences the perceptions students generate about a task (Winne et al., 1998).

Zimmermans Social Cognitive Model of Self-regulation Zimmermans (1989, 1990a,b, 1998, 2000a) social cognitive model of self-regulation is based, as its name indicates, on Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory. According to this model self-regulation involves three classes of determinants. In this triadic reciprocal determinism, covert personal (i.e. self), behavioural and environmental events are viewed as separable, but at the same time interdependent, factors in uencing individuals functioning. Covert self-regulation involves monitoring and adjusting cognitive and affective states. Behavioural self-regulation consists of selfobserving and strategically adjusting performance processes. Finally, environmental self-regulation includes observing and adjusting environmental conditions or outcomes (Zimmerman, 1990a, 1998). According to Zimmerman (2000a) self-regulation is cyclical in nature. He de nes self-regulation as self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals (p. 14). In other words, feedback obtained from prior learning experience is used to make adjustments to goals, strategy choice, etc. for subsequent efforts. These adjustments, which are assumed to reduce performance discrepancies both proactively and reactively, are necessary because personal, behavioural and environmental factors constantly change during learning.

278

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

The cyclical phases of self-regulation include a forethought phase, a performance phase and a self-re ection phase (Zimmerman, 2000a; see also Zimmerman, 1998). The forethought phase refers to processes that precede and prepare actions. Two categories of processes are distinguished: processes relative to task analysis (i.e. goal setting and strategic planning) and those relating to self-motivation beliefs (i.e. self-ef cacy, outcome expectations, intrinsic motivation or valuing and process versus outcome goal orientation). The performance or volitional control phase includes two kinds of processes, namely self-control (i.e. self-instruction, imagery or mental picture forming, attention focusing and task strategies) and self-observation (i.e. self-recording and self-experimentation). Self-control processes help learners to concentrate on the task and optimise their efforts; for example, task strategies aid learning by reducing the task to its essential components and reorganising them in a meaningful manner (Zimmerman, 2000a). Self-observation processes, on the other hand, refer to tracing speci c aspects of ones own performance. The last phase, self-re ection, contains two categories of processes closely related to self-observation, self-judgement and self-reaction. Self-judgement refers to selfevaluations of ones own performance and to causal attributions concerning the results; self-reaction includes self-satisfaction, i.e. perceptions of (dis)satisfaction and affect regarding performance and inferences about what will have to be changed in future self-regulation demanding situations. Due to the cyclical nature of selfregulation, self-re ection further in uences forethought processes. Self-regulatory skills, which are assumed to be context dependent, develop, according to social cognitive theory (see, for example, Zimmerman, 1996, 2000a), through four levels. The rst level corresponds to learning by modelling, i.e. vicarious induction of a skill through observation. This observational level would be attained when the learner can deduce the main features of the skill or strategy by observing a model. The imitative level of self-regulation is de ned as emulative performance of a modelled skill while receiving social feedback. It is attained when the learners performance approaches the general form of the model. The role of social guidance, essential in these rst two levels, becomes less evident during the last two. The third step is called the self-control level and corresponds to successful application of a demonstrated skill when the model is no longer present and the fourth and last level, self-regulation, refers to adaptive use of a skill in changing conditions. It is assumed that students who master each level in sequence will have more facility in learning than others. However, possessing the capacities does not automatically mean that they are used; motivational and environmental elements in uence the nal decision. Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to test this model. Selfef cacy is undoubtedly the individual element that has been studied the most (see, for example, Schunk, 1990, 1994; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1996, 1998). It refers to perceptions about ones capabilities to attain designated levels of performance (Bandura, 1986; Zimmerman, 2000b). Otherwise, Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons (1986, 1988) have developed a structured interview method, the self-regulated learning interview schedule (SRLIS), to test students use of self-regulated learning strategies. It consists of a structured interview assessing 14 classes of self-regulated

Models of Self-regulated Learning

279

strategies, such as self-evaluating, organising and transforming and planning and monitoring. Lately Zimmerman has focused his work on some speci c domains, such as self-regulated writing (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), acquisition of complex motor skills (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 1998) and self-regulating childhood asthma (Zimmerman et al., 1999). Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons (1990) used SRLIS to examine the relationship between students use of self-regulated learning strategies and their perceptions of both verbal and mathematical self-ef cacy. The results revealed, as hypothesised, that both self-ef cacy measures were correlated with the use of self-regulated strategies. Grade (5th, 8th and 11th), giftedness (gifted versus regular), and gender further speci ed the results. Older students self-ef cacy surpassed that of younger students; giftedness was related to high perceived self-ef cacy; boys verbal selfef cacy was signi cantly higher than that of girls. There were no gender-related differences in mathematical self-ef cacy. Zimmerman & Bandura (1994) studied the role of four self-regulatory factors on writing attainment in university level students. These included self-ef cacy beliefs concerning academic achievement (i.e. beliefs concerning mastery of particular academic subjects), self-ef cacy beliefs concerning self-regulation of writing (i.e. beliefs in ones capacity to regulate ones own writing activities), self-evaluation and goals. It was hypothesised that self-regulatory self-ef cacy for writing would in uence performance indirectly via self-evaluations and self-ef cacy for academic achievement. Self-ef cacy for academic achievement and self-evaluation, on the other hand, were hypothesised to exert a direct effect on writing attainments, but also an indirect effect through goals. Two self-ef cacy measures were used, one for perceived academic self-ef cacy and another for perceived self-regulatory ef cacy. Self-rating scales were completed at the beginning of a writing course and the results were related to the students nal course grades re ecting their writing attainments. The results of a path analysis gave support to the in uential role of self-ef cacy in writing. They showed that, as hypothesised, self-ef cacy for academic achievement in uenced writing course grades directly, but also indirectly through goal setting. The results concerning the self-regulatory ef cacy for writing also con rmed the hypothesis: self-regulatory ef cacy affected self-evaluations and students self-regulatory self-ef cacy predicted their self-ef cacy for academic achievement; the higher the self-regulatory self-ef cacy, the more con dent the students were about their academic achievement. Self-evaluations, on the other hand, affected grades only indirectly, through goals. COMPARISON OF THE MODELS The models were compared on four criteria: the background theories of the authors, the de nitions of SRL, the components included in the models and the empirical research conducted by the authors. From the viewpoint of the underlying theories, Borkowskis model, derived from the work of such meta theorists as Flavell (see, for example, Flavell &

280

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

Wellman, 1977), Brown (see, for example, Brown, 1978) and Sternberg (see, for example, Sternberg, 1985), is the purest representative of the informationprocessing perspective and the metacognitive research tradition. Zimmermans model, on the other hand, re ects Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory, underlining social foundations of thinking and behaviour. Pintrichs model too derives mainly from the social cognitive approach, whereas Boekaerts has been mostly in uenced by Kuhls (1985) Action Control Theory and by Lazarus & Folkmans (1984) Transactional Stress Theory. Winne, nally, seems to have the most heterogeneous theoretical background. His model has been in uenced, among others, by the work of Bandura and Zimmerman, Carver & Scheier (1990), Kuhl (Kuhl & Goschke, 1994) and Paris & Byrnes (1989). Two kinds of de nitions of SRL seem to emerge, a goal-oriented de nition and a metacognitively weighted de nition. Boekaerts, Pintrich and Zimmerman de ne SRL as a goal-oriented process. They emphasise the constructive or self-generated nature of SRL and agree that monitoring, regulating and controlling ones own learning includes cognitive but also motivational, emotional and social factors. Borkowski and Winne, on the other hand, de ne SRL as a metacognitively governed process aimed at adapting the use of cognitive tactics and strategies to tasks. It is important to add, however, that even if Borkowski and Winne do not include goal orientations in their de nitions, they both assume self-regulated learners (or good information users, as Borkowski puts it) to be intrinsically motivated and goaloriented. Borkowskis good information users are assumed to have mastery goals and in Winnes model goals are described as internal standards or criteria to which all attainments are compared. Finally, both Borkowski and Winne assume SRL to include cognitive but also motivational, emotional and social factors. In sum, the differences in the de nitions become blurred when one examines the models in more detail, suggesting that it is the relative weight given to the component parts, more than the components themselves, that varies from one model to another. Even if the terminology varies from one model to another, all the authors assume SRL to proceed from some kind of a preparatory or preliminary phase, through the actual performance or task completion phase, to an appraisal or adaptation phase. Table I sums up the components corresponding to these phases for each of the models. It shows that the preparatory phase of SRL includes task analysis, planning and goal setting activities. It is based on self-knowledge, motivational beliefs and (meta)cognitive knowledge about the self, the task and the situation and it prepares the individual for the forthcoming situation. The performance phase consists of strategy use and on-line self-regulatory and monitoring activities, such as comprehension monitoring and resource allocation. The last phase in SRL is the appraisal phase, including the evaluation of outcomes. Performance feedback provides individuals with information about the ef ciency of their activity and serves as a basis for attributions, comparisons and adaptations. Thus, all the authors assume SRL to be cyclical in nature, in that those appraisals in uence subsequent preparatory processes. Despite the apparent similarity of the components across the models, some models present features that distinguish them from all the other models. Perhaps the

Models of Self-regulated Learning

281

TABLE I. The components of the models of ve authors as a function of the three phases of the SRL process SRL process Author Boekaerts Preparatory phase Identi cation, interpretation, primary and secondary appraisal, goal setting Task analysis, strategy selection Performance phase Goal striving Appraisal phase Performance feedback

Borkowski

Pintrich Winne Zimmerman

Forethought, planning, activation Task de nition, goal setting, planning Forethought (task analysis, self-motivation)

Strategy use, strategy revision, strategy monitoring Monitoring, control Applying tactics and strategies Performance (self-control, self-observation)

Performance feedback

Reaction and re ection Adapting metacognition Self-re ection (self-judgement, self-reaction)

most striking example is Winnes conception of an omnipresent metacognitive monitoring process, accompanied by internal feedback. This distinguishes Winnes model from all the others. In fact, most authors assume monitoring to take place during the performance phase and feedback to occur in the appraisal phase, whereas Winne argues that SRL is recursive, and that metacognitive monitoring can produce internal feedback during any phase of the SRL process. Another model that differs from all the others is that of Boekaerts. In her case it is a question of emphasis: she mainly focuses on the preparatory phase of the SRL process and treats the performance and the appraisal phases much more super cially. Boekaerts & Niemivirta (2000) even consider it beyond the scope of their work to discuss the problem solving processes included in the performance phase of SRL. This might re ect Boekaerts concern for the distinction between the concepts of SRL and problem solving (see Zeidner et al., 2000). As far as the empirical research is concerned, two major orientations seem to emerge, a motivation orientation and a strategy orientation. Boekaerts and Pintrich are mainly motivation oriented in their research. They have both studied the relationships between motivational factors and academic achievement and have developed a questionnaire to assess motivational and cognitive elements in uencing students learning. However, the variables included in the studies have been somewhat different. Boekaerts has focused on appraisals as a mediating factor in children, whereas Pintrich has examined the effects of several variables, such as classroom autonomy and discipline, on motivation, learning strategy use and achievement in college students. Borkowskis and Winnes research is principally strategy oriented. Borkowskis approach has been instructional, in that he has compared the effectiveness of different strategy instruction methods (e.g. the guided discovery method versus direct strategy instruction) in children. Providing formal instruction about learning

282

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

strategies has been found to have bene cial effects on subsequent strategy use and performance. Winne, on the other hand, has used a trace methodology to explore the relationship between university students self-reported, contrasted with their actual, use of study tactics. Zimmermans research, nally, has been both motivation and strategy oriented. His motivation-oriented research includes his work on self-ef cacy and his strategyoriented research consists of the development and use of a structured interview to test students use of learning strategies. Learning strategy use has been found to correlate with perceptions of self-ef cacy. Table II summarises the above results by comparing the models two by two on the four criteria. It shows, rst of all, that the models of Pintrich and Zimmerman resemble each other more than any other two models. Based on the social cognitive tradition, the two models de ne SRL as a goal-oriented process, proceeding from a forethought phase through self-monitoring and self-control to self-re ection. Furthermore, the empirical research conducted by the authors is quite similar; both have studied students motivational orientation in relation to their use of self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement. The two models are not identical, though; Pintrich has worked more on the role of goal orientations in SRL, for example. Table II further shows that the models of Boekaerts and Pintrich and Borkowski and Winne, although not similar, are by no means totally different. The unifying element for Boekaerts and Pintrich is that they have both worked on the role of motivational factors and goal processes in SRL; Borkowski and Winne, on the other hand, have de ned SRL as a metacognitively governed process and have been more interested in the role of tactics and strategy use in SRL. At the same time, however, it is the models of Borkowski and Winne that show the greatest points of difference from all other models. The results of the two-by-two comparisons (Table II) reveal that there are important differences between these models and all the others. Borkowski and Boekaerts, for instance, start from different theoretical positions and in their de nitions of SRL each emphasises aspects of the process quite different from those focused on by the other. Their conceptions of the SRL process are rather different; even if they globally agree on the unfolding of the SRL process, the weight that they give to each component is quite different. Finally, Borkowski and Boekaerts have conducted different empirical research on SRL (see Table II). Taken together, the comparisons showed that the models were, globally, rather different from each other: only two of the models were really similar and even these were by no means identical. These results seem to indicate that the theoretical background is an important differential feature. Firstly, and not surprisingly, the only two authors (i.e. Pintrich and Zimmerman) to draw on the same background theory, the social cognitive theory, were the ones who produced the most similar models. Furthermore, even if Boekaerts model has not explicitly been described as based on social cognitive theory (see, for example, Boekaerts, 1992), it has more af nities with the social cognitive models than with the other models. Borkowskis model, on the other hand, which differs from almost all the other models, was the only representative

Models of Self-regulated Learning

TABLE II. Two by two comparisons between the ve authors SRL models on four criteria Criterion Authors BoekaertsBorkowski BoekaertsPintrich BoekaertsWinne BoekaertsZimmerman BorkowskiPintrich BorkowskiWinne BorkowskiZimmerman PintrichWinne PintrichZimmerman WinneZimmerman 5 Background ( ) ) 5 ) 5 5 5 ) 5 De nition Components ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 5 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

283

Research (5 ( (5 ( 5 ) ), rather ) ) )

( ( (

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

of information processing theory and Winne, whose model is also different from most of the others, has the most heterogeneous theoretical background of all. A major goal of any modern education, whether of children or adults, should be the promotion of the development of self-regulatory skills and thus the creation of opportunities for life-long learning. Self-regulated learners actively and autonomously guide their own learning and update their knowledge whenever necessary. From this perspective it is particularly desirable that in the future we move towards a more integrated conception of SRL, supported by a solid empirical approach. This will undoubtedly contribute to the de nition and development of educational and re-educational aims and applications in this eld. Finally, it is important to pay more attention to the empirical methods chosen to test SRL. As we have seen, the empirical research has often been conducted using questionnaires and inventories designed to evaluate the central concepts of the models. However, it has been demonstrated that self-report measures do not necessarily give a reliable picture of the self-regulation tactics students actually engage in (Winne et al., 2000). More naturalistic and empirically valid methods will certainly result in a more dynamic and diversi ed appreciation of the nature of the SRL phenomenon. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper was prepared as a part of the project Human Development and its Risk Factors nanced by the Academy of Finland (Finnish Centre of Excellence Programme no. 40166 for 19971999 and no. 44858 for 20002002).
REFERENCES
BANDURA , A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

284

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

BOEKAERTS , M. (1988). Motivated learning: bias in appraisals. International Journal of Educational Research, 12, 267280. BOEKAERTS , M. (1992). The adaptable learning process: initiating and maintaining behavioural change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 377397. BOEKAERTS , M. (1995). The interface between intelligence and personality as determinants of classroom learning. In D.H. SAKLOFSKE & M. ZEIDNER (eds), International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. New York, NY: Plenum Press. BOEKAERTS , M. (1996a). Personality and the psychology of learning. European Journal of Personality, 10, 377404. BOEKAERTS , M. (1996b). Teaching students self-regulated learning: a major success in applied research. In J. GEORGAS , M. MANTHOULI , E. BESEVEGIS & A. KOKKEVI (eds), Contemporary Psychology in Europe: theory, research, and applications. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber. BOEKAERTS , M. (1999). Motivated learning: The study of student 3 situation transactional units. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 4155. BOEKAERTS , M. & NIEMIVIRTA , M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: nding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. BOEKAERTS , P.R. PINTRICH & M. ZEIDNER (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. BORKOWSKI, J.G. (1996). Metacognition: theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 391402. BORKOWSKI, J.G., & BURKE, J.E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functioning: an information processing perspective. In G.R. LYON & N.A. KRASNEGOR (eds), Attention, Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. BORKOWSKI, J.G., & MUTHUKRISHNA , N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom: working models and effective strategy teaching. In M. PRESSLEY, K.R. HARRIS & J.T. GUTHRIE (eds), Promoting Academic Literacy: cognitive research and instructional innovation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. BORKOWSKI, J.G., & MUTHUKRISHNA , N. (1995). Learning environments and skill generalization: how contexts facilitate regulatory processes and ef cacy beliefs. In F.E. WEINERT & W. SCHNEIDER (eds), Memory Performance and Competencies: issues in growth and development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. BORKOWSKI, J.G., & TURNER , L.A. (1990). Transsituational characteristics of metacognition. In W. SCHNEIDER & F.E. WEINERT (eds), Interactions among Aptitudes, Strategies, and Knowledge in Cognitive Performance. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. BORKOWSKI, J.G., CHAN, L.K.S., & MUTHUKRISHNA , N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. SCHRAW & J. IMPARA (eds), Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska. BROWN, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. In R. GLASER (ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology: Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. BUTLER , D.L., & WINNE, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245281. CARVER, C.S., & SCHEIER, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affects: a controlprocess view. Psychological Review, 97, 1935. FLAVELL , J.H., & WELLMAN , H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. KAIL & J.W. HAGEN (eds), Perspectives on the Development of Memory and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. GARCIA, T., & PINTRICH, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: the role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H. SCHUNK & B.J. ZIMMERMAN (eds), Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. GARCIA, T., & PINTRICH, P.R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 477486. H ADWIN , A.F., WINNE, P.H., STOCKLEY , D.B., NESBIT, J.C., & WOSZCZYNA, C. (1997). Context moderates students self-reports about how they study, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. H OWARD- ROSE, D., & WINNE, P.H. (1993). Measuring component and sets of cognitive processes in self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 591604.

Models of Self-regulated Learning

285

KITSANTAS , A., & ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1998). Self-regulation of motoric learning: a strategic cycle view. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 220239. KUHL, J. (1985). From cognition to behavior: perspectives for future research on action control. In J. KUHL & J. BECKMANN (eds), Action Control: from cognition to behavior. Berlin, Germany: SpringerVerlag. KUHL, J., & GOSCHKE, T. (1994). A theory of action control: mental subsystems, modes of control, and volitional con ict-resolution strategies. In J. KUHL & J. BECKMANN (eds), Volition and Personality: action versus state orientation. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber. LAZARUS , R.S., & FOLKMAN, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer. PARIS , S.G., & BYRNES, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B.J. ZIMMERMAN & D.H. SCHUNK (eds), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. PINTRICH, P.R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. AMES & M.L. MAEHR (eds), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 6. Motivation enhancing environments. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. PINTRICH, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. BOEKAERTS , P.R. PINTRICH & M. ZEIDNER (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. PINTRICH, P.R. & DE GROOT, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340. PINTRICH, P.R. & GARCIA, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M.L. MAEHR & P.R. PINTRICH (eds), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 7. Goals and self-regulatory processes. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. PINTRICH, P.R., ROESER, R.W., & DE GROOT, E.A.M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 139161. PINTRICH, P.R., SMITH, D.A.F., GARCIA , T., & MCKEACHIE, W.J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801813. PINTRICH, P.R., WOLTERS, C.A., & BAXTER , G.P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. SCHRAW & J. IMPARA (eds), Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska. PRESSLEY, M., FORREST- PRESSLEY, D.L., ELLIOTT-FAUST, D.J., & MILLER , G.E. (1985). Childrens use of cognitive strategies, how to teach strategies, and what to do if they cant be taught. In M. PRESSLEY & C.J. BRAINERD (eds), Cognitive Learning and Memory in Children. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. PRESSLEY, M., BORKOWSKI, J.G., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. VASTA (ed.), Annals of Child Development: Vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. PRESSLEY, M., BORKOWSKI, J.G., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1990). Good information processing: what it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 2, 857867. REID, M.K., & BORKOWSKI, J.G. (1987). Causal attributions of hyperactive children: implications for teaching strategies and self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 296307. SCHUNK, D.H. (1990). Goal setting and self-ef cacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 7186. SCHUNK, D.H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-ef cacy and attributions in academic settings. In D.H. SCHUNK & B.J. ZIMMERMAN (eds), Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. SCHUNK, D.H., & ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1996). Modeling and self-ef cacy in uences on childrens development of self-regulation. In J. JUVONEN & K.R. WENTZEL (eds), Social Motivation: understanding childrens school adjustment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. SCHUNK, D.H., & ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (eds) (1998). Self-regulated Learning: from teaching to self-re ective practice. New York, NY: Guilford. SEEGERS , G., & BOEKAERTS , M. (1993). Task motivation and mathematics achievement in actual task situations. Learning and Instruction, 3, 133150.

286

M. Puustinen & L. Pulkkinen

STERNBERG , R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ. A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. VANDER STOEP, S.W., PINTRICH, P.R., & FAGERLIN , A. (1996). Disciplinary differences in self-regulated learning in college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 345362. WINNE, P.H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327353. WINNE, P.H., & HADWIN, A.F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. HACKER & J. DUNLOSKY (eds), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, The Educational Psychology Series. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. WINNE, P.H., & PERRY , N.E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. BOEKAERTS , P.R. PINTRICH & M. ZEIDNER (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. WINNE, P.H., HADWIN, A.F., MCNAMARA, J.K., & CHU, S.T.L. (1998). An exploratory study of self-regulated learning when students study using CoNoteS2, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. WINNE, P.H., HADWIN, A.F., STOCKLEY , D.B., & NESBIT, J.C. (2000). Traces versus self-reports of study tactics and their relations to achievement. Unpublished report. WOLTERS , C.A., & PINTRICH, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 2747. ZEIDNER , M., BOEKAERTS , M., & PINTRICH, P.R. (2000). Self-regulation: directions and challenges for future research. In M. BOEKAERTS , P.R. PINTRICH & M. ZEIDNER (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329339. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. (1990a). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: the emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173201. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. (1990b). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 317. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. (1996). Enhancing student academic and health functioning: a self-regulatory perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 4766. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 7386. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. (2000a). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. BOEKAERTS , P.R. PINTRICH & M. ZEIDNER (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. (2000b). Self-ef cacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 8291. ZIMMERMAN , B.J., & BANDURA , A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory in uences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845862. ZIMMERMAN , B.J., & KITSANTAS , A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 2936. ZIMMERMAN , B.J. & MARTINEZ- PONS, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614 628. ZIMMERMAN , B.J., & MARTINEZ- PONS, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284290. ZIMMERMAN , B.J., & MARTINEZ- PONS, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-ef cacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 5159. ZIMMERMAN , B.J., & RISEMBERG , R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: a social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73101. ZIMMERMAN , B.J., BONNER, S., EVANS, D., & MELLINS , R.B. (1999). Self-regulating childhood asthma: a developmental model of family change. Health Education & Behavior, 26, 5571.