Educational Psychologist

ISSN: 0046-1520 (Print) 1532-6985 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A

Social Cognitive Career Path

Barry J. Zimmerman

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: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676

Published online: 09 May 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3209

View related articles

Citing articles: 89 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20
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

2012 THORNDIKE AWARD ADDRESS

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: bzimmerman@gc.cuny.edu
COGNITIVE MODELING RESEARCH
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.
136 ZIMMERMAN
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.
MY INITIAL ENGAGEMENT IN
SELF-REGULATION RESEARCH
This evidence of the power of cognitive modeling led
me to consider how a socially acquired concept, such as

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.
DEFINING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
(SRL)
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
FROM MODELING TO SELF-REGULATION 137
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).
A TRIADIC SOCIAL COGNITIVE MODEL
OF SRL
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
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.
138 ZIMMERMAN

TABLE 1
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies

Categories of Strategies Definitions

1. Self-evaluation
2. Organizing and transforming
3. Goal-setting and planning
4. Seeking information
5. Keeping records and monitoring
6. Environmental structuring
7. Self-consequences
8. Rehearsing and memorizing
9.–11. Seeking social assistance
12.–14. Reviewing records
15. Other
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 learning,
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.”
Statements indicating student-initiated efforts to record events or results, e.g., “I took notes of the class discussion.”
“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.
IDENTIFYING AND MEASURING SRL
PROCESSES
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.
VISIBILITY OF STUDENTS’ SRL PROCESSES
TO THEIR TEACHERS
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

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.
.51*
Self-efficacy
for SRL
Students’ .26* Parents’
prior grades 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.
FROM MODELING TO SELF-REGULATION 139
STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS
AND SRL
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
Self-efficacy
.21*
for academic
Students’
.36* grades
.43*
.36* Students’
grade goals
140 ZIMMERMAN

a subsequent study with college students enrolled in a writing
course.
IMPROVING SRL PROCESSES THROUGH
SOCIAL COGNITIVE TRAINING
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 Modeling Vicarious reinforcement Presence of models Discrimination

2. Emulation Performance and social Direct/social reinforcement Correspond to model’s Stylistic duplication
feedback
3. Self-control Representation of process Self-reinforcement Structured Automatization
standards
4. Self-regulation Performance outcomes Self-efficacy beliefs Dynamic Adaptation

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
FROM MODELING TO SELF-REGULATION 141
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
142 ZIMMERMAN

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.
INTEGRATING MOTIVATIONAL AND
METACOGNITIVE ASPECTS OF
SELF-REGULATION
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

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

Self-Observation
Metacognitive monitoring
Self-recording

Forethought Phase Self-Reflection Phase

Task Analysis Self-Judgment
Goal setting Self-evaluation
Strategic planning Causal attribution

Self-Motivation Self-Reaction
Beliefs/Values Self-satisfaction/affect
Self-efficacy Adaptive/defensive
Outcome expectancies
Task interest/values
Goal orientation

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.

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
FROM MODELING TO SELF-REGULATION 143
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.
144 ZIMMERMAN
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

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.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
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-
FROM MODELING TO SELF-REGULATION 145
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
146 ZIMMERMAN

to at-risk community college students, but research on long- that permitted my research on self-regulation to flourish. For
term effects of this instruction with other population groups that, I am personally as well as professionally grateful.
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 REFERENCES
on learning processes refers to personal efforts to acquire
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of be-
knowledge and skill, such as proficiency in writing or sport, havioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037//
whereas a focus on performance processes refers to efforts 0033-295X.84.2.191
designed to control adverse behaviors, such as impulsivity, Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
inattention, or emotional instability. The latter deficiencies in cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
performance have been attributed to insufficient self-control Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
or self-discipline and have been the focus of study by devel- Bandura, A., & Jeffery, R. W. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal
opmental and clinical researchers. These adverse behaviors processes in observational learning. Journal of Personality and Social
qualify as “self-controlled” when they are managed through Psychology, 26, 122–130. doi:10.1037/h0034205
conscious effort, such as delay of gratification and resisting Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-
detrimental temptations. Clearly, the context differs between efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598. doi:10.1037//0022-
learning settings (acquiring positive behaviors) and perfor- 3514.41.3.586
mance settings (avoiding negative ones), but there is no in- Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality
trinsic reason why measures of self-control should not also development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
be predictive of students’ academic achievement. There has Cleary, T., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences dur-
been little integration of these two bodies of research to date, ing athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 61–82. doi:10.1080/104132001753-
and future research needs to address this gap. 149883
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.
doi:10.5641/027013606X13080769704640
CONCLUSION Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional per-
formance: Evidence on maximal adaptations on task constraints. Annual
My journey to understand students’ self-regulation of their Review of Psychology, 47, 273–306.
learning processes was influenced by many other researchers Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Prince-
beside Al Bandura, Ted Rosenthal, and Dale Schunk. These ton, NJ: Van Nostrand. doi:10.1037/11449-000
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cogni-
included Lyn Corno, Steve Graham, Karen Harris, Michael tive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ composi-
Pressley, Paul Pintrich, Frank Pajares, Claire Ellen Weinstein, tion and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
Philip Winne, and others listed in Table 3. Collectively, they doi:10.1037//0022-0663.81.3.353
provided a stimulating and challenging intellectual climate 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.
TABLE 3 doi:10.1080/10413200252907761
Names of Other Self-Regulation Researchers Who Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation
Influenced My Work and emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 241–250. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.811
Patricia Alexander Suzane Hidi Saul Petersen Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive–behavior modification: An integrative
Roger Azevedo Sonna Jarvela Manuel Martinez Pons approach. New York, NY: Plenum.
Phillip Belfiore Stuart Karabenick Darshanand Ramdass Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children’s learning: Putting the pic-
Hefer Bembenutty Anastasia Kitsantas Johnmarshall Reeve ture in developmental perspective. Review of Educational Research, 47,
Monique Boekaerts Julia Klug Richard Ryan 586–622. doi:10.2307/1170001
Kay Bussey Willy Lens Bernhard Schmitz Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1972). Instructional specificity and
Deborah Butler Mary McCaslin Gale Sinatra outcome expectation in observationally–induced question formulation.
Tim Cleary Barbara McCombs Heidrun Stoeger Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 500–504. doi:10.1037/h0033246
Edward Deci Dennis McInerney Stephen Tonks Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition.
Erik De Corte Gary McPherson Kallen Tsikalas New York, NY: Academic Press.
Maria DiBenedetto Judith Meece Ellen Usher Rosenthal, T. L., Zimmerman, B. J., & Durning, K. (1970). Observationally–
Carol Dweck Adam Moylan Marie White induced changes in children’s interrogative classes. Journal of Personality
Charlotte Dignath Richard Newman Allan Wigfield and Social Psychology, 16, 631–688. doi:10.1037/h0030036
van Ewijk Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of
Arthur Graesser Scott Paris Christopher Wolters self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.
Jeffrey Greene Roger Peach Moshe Zeidner doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3204 1
Allyson Hadwin Nancy Perry Albert Ziegler Sloban, D. (1968). Imitation and grammatical development in children. In
N. S. Endler, L. R. Boulter, & H. Osser (Eds.), Contemporary issues in

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.
doi:10.1037//0022-0663.81.3.329
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.
doi:10.3102/0002831207312909
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.
241
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision
and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.
660
FROM MODELING TO SELF-REGULATION 147
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
27-4
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.
doi:10.2307/1163093
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.
doi:10.1037/h0035553
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Albert Bandura: The man and
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.