You are on page 1of 14

This article was downloaded by: [Georgia State University] On: 03 November 2013, At: 01:02 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

This article was downloaded by: [Georgia State University] On: 03 November 2013, At: 01:02 Publisher: Routledge From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path Barry J. Zimmerman Doctoral Program in Educational Psychology , Graduate School of the City University of New York Published online: 09 May 2013. To cite this article: Barry J. Zimmerman (2013) From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path, Educational Psychologist, 48:3, 135-147, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.794676 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// " id="pdf-obj-0-6" src="pdf-obj-0-6.jpg">

Educational Psychologist

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path

Barry J. Zimmerman a

a Doctoral Program in Educational Psychology , Graduate School of the City University of New York Published online: 09 May 2013.

To cite this article: Barry J. Zimmerman (2013) From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path, Educational Psychologist, 48:3, 135-147, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.794676


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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 48(3), 135–147, 2013 Copyright C Division 15, American Psychological Association ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.794676

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 48 (3), 135–147, 2013 Copyright C Division 15, American Psychological Association ISSN: 0046-1520 print

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013


From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation:

A Social Cognitive Career Path

Barry J. Zimmerman

Doctoral Program in Educational Psychology Graduate School of the City University of New York

My career path to understanding the source and nature of human learning started with an interest in social processes, especially cognitive modeling, and has led to the exploration of self-regulatory processes. My investigation of these processes has prompted the development of several social cognitive models: a triadic model that synthesized covert, behavioral, and environmental sources of personal feedback, a multilevel model of training that begins with observational learning and proceeds sequentially to self-regulation, and a cyclical phase model that depicts the interaction of metacognitive and motivational processes during efforts to learn. Empirical support for each of these models is discussed, including its implications for formal and informal forms of instruction. This self-regulation research has revealed that students who set superior goals proactively, monitor their learning intentionally, use strategies effectively, and respond to personal feedback adaptively not only attain mastery more quickly, but also are more motivated to sustain their efforts to learn. Recommendations for future research are made.

It is a singular honor to have been selected to receive the E. L. Thorndike award for 2011. Thorndike envisioned the application of psychology in education as a science, and that vision has had an enduring impact on subsequent genera- tions of researchers, including me. In this article I discuss social- and self-regulation of learning. Because this topic is broad in scope, I do not attempt to provide a comprehensive description of the field. I have, however, discussed its histor- ical background, methodological developments, and future prospects in a previous article in American Education Re- search Journal (Zimmerman, 2008b). Instead, I describe my personal career path as a social cognitive researcher from my initial research on cognitive modeling to my subsequent research on self-regulation of learning.

This article is drawn from my E. L. Thorndike Award address pre- sented to Division 15 of the American Psychological Association in Orlando, Florida, on August 3, 2012. Correspondence should be addressed to Barry J. Zimmerman, Educa- tional Psychology, Graduate School of the City University of New York, 365 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10016-4309. E-mail:


When I began my professional career as an educational psy- chologist in the late 1960s, I sensed a major gap in research dealing with social cognitive aspects of students’ learning. This paucity of research seemed curious because students clearly learn many fundamental concepts in influential so- cial milieus, such as the family, the classroom, and the peer group. In addition to this gap in research on learning, I was also struck by an absence in research on students’ willing- ness to assume personal responsibility for their academic learning and performance. To bridge these gaps, I turned to sources outside of educational psychology at the time, and I discovered the work of Albert Bandura. His research was largely unknown in educational circles when I was in gradu- ate school. While reading Bandura and Walters’s (1963) book Social Learning and Personality Development , I realized that modeling could be studied as a potent method of both for- mal and informal teaching. Teaching was a “hot” issue in education during that era, and Bandura’s social learning the- ory offered a unique perspective on that topic. Modeling could be studied experimentally as an instructional method designed to enhance not only students’ learning but also their motivation.

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013



I was introduced to Al Bandura early in my career and came to know him personally as well as professionally. I found him to be a warm and encouraging man with a won- derful sense of humor. He invited me and my colleagues to contribute to a book that he edited on theories of psycho- logical modeling (e.g., Rosenthal, Zimmerman, & Durning, 1970), and he has been very supportive throughout my ca- reer. I have had the honor of writing several biographies describing Al’s extraordinary contributions to the field of ed- ucation (Zimmerman, 2008a; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2002). Of interest, the importance of Al’s research was recognized eventually by educational psychologists with his reception of the Thorndike Award in 1999. At the time, a number of educators viewed model- ing as limited in its instructional effectiveness despite its widespread use in apprentice training programs. The major problem with modeling was thought to be its reliance on response duplication (i.e., mimicry). Several developmental psychologists were especially dismissive of modeling based on presumed cognitive stage limitations of students, espe- cially with young children (Sloban, 1968). My close col- league Ted Rosenthal and I disagreed with this perspective, and we hypothesized instead that students’ vicarious learning could extend beyond simple mimicry of motoric actions if cognitive modeling methods of instruction were employed. Cognitive models are distinguished by their display of mul- tiple examples of problem-solving actions, which are ex- plained or justified as they are performed, such as a arith- metic strategy for “carrying” when adding numbers. To put it humorously, we sought to evolve “monkey see—monkey do” mimicry notions of modeling to higher primate cognitive forms of observational learning! Ted and I sought to test this cognitive modeling hypoth- esis in an extensive series of studies. In an initial study designed to enhance the conceptual quality of elementary school students’ questions to a series of cards depicting var- ious objects (Rosenthal et al., 1970), an adult model dis- played a sequence of questions that all had a specific cog- nitive property, such as functional questions like, “What do you use it for” and “Can you put water in this”? Af- ter watching the cognitive model ask semantically diverse but conceptually consistent questions regarding the cards, the student observers were directed to ask questions—first to the same cards addressed by the model and then to new cards. We discovered that the observing students increased their functional questions significantly on the same cards as well as on the new cards. Clearly, the students had abstracted the key conceptual property of the questions, and they were able to generalize it to a contextually different task. These find- ings bear on the underlying issue: Were these results due to verbatim mimicry of the models’ exact questions, or were they due their underlying conceptual property? Mimicry was found to account for only 11% of their entire vicarious learn- ing results. These findings suggested to us that many im-

portant forms of human knowledge could be taught through cognitive modeling of the underlying abstractions of compe- tent others (i.e., social models). As a demanding test of the instructional power of cog- nitive modeling, Ted and I sought to teach developmentally linked problem-solving strategies for solving Piagetian con- servation problems precociously. At the time, these numeri- cal concepts were considered to be resistant to instruction by preoperational-stage children (Flavell, 1963). In our cognitive modeling of conservation methodology (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1972; Zimmerman & Lanaro, 1974; Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974a), an adult model re- sponded to an experimenter’s questions about whether a flat- tened ball of clay had more or less clay than an unflattened ball or whether they were they equal. After rendering a cor- rect judgment, some students observed the model asked to explain his or her answer, such as, “You didn’t add or take away any clay, so they must both be the same.” For the other students, the model was not asked to give a verbal explanation for the conservation judgment. Subsequently, other conser- vation tasks were introduced, such as two equal glasses of water, and one is poured into a tall, narrow cylinder. Then the same answer sequence was modeled. To our delight, we found that cognitive modeling produced not only rapid learning but also significant transfer to un- trained tasks and significant retention over time (Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974a). Students that heard the model’s expla- nation for his or her judgment displayed greater vicarious learning than students who observed only the model’s conser- vation judgments. Providing a verbal rationale for a model’s problem-solving actions clearly increased their cognitive im- pact. Pam Lanaro and I also discovered that children even as young as preschool age were able to induce abstract concepts from cognitive models and to generalize those concepts to unfamiliar tasks (Zimmerman & Lanaro, 1974). Cognitive modeling was also found to increase observers’ personal choice of the learning task, a key indicator of enhanced mo- tivation (Zimmerman & Koussa, 1975, 1979). These cognitive modeling studies led us to conduct an extensive program of research that eventuated in an article in Psychological Bulletin (Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974b) and in a book entitled Social Learning and Cognition (Rosen- thal & Zimmerman, 1978). In these two publications, we summarized hundreds of studies by other researchers along with our own work, and we concluded that these results of cognitive modeling challenged stage descriptions of chil- dren’s development as unduly pessimistic about young chil- dren’s capability to learn.


This evidence of the power of cognitive modeling led me to consider how a socially acquired concept, such as

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013

conservation of liquid quantity, is adapted strategically to di- verse settings. I viewed this adaptation as due to a learner’s transition from social to self-directed forms of regulation. To achieve self-regulation, students must discern shortcomings in their initial approach, find ways to correct them strategi- cally, and exert the effort necessary to succeed eventually. Around this same time, Bandura (1977) advanced the con- struct of self-efficacy as a motive for self-initiated and self- sustained learning and performance. This construct was de- fined as one’s perceived capability for accomplishing a task. In the early 1980s, I came acquainted with Dale Schunk be- cause of his research with Al Bandura on self-efficacy. I was delighted to have found a person whose theoretical interests and view of the importance of research were so compatible with mine. Our theoretical convergence and close personal friendship enabled us to work closely together for more than two decades on a topic of mutual interest: self-regulation of learning. Although this construct was intuitively appealing, the first challenge was to define it operationally and to assess its validity.


When I began my initial research studies of SRL in the early 1980s, I drew heavily on learning experiences of my youth, especially in sports, but my first efforts to define SRL op- erationally were disappointing. I initially considered three possible definitions: as an ability, as a behavior, or as a self- belief. I subsequently ruled out an athletic ability definition because it couldn’t explain why my efforts to learn to play baseball were much more successful than my efforts to learn to play basketball. I eliminated a behavior definition because the cognitive quality of my tennis practice proved to be as important as its physical quantity. I found a self-belief defi- nition unconvincing because often I started a new sport, such as playing golf, with high hopes of success only to discover that these beliefs faded quickly if some degree of success was not attained readily. Although each of these definitions focused on important self-regulatory qualities during learning, they were incom- plete in when considered alone. My colleagues and I sought to broaden the scope of a definition of SRL to include, in addition to personal belief, ability, and behavior, their dy- namic interplay within the social and physical environment. Formally, I defined SRL as the degree to which students are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning processes (Zimmerman, 1989). More specifically, self-regulated learners use specific processes that transform their preexisting abilities into task- related behavior in diverse areas of functioning. In addition to cognitive processes such as planning and goal setting, I included key metacognitive processes, such as the use of task-related strategies, imagery, or verbal self-instruction



to organize and transform information more effectively (Graham & Harris, 1989; Meichenbaum, 1977; Pressley, 1977; Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987). Finally, I also included motivational variables, such as self-efficacy, to ex- plain the proactive striving that is so essential to SRL (Ban- dura & Schunk, 1981).


My initial effort to develop a social cognitive model of SRL was based in part on Bandura’s triadic analysis of human functioning in terms of personal, behavioral, and the envi- ronmental components, and in part from Ted’s and my cog- nitive modeling research on the influential role of strate- gies and feedback. Feedback from these processes enables self-regulated learners to adapt to changes in their social and physical environments, behavioral outcomes, and covert thoughts and feelings. These three (i.e., triadic) forms of SRL are depicted in Figure 1 using three interdependent strategic feedback loops that regulate covert, behavioral, and environ- mental processes (Zimmerman, 1989). Behavioral forms of self-regulation refer to self-observing one’s performance and adapting it strategically. For example, the British soccer player David Beckham learned to create a tremendous bend in the flight of the ball as a result of exten- sive practice as a young player. He achieved this outcome by kicking the side of the ball and observing the resulting spin (Syed, 2010). Environmental forms of self-regulation involve monitoring the effects of varying environmental conditions and controlling those conditions strategically. For example, when teaching Tiger Woods to become a professional golfer, his father, Earl Woods, would purposely try to distract him

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013 conservation of liquid quantity, is adapted

FIGURE 1 Three key forms of self-regulation. Note. From “A So- cial Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Learning,” by B. J. Zimmer- man, 1989, Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, p. 330. Copyright by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permis- sion.

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013



TABLE 1 Self-Regulated Learning Strategies

Categories of Strategies


  • 1. Self-evaluation

  • 2. Organizing and transforming

  • 3. Goal-setting and planning

  • 4. Seeking information

Statements indicating student-initiated evaluations of the quality or progress of their work, e.g., “I check over my work to make sure I did it correct.”

Statements indicating student-initiated overt or covert rearrangement of instructional materials to improve lear ning, e.g., “I make an outline before I write my paper.”

Statements indicating student-initiated setting of educational goals or subgoals and planning for sequencing, timing, and completing activities related to those goals, e.g., “First I start studying 2 weeks before exams, and I pace myself.”

Statements indicating student-initiated efforts to secure further task information from nonsocial sources when

undertaking an assignment, e.g., “Before beginning to write the paper, I go to the library to get as much information as possible concerning the topic.”

  • 5. Keeping records and monitoring Statements indicating student-initiated efforts to record events or results, e.g., “I took notes of the class discussion.”

  • 6. Environmental structuring

  • 7. Self-consequences

  • 8. Rehearsing and memorizing

9.–11. Seeking social assistance

12.–14. Reviewing records

15. Other

“I kept a list of the words I got wrong.”

Statements indicating student-initiated efforts to select or arrange the physical setting to make learning easier, e.g., “I isolate myself from anything that distracts me.” “I turned off the radio so I can concentrate on what I am doing.”

Statements indicating student arrangement or imagination of rewards or punishment for success or failure, e.g., “If I do well on a test, I treat myself to a movie.”

Statements indicating student-initiated effort to memorize material by overt or covert practice, e.g., “In preparing for a math test, I keep writing the formula down until I remember it.” Statements indicating student-initiated to solicit help from peers (9), teachers (10), and adults (11), e.g., “If I have problems with math assignments, I ask a friend to help.” Statements indicating student-initiated efforts to reread tests (12), notes (13), or textbooks (14), to prepare for class or further testing, e.g., “When preparing for a test, I review my notes.” Statements indicating learning behavior that is initiated by other persons such as teachers or parents, and all unclear verbal responses, e.g., “I just do what the teachers says.”

during putting in order to teach him how to concentrate in noisy environments, such as tournament conditions (Woods & McDaniel, 1997). Covert forms of self-regulation refer to observing and adapting specific feelings and thoughts. For example, Mathew Syed (2010), a British champion ping- pong player, overcame severe performance anxiety or “chok- ing” by practicing positive mental imagery. He would deem- phasize a match by imagining all the things in his life that are more important than ping-pong. Although these three forms of self-regulation are distinctive, they are interdependent, and an optimal self-regulatory intervention would target all three forms to effect change synergistically. Thus, a central feature of this triadic model of SRL is its cyclical dependence on the three sources of feedback to guide strategic adaptations in skill.


In a effort to capture students’ self-regulatory processes re- liably and validly, Manny Martinez-Pons and I developed a structured interview (Self-Regulated Learning Interview Scale [SRLIS]) that solicited students’ verbal responses to typical academic problems or contexts, such as a vignette about how a student would prepare for a history test on the civil rights movement. This methodology was designed to provide us with students’ answers to specific problems, and it allowed us to probe students who were reticent verbally for additional answers. The students’ answers were coded into

15 categories that tap covert, behavioral, and environmental forms of SRL, such as the covert strategies of goal setting and planning, organizing and transforming, seeking information, and rehearsing and memorizing, the environmental strate- gies of environmental structuring, seeking social assistance, and self-consequences, and environmental structuring, and the behavioral strategies of keeping records and monitoring, reviewing records, and self-evaluation (see Table 1). This open-ended format allowed us to avoid providing students with preconceived answers, which struck us as antithetical to the goal of SRL. In our initial study using the SRLIS, we found that the SRL protocols were coded reliably for self-regulatory strategies by trained coders. We also discovered that high school students in a high-achievement track reported significantly greater use of all SRL strategies except self-evaluation than students in a low-achievement track (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). Multiple regression analyses revealed that students’ achievement track was predicted with more than 90% accu- racy based on their use of self-regulation strategies.


These results led to the question of whether students’ verbal reports of strategy use would correspond to their teacher’s ob- servations. In a follow-up study (Zimmerman & Martinez- Pons, 1988), the teachers were asked to rate each of their students on a scale entitled Rating Student Self-Regulated

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013

Learning. Because many SRL strategies are covert, our scale was designed to assess overt manifestations of these strate- gies, such as whether they completed assignments before deadlines or offered information beyond assigned sources. The results revealed that the teachers’ ratings were highly correlated with students’ reports (R = .70). Canonical corre- lation analyses revealed that these two measures tapped a sin- gle large underlying SRL factor, which indicates a high level of construct validity for the SRLIS. Finally, we discovered that this latent SRL factor was distinctive from measures of students’ achievement, but it did correlate significantly with these measures. These findings indicated that students’ SRL is not a proxy for measures of their academic achievement but rather is a separate yet correlated capability. We con- cluded that students’ strategic use of SRL processes could be assessed reliably and validly using both student and teacher measures. In a third study, Manny Martinez-Pons and I (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) studied developmental changes in self-regulation as measured by the SRLIS and measures of verbal and mathematical self-efficacy beliefs with fifth-, eighth-, and 11th-grade regular and gifted students. We found that gifted students displayed significantly higher verbal and math self-efficacy beliefs than regular students as well as greater use of four self-regulated strategies (i.e., organizing and transforming, self-consequating, seeking peer assistance, and reviewing notes). In addition, 11th- graders surpassed eighth graders, who in turn surpassed the fifth graders in both math and verbal efficacy. Significant developmental patterns were evident also on three measures of self-regulation. There were linear increases in reviewing notes, keeping records, and goal setting and planning. These findings from the three studies provide support for a triadic model of SRL. Higher levels of all three forms of SRL were reported by higher achievers and by gifted students. This study also revealed that students’ self-efficacy beliefs were closely associated with their self-regulatory prowess.




To explore the relation between SRL and self-efficacy fur- ther, Al Bandura and I used two scales from his multidi- mensional measure of self-efficacy that were related to aca- demic functioning. These were self-efficacy for SRL (for using strategies adapted from the SRLIS) and self-efficacy for academic achievement (in math, science, social studies, etc.). We hypothesized that self-efficacy for SRL will pre- dict self-efficacy for academic achievement. We focused on students’ goal setting in terms of course grades. The par- ents of the 10th-grade students in this study were asked to rate their grade goals for their child, and the students’ actual grades were obtained at the end of the semester for their so- cial studies course. Finally, we included the students’ grade in a prior social studies course because historically prior grades are usually the best predictors of subsequent academic success. The results of a path analysis are presented in Figure 2, and they provide support for our hypotheses. Self-efficacy for SRL was linked to self-efficacy for academic achieve- ment, which in turn was predictive of students’ grade goals, as well as their final grades. Both the students’ achievement self-efficacy beliefs and their parents’ grade goals were pre- dictive of the students’ grade goals. This showed that self and social variables combined to predict the students’ grade goal setting and ultimately their final grades. It was inter- esting that the students’ prior grades did not predict their subsequent grades directly but rather was mediated through their parents’ goal setting. Although self-efficacy and goal scales were administered early in the fall, they increased the prediction of the final grades by 31% when compared with prior grades in social studies. Thus, students’ self-efficacy to self-regulate learning was highly predictive of their goal setting and indirectly their grade attainment. Al Bandura and I (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994) reported similar findings in

.51* Self-efficacy Self-efficacy .21* for SRL for academic Students’ .36* grades .43* .26* .36* Students’ Parents’
for SRL
for academic
prior grades
grade goals
grade goals

FIGURE 2 The role of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning beliefs in student goal setting and achievement. Note. From “Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting,” by B. J. Zimmerman, A. Bandura, A., & M. Martinez-Pons, 1992, American Educational Research Journal, 29, p. 671. Copyright 1992 by the American Educational Research Association. Adapted with permission.

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013



a subsequent study with college students enrolled in a writing course.


A Multilevel Model of Self-Regulatory Training

My research on cognitive modeling training revealed that after a model was withdrawn, students were able to shift to self-direction during transfer. But how does this trans- fer occur? What are the underlying processes? I theorized that there were four levels in a social cognitive path to self- regulation—with the first two levels being social and the last two being self in focus (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000). To acquire a skill at an observational level , a student must carefully watch a social model learn or perform (see Table 2). This first level of learning involves the induction of the correct form of the skill from a model’s per- formance and descriptions, such as when a foreign language student induces the correct pronunciation of a word from a native speaker’s conversation through cognitive modeling. A student’s motivation to learn at an observational level can be greatly enhanced by positive vicarious consequences to the model, such as an audience’s applause for a speaker. A learner has attained a skill at an observational level when he or she can discriminate qualitative levels in models’ perfor- mances, such as discerning variations in the accuracy of a speaker’s pronunciations. In addition to conveying cognitive or motoric skills, mod- els often display self-regulatory processes, such as adherence to performance standards and motivational orientations and task values. For example, a linguistic model who self-corrects a mispronunciation helps observers to discriminate and rec- tify common errors. Motivationally, a corrective model also conveys the high value placed on accurate speech and the need to persist in order to improve one’s pronunciation. To acquire skill at second or emulation level, a learner must duplicate the general form of a model’s response on a correspondent task. Learners seldom copy the exact ac- tions of the model, but rather they typically emulate the model’s general pattern or style of functioning. For exam- ple, when elementary school children observed a model ask

causal questions about a series of pictures, they subsequently emulated the model’s causal style of questioning rather than specific words (Rosenthal et al., 1970). During efforts to em- ulate, learners can improve their accuracy and motivation if a model provides them with guidance, feedback, and social reinforcement. An emulative level of skill is achieved when observers’ responses approximate the general form or style of a model’s on a similar task. Although learners can induce the major features of a complex skill from observation, they require performance experiences for the skill to be incorpo- rated into their behavioral repertoire. It is one thing to recog- nize the ping-pong swing of a particular champion but quite another thing to reproduce that swing oneself (Syed, 2010). Emulation can be improved through individualized modeling and social support. For example, during participant model- ing (Bandura, 1986), a model repeats selected aspects of a skill based on a learner’s emulative accuracy. When a learner can perform the rudimentary aspects of a skill on the same tasks as the model, the model’s support can be reduced. That learner’s motivation to emulate more accurately is initiated and sustained by direct or social reinforcement by a model or instructor. Acquiring the use of a skill on one’s own usually requires more than emulation of a teacher or model on the same task; it also requires extensive deliberate practice on new tasks on one’s own (Ericsson & Lehman, 1996). Deliberate practice involves performance that is structured (often by teachers) to enhance performance and self-observation. Attainment of a self-controlled level of self-regulatory skill occurs when learners master the use of a skill in structured settings out- side the presence of models, such as when a pianist can play scales fluidly in the major and minor keys. At this third level, a learner’s use of a skill depends on representational standards of a model’s performance (e.g., covert images or verbal rec- ollections of a teacher’s performance) rather than an overt social referent (Bandura & Jeffery, 1973). The learner’s suc- cess in matching that covert standard during practice efforts will determine the amount of self-reinforcement he or she will experience. During this phase, self-regulation strategies that focus on learning processes (e.g., chunking) rather than outcomes (e.g., recall) are most beneficial in producing mas- tery. When execution of these learning processes becomes automatic, a self-controlled or third level of functioning

TABLE 2 Social and Self-Sources of Regulation

Features of Regulation

Levels of Regulation

Sources of Regulation

Sources of Motivation

Task Conditions

Performance Indices

  • 1. Observation


Vicarious reinforcement

Presence of models


  • 2. Emulation

Performance and social feedback

Direct/social reinforcement

Correspond to model’s

Stylistic duplication

  • 3. Representation of process standards





  • 4. Self-regulation

Performance outcomes

Self-efficacy beliefs



Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013

is achieved. A student’s attainment of a self-controlled level of functioning is motivated by self-reinforcement stem- ming from his or her effort to match their internal standard (Bandura, 1986). A self-regulated level of task skill is achieved when learn- ers can systematically adapt their performance to changing personal and contextual conditions that are present in natu- ralistic settings but not in practice settings. This fourth level of skill enables learners to vary the use of task strategies and make adjustments based on outcomes. Such learners can choose a strategy and adapt its features with little or no resid- ual dependence on the model. The motivation to sustain this level of skill depends on perceptions of self-efficacy. Skills during this phase can usually be performed with minimal pro- cess monitoring, and the learners’ attention can be shifted toward performance outcomes without detrimental conse- quences. For instance, a basketball player’s attention can be shifted from the execution of a jump shot to its effectiveness in making baskets. A student’s attainment of a self-regulated level of functioning is motivated by his or her self-efficacy perceptions about successfully obtaining desired outcomes (Bandura, 1986). Thus, this multilevel sequence of self-regulatory devel- opment begins with most extensive social guidance at the first level, but this social support is systematically reduced as learners acquire self-regulatory skill. However, Level 4 func- tioning continues to depend on social resources on a self- initiated basis, such as when a novelist seeks advice from confidant about whether a plot or character is compelling. Because self-regulatory skill depends on context and out- comes, new performance tasks can uncover limitations in existing skills and require additional social learning expe- riences. This multilevel formulation does not assume that learners must advance through the four levels in an invariant sequence as developmental stage models assume, or that once the highest level is attained it will be used universally. Instead, a multilevel model assumes that students who master each skill level in sequence will learn more easily and effectively. Although Level 4 learners have the competence to perform self-regulatively, they may not choose to do so because of low levels of motivation (Bandura, 1997). Various aspects of self-regulation are mentally and physically demanding ac- tivities, and people may decide to forego their use if they feel tired, disinterested, or uncommitted. There is a grow- ing body of evidence indicating that the speed and quality of learners’ self-regulatory development and self-motivation are enhanced significantly if learners proceed according to a multilevel sequence.

Empirical Support for a Multilevel Training Model

To test the validity of the first and second of levels in the sequence, Anastasia Kitsantas, Tim Cleary, and I compared the two primary sources of regulation for each level (i.e., modeling for observation level and performance and social



feedback for the emulation level) in two studies (see col- umn 2 in Table 2) involving writing revision and dart throw- ing (Kitsantas, Zimmerman, & Cleary, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2002). The writing revision skill involved rewrit- ing “wordy” sentences in nonredundant form, whereas dart throwing involved trying to hit the center ring of a circular target. The designs of the two studies were virtually identical. Two forms of modeling were studied: modeling, which was error free, and coping modeling, which involved progressive error reduction. More specifically, the mastery model exe- cuted the sentence revision or dart-throwing strategy without missing a step, whereas the coping model would leave out a decreasing number of steps across attempts to learn. Coping modeling was expected to lead to superior learning because it provided corrective information vicariously. However, stu- dents in both modeling groups had the benefit of some form of observational learning. The results for both writing revision and dart throwing were virtually identical. Students in both modeling groups significantly surpassed the skill of those who attempted to learn from only verbal description and performance out- comes. Students who observed the higher quality coping model outperformed students who observed the lower qual- ity mastery model. These two studies also demonstrated that self-regulatory skills, such as self-monitoring and self- correcting actions of the coping model, were learned vicar- iously. During enactive learning, social feedback improved writing skill for both forms of modeling. Social feedback was insufficient for students in the no modeling group to make up for their absence of vicarious experience. Finally, students exposed to both forms of modeling displayed higher lev- els of self-motivation, such as self-efficacy beliefs, than did students who relied only on discovery and social feedback. With both writing revision and dart-throwing measures, the results confirmed the sequential advantages of engaging in high-quality observational learning before attempting enac- tive learning experiences. A second pair of studies (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997, 1999) were designed to test the sequentially of the third and fourth levels of skill (i.e., self-control and self-regulation) in the multilevel hierarchy again using writing revision or dart throwing as dependent measures with high school girls. The two primary sources of regulation for these levels (i.e., pro- cess standards and outcomes) were compared (see the second column in Table 2). Recall that process goals are hypothe- sized to be optimal during acquisition at the self-control level, but outcome goals are expected to be superior after automa- tization is attained at the self-regulation level. A process goal group focused on practicing the strategy steps for acquiring writing revision or dart-throwing technique, whereas an out- come goal group focused on improving their scores. In the writing revision study, the outcome goal was the greatest re- duction in words and in the dart-throwing study the outcome goal was the closeness to the center ring of the target. Pro- cess goals were expected to be more effective than outcome

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013



goals, but an optimal goal-setting group from a multilevel perspective shifted from process goals to outcome goals af- ter automatization was achieved. Self-recording was taught to some girls in each goal group. Girls in the process-monitoring group recorded any strategy steps they may have missed on each practice throw, whereas students in the outcome- monitoring group wrote down their target scores for each throw. Girls in the shifting goal group changed their method of self-monitoring when they shifted goals. Before being asked to practice on their own, all of the high school girls were taught strategic components of the skill through ob- servation and emulation (levels 1 and 2). The experiment compared the effects of process goals, outcome goals, and shifting goals as well as self-recording during self-controlled practice. The results in both studies were consistent with a multi- level sequential view of goal setting: Girls who shifted goals from processes to outcomes surpassed classmates who ad- hered exclusively to either process goals or outcome goals in posttest writing revision or dart-throwing skill. Girls who focused on outcomes exclusively were the lowest in posttest

skill. Self-monitoring assisted learning by all goal-setting groups. In addition to their superior learning outcomes, stu- dents who shifted their goals displayed superior forms of self- motivation, such as self-efficacy beliefs, self-satisfaction, and causal attributions.


A Cyclical Phase Model of SRL

To address the issue of causal relations between SRL pro- cesses and key motivational beliefs, and learning outcomes, I (Zimmerman, 2000) proposed a cyclical model of SRL based on social cognitive theory. According to this model, a student’s learning processes and accompanying motivational beliefs fall into three self-regulatory phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection (see Figure 3). Forethought phase processes are used in preparation for efforts to learn and are intended to enhance that learning. Performance phase processes are employed during efforts to learn and are

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013 142 ZIMMERMAN goals, but an optimal

Performance Phase


Self-instruction Imagery Attention focusing Task strategies Environmental structuring Help seeking


Metacognitive monitoring Self-recording

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013 142 ZIMMERMAN goals, but an optimal
Forethought Phase Self-Reflection Phase Task Analysis Self-Judgment Goal setting Self-evaluation Strategic planning Causal attribution Self-Motivation Self-Reaction
Forethought Phase
Self-Reflection Phase
Task Analysis
Goal setting
Strategic planning
Causal attribution
Outcome expectancies
Task interest/values
Goal orientation
Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013 142 ZIMMERMAN goals, but an optimal

FIGURE 3 Phases and subprocesses of self-regulation. Note. From “Motivating Self-Regulated Problem Solvers,” by B. J Zimmerman & M. Campillo in The Nature of Problem Solving (p. 239), by J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), 2003, New York: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 2003 by Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission.

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013

intended to facilitate self-control and self-monitoring of one’s performance. Self-reflection phase processes occur after ef- forts to learn and are intended to optimize a person’s reac- tions to his or her outcomes. These self-reflections, in turn, influence forethought processes and beliefs regarding sub- sequent efforts to learn—thus, completing a self-regulatory cycle. The cyclical properties of this model are designed to ex- plain the results of repeated efforts to learn, such as when learning a new language. In addition to predicting quantita- tive differences in learning, this model seeks to explain a ma- jor qualitative difference in students’ self-regulation. More specifically, proactive learners are distinguished by their high-quality forethought and performance phase processes. By contrast, reactive learners rely on postperformance self- reflections to learn, such as by discovery learning, but this post hoc focus is hypothesized to diminish these learners’ effectiveness. Although all learners attempt to self-regulate their learning processes in some manner in order to attain favorable outcomes, proactive self-regulators are expected to display a superior cyclical pattern of processes than reactive self-regulators. More specifically, the Forethought phase is composed of two areas: task analysis processes and self-motivation be- liefs. Task analysis refers to a learner’s efforts to break a learning task into key components, such as math operations in a story problem. Because of their superior task analytic skills, proactive learners can set specific, proximal, and chal- lenging goals for themselves. In contrast, because of their superficial task analyses, reactive students set vague, distal, or unchallenging goals for themselves. Effective task anal- yses also enable proactive students to plan more effective strategies to aid cognition, control affect, and direct motoric execution, such as planning to use an outline for writing a story. By contrast, the superficial task analyses of reactive learners preclude them from planning a detailed strategy and compel them to rely on vague methods of learning, such as trying harder or concentrating more. Because task analysis, goal setting , and strategic planning require personal initiative and persistence, they require high levels of key self-motivation beliefs/values. Proactive learn- ers are motivated by higher self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectancies, mastery learning goals, and/or task interest/ valuing . By contrast, reactive learners display inferior forms of motivation and as a result are less self-motivated to ana- lyze tasks, select goals, or plan strategically than proactive learners. Two major classes of performance phase processes are postulated: self-control and self-observation. Self-control refers to the use of specific techniques to direct learning, such as self-instruction, imagery, attention focusing , task strate- gies, environmental structuring, and help seeking . During this phase, proactive learners perform self-control processes that were planned during the forethought phase, such as us- ing an outline to produce text of a story. By contrast, reactive



learners immerse themselves in a learning task without an ex- plicit strategy to guide them. Furthermore, proactive learn- ers rely on systematic forms of self-observation to guide their efforts to self-control, such as metacognitive monitor- ing and self-recording. Metacognitive monitoring refers to informal mental tracking of one’s performance processes and outcomes, whereas self-recording refers to creating formal records of learning processes and/or outcomes, such as a graph of one’s generation of text regarding each section of an outline. Self-recording can enhance self-control because it increases the reliability, specificity, and timeliness of self- observations. By contrast, reactive learners find it difficult to self-observe a particular process, such as essay completion, because they lack specific forethought phase goals or plans to focus their attention. Two major forms of self-reflection phase processes are hypothesized: self-judgments and self-reactions. Self- judgments include self-evaluations of effectiveness of one’s learning performance and attributions of causality regarding one’s outcomes. Because proactive learners are guided by specific forethought phase goals, they tend to self-evaluate based on their mastery of those goals. Because reactive students lack specific forethought goals, they often fail to self-evaluate, or if they do, they resort to social compari- son with classmates to judge their personal effectiveness. Social comparisons yield less advantageous self-evaluations than self-comparisons (i.e., based on personal growth or task mastery). Proactive students’ self-evaluative judgments are linked closely to causal attributions about the results of learn- ing efforts, such as whether students’ poor grade in writing a story is due to their limited ability or to insufficient effort. Because reactive learners often rely on the outcomes (e.g., writing grades) of others to self-evaluate, they are prone to attribute their errors to a lack of ability, which is classi- fied as an uncontrollable cause. Because proactive students self-evaluate based on self-chosen goals, they typically at- tribute errors to ineffective strategies, which are classified as controllable causes. Attributions of one’s results to personal control lead to a greater sense of satisfaction than attribu- tions to uncontrollable causes according to the cyclical model of SRL. Learners’ self-judgments are linked to two key forms of self-reactions: self-satisfaction and adaptive inferences. Self- satisfaction reactions refer to perceptions of satisfaction or dissatisfaction (and associated affect) regarding one’s perfor- mance. These emotions can range from elation to depression. It is hypothesized that proactive students will pursue courses of action that result in satisfaction and positive affect and will avoid courses that produce dissatisfaction and negative affect. Reactive learners’ attribution of errors to uncontrol- lable causes leads them to feel dissatisfied, which in turn discourages them from further efforts to learn. By contrast, proactive learners’ attribution of errors to controllable causes leads them to feel satisfied, which in turn sustains their efforts to learn.

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013



A closely associated form of self-reactions involves adap- tive or defensive inferences, which refer to conclusions about whether one needs to alter his or her approach during sub- sequent efforts to learn. Because of their favorable attribu- tions and high level of self-satisfaction, proactive students are expected to make adaptive inferences for errors, such as by modifying a strategy for solving a math problem. Be- cause of their unfavorable attributions and low level of sat- isfaction, reactive students resort to defensive inferences to protect themselves from future dissatisfaction and aversive affect, such as helplessness, procrastination, task avoidance, cognitive disengagement, and apathy. These self-reactions are postulated to influence fore- thought processes regarding further solution efforts cycli- cally. The high level of self-satisfaction of proactive learners is expected to enhance various forms of self-motivation to continue cyclical efforts to learn. In addition, advantageous adaptive inferences by proactive learners are expected to lead to improved strategic planning and to shifts in goals when necessary. By contrast, the low level of self-satisfaction of re- active students reduces their motivation to continue, and their lack of adaptation greatly undermines the quality of further efforts to learn. In this cyclical way, this process model of SRL seeks to explain the persistence and sense of personal fulfillment of proactive students as well as the avoidance and self-doubts of reactive students.

Empirical Support for a Cyclical Phase Model of SRL

To assess these SRL processes and motivational beliefs as they occur before, during, and after attempts to learn, we adapted a methodology called microanalysis (Bandura, 1997). In our approach, researchers develop context-specific information by intensive qualitative and quantitative anal- yses of individuals’ functioning. Simple open- and close- ended questions are used in microanalyses because they are easily understood in the context in which they were asked. Because questions are brief, they minimize disruption of the participants’ performance, which is viewed as a threat to validity. To investigate the validity of the cyclical phase model, Anastasia Kitsantas and I (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002) assessed the role of practice in acquiring an athletic skill. Sport and physical activities have the advantage of provid- ing learners with personally observable outcomes, such as a ball missing a target. In an investigation of female vol- leyball players, we compared the self-regulatory processes of experts, nonexperts, or novices. The experts were mem- bers of the university varsity volleyball team, and the novices were girls who had participated in volleyball informally. We decided to include an intermediate expertise group as well to determine whether self-regulatory measures could detect subtle differences in self-regulation between experts and non- experts. The nonexperts were members of the university’s

volleyball club for at least 3 years. We selected a skill, the overhand serve, which would be challenging for even the experts. The practice sessions were conducted individually, and the instructor showed all the participants the proper tech- nique for the serve before asking them to practice on their own. Our microanalytic methodology involved stopping the girls at various times during the episode and asking them specific questions regarding forethought phase, performance phase, and self-reflection phase processes. After the session was completed, these young women were posttested for serv- ing skill, strategy use, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-satisfaction. Support for the cyclical process model of SRL was found. In terms of forethought phase processes, the experts dis- played significantly better goals and strategic planning than either nonexperts or novices. More experts set technique or process goals than nonexperts, who in turn surpassed novices. In terms of planning, all experts followed completely struc- tured practice routines, whereas most nonexperts followed a partially structured routine. For example, many experts planned first to stretch, second to engage in practice jump serve swings without using the ball, and third to identify problem areas in the service motion to focus on strategi- cally, whereas nonexperts would engage in these activities only sporadically. There was little structure evident in the practice routines of novices. The experts also reported sig- nificantly higher forethought self-efficacy beliefs, perceived instrumentality, and intrinsic interest in volleyball than either nonexperts or novices. Perceived instrumentality is a measure of outcome expectancies because it refers to the ultimate ends of an effort to learn. Turning to performance phase processes, the experts dis- played significantly better strategy use and self-monitoring than either nonexperts or novices. Experts chose technique strategies more frequently than nonexperts or novices, and experts monitored their technique and outcomes more of- ten than nonexperts or novices. The latter groups tended to monitor only their practice outcomes. Regarding self-reflection phase processes, experts also reported significantly higher self-evaluations, attributions of negative outcomes to controllable causes, self-satisfaction, and strategy adaptations in volleyball serving than either nonexperts or novices. In terms of their adaptations, experts were more likely to change their volleyball service attempts based on their self-judgments than nonexperts or novices, and the experts were significantly more likely than nonexperts or novices to seek social assistance if they made repeated errors. In this investigation, there were significant expertise dif- ferences in each of the 12 SRL processes or self-motivational beliefs that were studied. Furthermore, the sizes of these expertise group effects on the various measures of self- regulation were classified as large statistically. However, a critic might question whether these differences in the girls’ methods of practice actually had an impact on their

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013

volleyball-serving skill. Although causality could not be de- termined because the study was descriptive in design, we were able to use the various measures of SRL to predict the girls’ posttest success on a demanding test of serving proficiency, which involved the ball hitting difficult sections of their opponents’ court. The combined measures of self- regulation predicted 90% of the variance in the accuracy of women’s postpractice serving proficiency. This striking result indicates that differences in self-regulatory phase processes and beliefs were very strongly associated with superior ath- letic performance. Similar findings were reported by Tim Cleary and me in a study of experts, nonexperts, and novices when practicing free throw shooting in basketball (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001). During a subsequent experimental study of instruction designed to enhance novice students’ SRL to shoot basket- ball free throws, Tim Cleary, Ted Keating, and I (Cleary, Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006) provided four levels of train- ing: (a) no SRL training (control condition); (b) forethought phase training (i.e., setting process goals); (c) forethought and performance phase training (i.e., self-recording); (d) forethought, performance, and self-reflection phase train- ing (i.e., strategic attributions and adaptive inferences). We hypothesized that forethought phase training, performance phase training and self-reflection phase training would im- prove free throw shooting accuracy additively. In support of a cyclical phase model, we found a positive linear trend between the number of self-regulatory phases that were trained and their free throw shooting performance and their subsequent shooting adaptation. Students who received Phase 2 and 3 training displayed significantly more accurate free throws and were able to self-correct their shooting form more frequently following missed shoots than students who received no-training (control) or single phase training. Fi- nally, participants who received three-phase training showed the most adaptive motivational pattern, which involved mak- ing strategic attributions and adaptive inferences by using personal improvement criteria during self-evaluation.


As I look forward into the 21st century, many important aspects of self-regulation of learning remain relatively un- explored. I discuss three: (a) investigating self-regulation during computer-mediated instruction, (b) increasing self- regulation of learning in traditional instructional contexts, and (c) integrating self-regulation of learning and of perfor- mance processes. First, the role of computers in instruction is expand- ing rapidly, and this trend poses problems for reactive self-regulators but offers opportunities for proactive self- regulators. Reactive students struggle to learn on comput- ers without close supervision by a teacher, whereas proac-



tive students spontaneously use computer resources, such as highlighting to focus their attention during learning. Proac- tive students can also access software for planning their time use, monitoring their progress, and keeping records of key information. Computers can be a valuable instrument for research as well as for academic instruction. For example, students’ learning processes and outcomes can be logged in either hidden or overt files and can provide vital feedback to both re- searchers and learners. Furthermore, students’ learning pro- cesses and outcomes can be stored, analyzed, and graphed in various ways for students and researchers that uncover un- derlying strengths and deficiencies. The high quality of self- regulatory features and feedback offered by computers during learning has narrowed the gap significantly between instruc- tional practice and cutting-edge self-regulation research. The future potential for self-regulation researchers to contribute to the development of a scientifically based “best practice” computer curriculum is limitless. A second issue for future investigation involves grow- ing evidence that teachers can enhance their students’ self- regulation significantly during class as well as during home- work. Few traditional instructors provide their students with frequent feedback in class or require them to correct their answers. As a result, many of these students overestimate their self-efficacy to learn. This problem in calibration prevents students from taking corrective courses of self- regulation, such as engaging in additional studying and self-testing. In research on mathematics instruction with at-risk com- munity college students, several colleagues and I developed self-reflection forms that required these students to recognize their overestimates of self-efficacy on short daily quizzes. They were also asked to correct their errors, to solve new problems, and to gain additional credit toward a revised quiz grade (Zimmerman, Moylan, Hudesman, White, & Flug- man, 2011). It was hypothesized that instruction designed to show these students how to self-reflect better (i.e., self- assess and adapt to quiz outcomes) would increase their math achievement. We discovered that students that received this self- reflection training outperformed untrained students on reg- ular class examinations and were better calibrated in their task-specific self-efficacy beliefs before solving math prob- lems and in their self-evaluative judgments after solving math problems. This training also increased students’ pass-rate on a national gateway examination in mathematics by 25% in comparison with that of control students. The latter students were also exposed to regular curriculum tasks in math and were also given feedback involving official course grades as outcomes. Teachers trained to convey self-reflection pro- cesses produced a significantly higher mathematics exam performance than conventional instructors, and these training effects were statistically large or near large in size. Clearly, instructors can be trained to teach self-regulation processes

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013



to at-risk community college students, but research on long- term effects of this instruction with other population groups is limited to date. A third issue requiring future researchers’ attention in- volves the distinction between self-regulation of learning pro- cesses and self-regulation of performance processes. A focus on learning processes refers to personal efforts to acquire knowledge and skill, such as proficiency in writing or sport, whereas a focus on performance processes refers to efforts designed to control adverse behaviors, such as impulsivity, inattention, or emotional instability. The latter deficiencies in performance have been attributed to insufficient self-control or self-discipline and have been the focus of study by devel- opmental and clinical researchers. These adverse behaviors qualify as “self-controlled” when they are managed through conscious effort, such as delay of gratification and resisting detrimental temptations. Clearly, the context differs between learning settings (acquiring positive behaviors) and perfor- mance settings (avoiding negative ones), but there is no in- trinsic reason why measures of self-control should not also be predictive of students’ academic achievement. There has been little integration of these two bodies of research to date, and future research needs to address this gap.


My journey to understand students’ self-regulation of their learning processes was influenced by many other researchers beside Al Bandura, Ted Rosenthal, and Dale Schunk. These included Lyn Corno, Steve Graham, Karen Harris, Michael Pressley, Paul Pintrich, Frank Pajares, Claire Ellen Weinstein, Philip Winne, and others listed in Table 3. Collectively, they provided a stimulating and challenging intellectual climate

TABLE 3 Names of Other Self-Regulation Researchers Who Influenced My Work

Patricia Alexander

Suzane Hidi

Saul Petersen

Roger Azevedo

Sonna Jarvela

Manuel Martinez Pons

Phillip Belfiore

Stuart Karabenick

Darshanand Ramdass

Hefer Bembenutty

Anastasia Kitsantas

Johnmarshall Reeve

Monique Boekaerts

Julia Klug

Richard Ryan

Kay Bussey

Willy Lens

Bernhard Schmitz

Deborah Butler

Mary McCaslin

Gale Sinatra

Tim Cleary

Barbara McCombs

Heidrun Stoeger

Edward Deci

Dennis McInerney

Stephen Tonks

Erik De Corte

Gary McPherson

Kallen Tsikalas

Maria DiBenedetto

Judith Meece

Ellen Usher

Carol Dweck

Adam Moylan

Marie White

Charlotte Dignath van Ewijk

Richard Newman

Allan Wigfield

Arthur Graesser

Scott Paris

Christopher Wolters

Jeffrey Greene

Roger Peach

Moshe Zeidner

Allyson Hadwin

Nancy Perry

Albert Ziegler

that permitted my research on self-regulation to flourish. For that, I am personally as well as professionally grateful.


Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of be- havioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037//


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, NY:

Freeman. Bandura, A., & Jeffery, R. W. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes in observational learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 122–130. doi:10.1037/h0034205 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. doi:10.1037//0022-


Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cleary, T., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences dur- ing athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 61–82. doi:10.1080/104132001753-


Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J., & Keating, T. (2006). Training phys- ical education students to self-regulate during basketball free-throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 251–262.


Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional per- formance: Evidence on maximal adaptations on task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47 , 273–306. Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Prince- ton, NJ: Van Nostrand. doi:10.1037/11449-000 Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cogni- tive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ composi- tion and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.


Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory pro- cesses among novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: A mi- croanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 91–105.


Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241–250. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.811 Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive–behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York, NY: Plenum. Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children’s learning: Putting the pic- ture in developmental perspective. Review of Educational Research, 47, 586–622. doi:10.2307/1170001 Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1972). Instructional specificity and outcome expectation in observationally–induced question formulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 500–504. doi:10.1037/h0033246 Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York, NY: Academic Press. Rosenthal, T. L., Zimmerman, B. J., & Durning, K. (1970). Observationally– induced changes in children’s interrogative classes. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 16, 631–688. doi:10.1037/h0030036 Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3204 1 Sloban, D. (1968). Imitation and grammatical development in children. In N. S. Endler, L. R. Boulter, & H. Osser (Eds.), Contemporary issues in

Downloaded by [Georgia State University] at 01:02 03 November 2013



developmental psychology (pp. 437–443). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Syed, M. (2010). Bounce. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Woods, E., & McDaniel, P. (1997). Training a tiger: A father’s guide in raising a winner. New York, NY: William Morrow. Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C, & Palmer, D. R. (1987). LASSI: Learning and studies strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H&H. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.


Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive per- spective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008a). Albert Bandura. In E. Donsbach (Ed.), The inter- national encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 2, pp. 306–308). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008b). Investigating self-regulation and motiva- tion: Historical background, methodological developments, and fu- ture prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.


Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory in- fluences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862. doi:10.2307/1163397 Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self- regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 89, 29–36. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.1.29 Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–10. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Koussa, R. (1975). Sex factors in children’s obser- vational learning of value judgments of toys. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 1, 121–133. doi:10.1007/BF00288006 Zimmerman, B. J., & Koussa, R. (1979). Social influences on children’s toy preferences: Effects of model rewardingness and affect. Contempo- rary Educational Psychology, 4, 55–66. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(79)900


Zimmerman, B. J., & Lanaro, P. (1974). Acquiring and retaining conserva- tion of length through modeling and reversibility cues. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 20, 145–161. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a struc- tured interview for assessing students’ use of self-regulated learn- ing 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, 284–290. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.80.3.284 Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self- regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59. Zimmerman, B. J., Moylan, A., Hudesman, J., White, N., & Flugman, B. (2011). Enhancing self-reflection and mathematics achievement of at- risk urban technical college students. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53, 108–127. Zimmerman, B. J., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1974a). Conserving and retaining equalities and inequalities through observation and correction. Develop- mental Psychology, 10, 260–268. doi:10.1037/h0035987 Zimmerman, B. J., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1974b). Observational learning of rule governed behavior by children. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 29–42.



Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Albert Bandura: The man and

and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.

his contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp.


431–457). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.