Schunc, 1989

4.
Social Cognitive Theory and

Self-Regulated Learning
Dale H. Schunk
Current theoretical accounts of learning view students as active seekers and proces-
sors of information (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich, Cross, Kozma, & McKeachie, 1986).
Learners' cognitions can influence the instigation, direction, and persistence of
achievement-related behaviors (Brophy, 1983; Como & Snow, 1986; Schunk, 1989;
Weiner, 1985; Winne, 1985). Research conducted within various theoretical tradi-
tions places particular emphasis on students' beliefs concerning their capabilities to
exercise control over important aspects of their lives (Bandura, 1982; Como & Man-
dinach, 1983; Covington & Omelich, 1979; Rotter, 1966; Weiner, 1979).
This article focuses on self-regulated learning, or learning that occurs from stu-
dents' self-generated behaviors systematically oriented toward the attainment of
their learning goals. Self-regulated learning processes involve goal-directed cogni-
tive activities that students instigate, modify, and sustain (Zimmerman, 1986).
Students' cognitions include such activities as attending to instruction, processing
and integrating knowledge, and rehearsing information to be remembered, as well
as beliefs concerning capabilities for learning and the anticipated outcomes oflearn-
ing (Schunk, 1986). The topic of self-regulated learning has recently entered the
research literature, but it fits well with the notion that, rather than being passive
recipients of information, students contribute actively to their learning goals and
exercise a large degree of control over the attainment of those goals.
My plan for this chapter is initially to present a theoretical overview of self-
regulated learning. The conceptual focus is based on Bandura's (1986) social-
cognitive learning theory. I then summarize the key subprocesses involved in self-
regulated learning, along with research bearing on each subprocess. Implications of
this view for how aspects of self-regulation are developed and acquired are dis-
cussed. The chapter concludes with an example of how social-cognitive principles
can be applied in a learning context to enhance students' achievement cognitions and
behaviors.
B. J. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989
84 D.H. Schunk
BEHAVIORS
ENVIRONMENTAL
VARIABLES
~ COGNITIONS
............---~)O~ PERSONAL FACTORS
FIGURE 4-1. Human functioning as reciprocal interactions between behaviors, environmen-

tal variables, and cognitions and other personal factors.
Theoretical Overview
Social-Cognitive Theory
RECIPROCAL INTERACTIONS
Bandura's (1986) social-cognitive learning theory views human functioning as

reciprocal interactions between behaviors, environmental variables, and cognitions
and other personal factors (Figure 4-1). I will exemplify this reciprocity with an
important construct in Bandura's theory: perceived self-efficacy, or beliefs concern-
ing one's capabilities to organize and implement actions necessary to attain desig-
nated performance levels. Research in achievement settings shows that students'
efficacy beliefs influence such achievement behaviors as choice of tasks, persis-
tence, effort expenditure, and skill acquisition (Schunk, 1989). In turn, students'
actual behaviors modify their efficacy beliefs. For example, as students work on
tasks they note their progress toward their learning goals (e.g., completing work-
book pages, finishing sections of a term paper). Such progress indicators convey to
students that they are capable of performing well, which enhances self-efficacy for
continued learning.
The interaction between self-efficacy and environmental factors has been shown
in learning disabilities research. Many learning-disabled students hold a low sense
of efficacy for performing well (Licht & Kistner, 1986). Individuals in students'
social environments may react to students based on attributes typically associated
with them rather than based on what students actually do. Teachers often judge
learning-disabled students as less capable than nondisabled students and hold lower
academic expectations for them, even in content areas where learning-disabled stu-
dents are performing adequately (Bryan & Bryan, 1983). In turn, teacher feedback
can have an impact on self-efficacy. Persuasive statements (e.g., "I know that you
can do this") can raise students' efficacy beliefs.
Students' behaviors and classroom environments influence one another in many
ways. Consider a typical instructional sequence in which the teacher presents infor-
mation and asks students to direct their attention to a nearby chart. Environmental
influence on behavior occurs when students turn their heads without much con-
4. Social Cognitive Theory 85
scious deliberation. Students' behaviors often alter the instructional environment. If

the teacher asks questions and students give the wrong answers, the teacher may
reteach some points rather than continue the lesson.
ENACfIVE AND VICARIOUS LEARNING
Learning is a change in behavior or behavioral potential brought about by interven-

ing experiences. In this reciprocal interaction view of human functioning, experi-
ences may be enactive (actual performances) or vicarious (observing models,
watching TV, reading). Enactive learning involves learning from the consequences
of one's own actions (Bandura, 1986). Actions that result in successful consequences
tend to be retained, whereas those that lead to failures are discarded. Complex skills
typically involve some enactive learning. Aspiring golfers, for example, do not sim-
ply watch professionals; rather, they engage in much practice and receive corrective
feedback from qualified instructors. In school, students often learn some subcompo-
nents of a complex skill and not others. Student guided practice gives teachers the
opportunity to provide corrective feedback as necessary.
What differentiates social cognitive theory from earlier reinforcement theories is
not that people learn by doing but rather the mechanism used to explain such learn-
ing. Skinner (1953), for example, postulates that skillful performances are gradually
acquired by reinforcing successive approximations of the target behavior (shaping).
Cognitions may accompany behavioral change but they do not influence it. Social-
cognitive theory contends that behavioral consequences, rather than strengthening
behaviors, serve as sources of information and motivation. People selectively
process information; they engage in cognitive activities (e.g., rehearsal) that assist
learning of successful behaviors. People are motivated to learn behaviors that they
value and that they believe will lead to rewarding consequences.
Much human learning occurs vicariously by observing others, reading, watching
television, and listening to the radio. Vicarious learning accelerates learning and
saves us from personally experiencing negative consequences. We learn that
poisonous snakes are dangerous by reading books rather than experiencing the
unpleasant consequences of their bites.
Cognitive-skill acquisition often combines enactive and vicarious learning. In
mathematics, for example, students learn operations by observing the teacher
demonstrate their application. Students perfect their skills through practice and
teacher feedback. As with enactive learning, response consequences of vicarious
learning inform and motivate. Observers are more apt to try to learn those modeled
behaviors that lead to successful outcomes than those resulting in failures. The
belief that modeled behaviors will prove useful can lead people to attend carefully
to models and cognitively rehearse their actions.
LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE
Social-cognitive theory distinguishes between learning and performance of previ-

ously learned behaviors. By observing models, people can acquire knowledge that
86 D.H. Schunk
they may not demonstrate (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978). Some school activities
(review sessions) involve performance of previously learned skills, but much time
is spent on cognitive learning. Students acquire declarative knowledge in the form of
facts, scripts (e.g., events of a story), and organized passages (e.g., Gettysburg
Address). Students also acquire procedural knowledge-concepts, rules, algorithms
-as well as conditional knowledge, or knowledge of when to employ forms of
declarative and procedural knowledge and why it is important to do so (Paris, Cross,
& Lipson, 1984; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). These forms of knowledge often
are not independent; competence in long division requires knowing mathematical
facts, how to apply the algorithm, and when to apply it. My point is that declarative,
procedural, and conditional knowledge can be acquired but not demonstrated when
learning occurs. Students might learn that skimming is a useful procedure for acquir-
ing the gist of text but not employ that knowledge until they are at home reading a
newspaper (see Paris and Byrnes, this volume).
Modeling
Modeling refers to cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes that derive from
observing others. Models are individuals whose behaviors, verbalizations (of
thoughts), and nonverbal expressions are attended to by observers and serve as cues
for subsequent modeling (Schunk, 1987). Modeling is an important means of acquir-
ing skills, beliefs, and novel behaviors (Zimmerman, 1977).
The value of modeling was recognized as far back as the ancient Greeks, who used
mimesis to refer to observational learning from others' behaviors and from abstract
models exemplifying literary styles (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978). Early in this
century, psychologists debated whether modeling was instinctual or could be
described in associationist principles. Miller and Dollard (1941) explained modeling
as a process whereby observers were provided with behavioral cues, performed
matching responses, and were positively reinforced. With repeated reinforcement of
imitative behavior, imitation could become a secondary drive.
Bandura postulated that modeling may reflect acquisition of new behavioral pat-
terns (observational learning), strengthening or weakening of behavioral inhibitions
(inhibition-disinhibition), or performance of previously learned behaviors due to
prompting (response facilitation). Observational learning occurs when observers
display new behaviors that prior to modeling had a zero probability of occurrence
even with motivational inducements in effect. Modeling also can strengthen or
weaken inhibitions for performing previously learned behaviors. Observing models
perform threatening or prohibited activities without negative consequences can lead
observers to perform the behaviors themselves; observing models punished for per-
forming actions may inhibit observers' responding. There also are behaviors that
people have learned but do not perform because of insufficient motivation rather
than prohibitions. Modeled actions can serve as social prompts, as when one emu-
lates the behaviors of high-status models to obtain approval.
SUBPROCESSES
Observational learning through modeling is hypothesized to comprise four sub-

processes: attention, retention, production, and motivation (Bandura, 1986).
Observer attention to relevant environmental events is necessary for them to be
meaningfully perceived. Retention activities include coding and transforming
modeled information for storage in memory, as well as cognitively rehearsing infor-
mation. There is debate whether knowledge ultimately is stored in memory only in
verbal form as propositions (i.e., units of information) or also in the form of images;
however, much evidence shows that representing knowledge in imaginal form is an
important aid to learning (Shepard, 1978). Production involves translating visual
and symbolic conceptions of modeled events into overt behaviors. Motivational
inducements for action can result from direct, vicarious, and self-produced
experiences.
Thefimctional value o/behavior-whether it results in success or failure, reward
or punishment-exerts strong effects on observer modeling. Modeled behaviors are
more likely to be performed if they have previously led to rewarding outcomes than
if they have reslllted in punishment, regardless of whether individuals have
experienced the consequences directly or vicariously. People also act in accordance
with their internal standards of conduct; they behave in ways they find acceptable
and avoid dissatisfying activities.
INFORMATIONAL FUNCTION
Vicarious consequences convey information to observers about the functional value

of behaviors (Bandura, 1986). Observing competent models perform actions that
result in success conveys information to observers about the sequence of actions one
should use. Most social situations are structured so that the appropriateness of
behaviors depends on such factors as age, sex, or status. By observing modeled
behaviors and their consequences, people formulate outcome expectations, or
beliefs about the outcomes of one's actions. Vicarious consequences create outcome
expectations concerning which behaviors are likely to be rewarded and which may
be punished.
Perceived similarity between model and observer is hypothesized to be an impor-
tant source of information for determining behavioral appropriateness and formulat-
ing outcome expectations (Schunk, 1987). Festinger (1954) hypothesized that,
where objective standards of behavior are unclear or unavailable, observers evaluate
themselves through comparisons with others, and that the most accurate self-
evaluations derive from comparisons with those who are similar in the ability or
characteristic being evaluated. In general, the more alike observers are to models,
the greater is the probability that similar actions by observers are socially appropri-
ate and will produce comparable results. Model attributes often are predictive of the
functional value of behaviors. Similarity ought to be especially influential in situa-
tions where observers have little information about functional value. Modeled
88 D.H. Schunk
behaviors on tasks that observers are unfamiliar with or those that are not immedi-
ately followed by consequences may be highly susceptible to influence by attribute
similarity.
MOTIVATIONAL FUNCTION
The motivational effects of vicarious consequences theoretically depend in part on

perceived self-efficacy. Similarity to models constitutes an important source of
vicarious information for gauging one's self-efficacy. Observing similar others suc-
ceed can raise observers' self-efficacy and motivate them to try the task themselves,
because they are apt to believe that if others can succeed, they can as well. Observ-
ing similar others fail can lead people to believe that they lack the competence to
succeed, which can dissuade them from attempting the behavior. Model attributes
often are predictive of performance capabilities. Similarity is highly influential in
situations where individuals have previously experienced difficulties and hold
doubts about performing well.
Subprocesses of Self-Regulated Learning

Social-cognitive theory views self-regulation as comprising three subprocesses:
self-observation, self-judgment, self-reaction (Bandura, 1986; Kanfer & Gaelick,
1986; Karoly, 1982). These subprocesses are not mutually exclusive but rather inter-
act with one another. While observing aspects of one's own behavior, one may judge
them against standards and react positively or negatively. One's evaluations and
reactions then set the stage for additional observations, either of the same
behavioral aspects or others.
These subprocesses also do not operate independently of the learning environ-
ment; environmental influences can assist the development of self-regulation. This
point is important, because educators are increasingly advocating that students be
trained to self-regulate their academic performances (Paris et aI., 1983; Zimmer-
man, 1985).
A social cognitive model of self-regulated learning is portrayed in Figure 4-2. It
is assumed that students enter learning activities with such goals as acquiring
STUDENT BELIEFS SELF-REGULATORY PROCESSES
• Observation
• Learning Goals
• Judgment
• Self-Efficacy
• Reaction
FIGURE 4-2. Social-cognitive model of self-regulated learning.

knowledge, learning how to solve problems, flnishing workbook pages, and com-
pleting science experiments. Students will differ in how efficacious they feel about
being able to attain those goals (Schunk, 1989). This sense of self-efficacy for
learning can be influenced by such factors as students' abilities, prior experiences,
and attitudes toward learning, as well as by instructional and social factors (e.g.,
teacher's presentation of material, classroom reward structure). Efficacy is further
influenced by the self-regulation process; students who evaluate their progress
toward learning goals as satisfactory are apt to feel confldent about continuing to
improve their skills.
Self-Observation
ASSESSMENT FEATURES
People cannot regulate their own actions if they are not fully aware of them.
Behavior can be assessed on several dimensions. While writing a term paper, stu-
dents may assess their work on quality (e.g., whether they have stated important
ideas), rate (whether they will flnish the paper by the due date), quantity (whether
the paper will be long enough), and originality (whether they have integrated ideas
in unusual fashion). These same features can be employed with other skills; for
example, motor (how fast one runs the loo-meter dash), artistic (how original are
one's pen-and-ink drawings), and social (how comfortable one feels while attending
social functions).
FUNCTIONS OF SELF-OBSERVATION
Observing one's behaviors can inform and motivate. The information gained from
self-observation is used to determine how well one is progressing toward one's goals.
Self-observation is most helpful when it addresses the speciflc conditions under
which the behaviors occur. Such information is valuable in establishing a program
of change. Students who notice that they accomplish less when they study with a
friend than when they are alone may establish a new routine of studying by them-
selves.
Self-observation also can motivate behavioral change; keeping a record of what
we do will occasionally prove surprising. Many students with poor study habits are
astonished to learn that they waste much study time on nonacademic activities. Self-
observation can motivate one to embark on a program of change, although desire
alone usually is insufficient. Sustained motivational effects also depend on people's
outcome and efficacy expectations. For students to attempt to change their study
routine they need to believe that if they do alter their habits they will accomplish
more (outcome expectation) and that they can change those habits (self-efficacy).
CRITERIA FOR AsSESSMENT
Self-observation is aided with the use of self-recording, where instances of the

behavior are recorded along with such features as the time, place, and duration of
90 D.H. Schunk
occurrence (Karoly, 1982). In the absence of recording, one's observations may not
faithfully reflect one's behaviors due to selective memory.
Two important criteria for self-observation are regularity and proximity. Regular-
ity means that behavior is observed on a continuous basis-hour by hour, day to
day-rather than intermittently. Nonregular observation provides misleading
results. Proximity means that behavior is observed close in time to its occurrence
rather than long after it (e.g., recall at the end of the day what one did during that
day). Proximal observations provide continuous information to use in gauging goal
progress (see Mace, Belfiore, & Shea, this volume).
Self-Judgment
The self-judgment subprocess refers to comparing present performance level with

one's goal. Self-judgments can be affected by such factors as the type of standards
employed, the properties of the goal, the importance of goal attainment, and the
attributions made for one's performance.
ABSOLUTE AND NORMATIVE STANDARDS
Learning goals may be cast as absolute or normative standards. Absolute standards

are fixed. Students whose goal is to complete six workbook pages in 30 minutes can
gauge their progress against this absolute standard. Grading systems often are based
on absolute standards (e.g., 90 to 100 = A, 80 to 89 = B).
Normative standards of judgment, which are based on the performances of others,
can be acquired by observing models (Bandura, 1986). Social comparison of one's
performances with those of others is an important source for determining the
appropriateness of behaviors and evaluating one's performances (Masters, 1971;
Veroff, 1969). Students have numerous opportunities to compare their work with
that of their peers. Absolute and normative standards can be employed in concert,
as when students have 30 minutes to complete six pages and they compare their
progress with peers to gauge who will be the first to finish.
Standards inform and motivate. In learning settings, comparing one's perfor-
mance with standards is informative of one's progress toward the goal. Students who
complete three pages in 10 minutes realize that they finished half of the work in less
than half of the time. Standards also can motivate. The belief that one is making
progress toward one's goal can enhance self efficacy for performing well, which can
sustain motivation. This holds true whether goals are absolute or normative. Stu-
dents who find a task easy and realize that they set their (absolute) goal too low may
set it higher on the next task. With respect to normative goals, knowing that similar
others performed a task can promote self-efficacy because students are apt to believe
that if others could succeed, they can as well (Schunk, 1987). This belief enhances
motivation to perform at the comparative level.
GOAL PROPERTIES
Goals exert their behavioral effects through their properties: specificity, difficulty
level, proximity (Bandura, 1982; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Goals that
incorporate specific performance standards raise efficacy for learning because
progress toward an explicit goal is easy to gauge. General goals (e.g., "Do your
best") do not enhance motivation. Goal difficulty refers to the level of task profi-
ciency required as assessed against a standard. Although students initially may
doubt whether they can attain goals they believe are difficult, working toward
difficult goals can build a strong sense of efficacy. Goals also are distinguished by
how far they project into the future. Proximal goals, which are close at hand, result
in greater motivation than distant goals. It is easier to gauge progress toward a prox-
imal goal than toward one that is temporally distant.
Goal setting is especially influential with long-term tasks. For example, many stu-
dents have initial doubts about writing a good term paper. Teachers can assist by
breaking the task into short-term goals (e.g., select a topic, conduct background
research, write an outline). Students should feel more efficacious about accomplish-
ing the· subtasks, and attaining each subgoal helps develop their overall sense of
efficacy for producing a good term paper.
IMPORTANCE OF GOAL ATTAINMENT
Self-judgments are affected by the importance of goal attainment. When individuals

care little about how they perform at an activity, they may not assess their perfor-
mance or expend effort to improve (Bandura, 1986). Judgments of goal progress are
made for valued goals. Occasionally, goals that originally hold little value become
more important when people receive feedback indicating that they are becoming
more skillful. Novice piano players initially may hold ill-defined goals for them-
selves (e.g., play better). As piano skills develop, people may set more specific goals
(learn to play various pieces, practice two hours per day) and are more likely to judge
their progress relative to these goals.
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTIONS
Attributions, or perceived causes of outcomes (successes, failures), can influence

performance expectancies, behaviors, and affective reactions (Weiner, 1985).
Achievement outcomes often are attributed to such causes as ability, effort, task
difficulty, and luck (Frieze, 1980; Weiner, 1979). Children view effort as the prime
cause of outcomes and ability-related terms as closely associated, but with develop-
ment a distinct conception of ability emerges (Nicholls, 1978). Ability attributions
become increasingly important influences on expectancies, whereas the role of
effort declines in importance (Harari & Covington, 1981). Success achieved with
great effort should raise self-efficacy less than if minimal effort is required, because
the former implies that skills are not well developed (Bandura, 1982).
92 D.H. Schunk
With respect to affective reactions, people take more pride in their accomplish-
ments when they attribute them to their abilities and efforts than when they attribute
outcomes to other persons. People also are more self-critical when they believe that
they failed due to personal reasons (e.g., low effort) than when failure was due to
circumstances beyond their control. Whether goal progress is judged as acceptable
will depend in part on its attribution. Students who attribute their successes to
teacher assistance may hold a low sense of efficacy for performing well, because
they may believe that they cannot succeed on their own. They may judge their learn-
ing progress as deficient and be unmotivated to work harder because they believe
that they lack the ability to perform well.
Self-Reaction
EVALUATIVE MOTIVATORS
Self-reactions to goal progress exert motivational effects on behavior (Bandura,

1986). The belief that one is making acceptable progress can enhance self-efficacy
for continued improvement. This belief, along with the anticipated satisfaction of
accomplishing the goal, sustains students' motivation to complete the task. Negative
evaluations will not necessarily decrease motivation if individuals believe they are
capable of improving (Schunk, 1989). If students believe that they have been lack-
adaisical and that enhanced effort will promote progress, they are apt to feel effica-
cious and redouble their efforts. Motivation will not improve if students believe that
they lack the requisite ability to succeed and that no amount of effort will help them
to perform better (Schunk, 1982).
Instructions to people to respond evaluatively to their performances can affect
motivation; people who believe that they can perform better persist longer and
expend greater effort (Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986). Whether people are instructed to
respond evaluatively or do so on their own, the same level of performance can be
evaluated positively, neutrally, or negatively, depending on one's goals. Some stu-
dents are content with performing at a B level in a course, whereas others are satis-
fied only with an A. Assuming that people believe they are capable of improving
their performances, higher goals lead to greater effort and persistence than do lower
goals (Bandura & Cervone, 1983).
TANGIBLE MOTIVATORS
In daily activities, people routinely make such consequences as work breaks, new
clothes, and nights on the town contingent on task progress or goal attainment.
Unlike reinforcement theories contending that consequences alter behavior, social-
cognitive theory postulates that the anticipation of consequences (outcome expecta-
tions) enhances motivation. Self-administered consequences· can motivate
individuals even when external contingencies are in effect, and the former typically
are as effective as the latter (Bandura, 1986). Grades are given at the end of courses,
yet students set subgoals for accomplishing their coursework and reward and punish
themselves accordingly.
Tangible consequences also constitute an important influence on self-efficacy.
External rewards are likely to enhance self-efficacy when they are tied to students'
actual accomplishments. Telling students that they can earn rewards based on what
they accomplish can instill a sense of efficacy for learning (Schunk, 1989). As
students then work at a task and note their progress, this sense of efficacy is vali-
dated. Receipt of the reward further validates efficacy, because it symbolizes
progress. When rewards are not tied to quality of performance, they actually may
convey negative efficacy information; students might infer that they are not
expected to learn much because they do not possess the requisite capability.
Literature Review
A detailed review of self-regulation research appears in Bandura (1986). Much of
this research has focused on the application of subprocesses in therapeutic contexts
(e.g., coping with fears, weight loss). This research will not be summarized because
my purpose in this chapter is to show how principles of self-regulation can be
applied to academic learning settings.
For the past few years, I have been conducting research using social cognitive
theory as the conceptual focus. This research, although not primarily directed
toward teaching students to become self-regulated learners, has examined how many
of the variables discussed in this chapter influence students' motivation, self-
efficacy, and learning. The subjects in most of these students have been elementary-
or middle-school students who previously experienced difficulties learning the aca-
demic content (e.g., mathematics, comprehension) and who enter with low skills
and perceived efficacy. The studies combine skill instruction with treatments
designed to enhance self-efficacy by conveying to students that they are making
progress in learning. Instructionally relevant cognitive activities and positive
efficacy beliefs are important self-regulated learning processes.
Subjects initially are pretested on self-efficacy, skill, and persistence. To assess
self-efficacy, testers briefly show subjects samples of the academic content (math
problems, reading passages and questions). For each sample, subjects judge their
certainty of solving problems (answering questions) like those shown; thus, subjects
judge their capabilities for solving different problems (answering different ques-
tions) and not whether they can solve particular problems (answer particular ques-
tions). In some studies, testers also have assessed self-efficacy for learning by
having subjects judge their capabilities to learn how to solve (answer) different types
of problems (questions). On the skill test, subjects decide whether to solve (answer)
each of several problems (questions) and how long to work on them, which provides
a measure of persistence. Treatment procedures are subsequently implemented in
conjunction with a multi session instructional program on the content-area skills.
This program includes teacher instruction, student guided practice, and student
94 D.H. Schunk
independent practice; the latter allows for assessment of motivational effects as stu-
dents work alone without teacher monitoring. Subjects are posttested on completion
of the instructional program.
Self-Observation
The effects of self-recording have been studied extensively (see Mace, Belfiore, &
Shea, Chapter 2, this volume). Self-recording is useful for systematically observing
aspects of one's behavior, and can have reactive effects on behavior (Broden, Hall,
& Mitts, 1971).
Sagotsky, Patterson, and Lepper (1978) had fifth- and sixth-grade students peri-
odically monitor their performances during mathematics sessions and record
whether they were working on appropriate materials. Other students set daily per-
formance goals, and students in a third condition received self-monitoring and goal
setting. The self-monitoring component significantly increased students' time on
task and mathematical achievement, whereas goal setting had minimal effects. The
authors note that, for goal setting to affect performance, students initially may need
training on how to set challenging but attainable goals.
Schunk (1983d) provided subtraction instruction to elementary-school children
who had failed to master subtraction operations in their regular classrooms. One
group (self-monitoring) reviewed their work at the end of each session and recorded
the number of workbook pages they completed. The effects of monitoring proce-
dures were investigated more generally by including a second group (external
monitoring), who had their work reviewed at the end of each session by an adult who
recorded the number of pages completed. In a third condition (no monitoring), chil-
dren received the instructional program but were not monitored and did not receive
instructions to monitor their work.
The self- and external monitoring conditions led to significantly higher self-
efficacy, skill, and persistence on the posttest compared with the no-monitoring
condition. The two progress-monitoring conditions did not differ on any measure.
The benefits of monitoring did not depend on children's performances during the
instructional sessions, because the three treatment conditions did not differ in
amount of work completed. Monitoring of progress, rather than the agent, enhanced
children's perception of their learning progress and efficacy for continued improve-
ment. In the absence of monitoring, children may be less sure about how well they
are learning.
Self-Judgment
MODELING
An important means of acquiring self-evaluative standards is through observation of

models. Bandura and Kupers (1964) exposed children to a model demonstrating
stringent or lenient standards while playing a bowling game. Children exposed to
high-standard models were more likely to reward themselves for high scores and
less likely to reward themselves for lower scores compared with subjects assigned
to the low-standard condition. Davidson and Smith (1982) had children observe a
superior adult, equal peer, or inferior younger child set stringent or lenient standards
while performing a pursuit rotor task. Children who observed a lenient model
rewarded themselves for lower scores than those who observed a stringent model.
Children's self-reward standards were lower than those of the adult, equal to those
of the peer, and higher than those of the younger child. Similarity in age might have
led children to believe that what was appropriate for the peer was appropriate for
them as well. With ability-related tasks, children may take relative estimates of abil-
ity into account in formulating standards.
Observing models can affect children's self-efficacy and achievement behaviors.
Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) exposed children to a model who unsuccessfully
attempted to solve a wire-puzzle problem for a long or short period and who verbal-
ized statements of confidence or pessimism. Children who observed a pessimistic
model persist for a long time lowered their efficacy judgments. Schunk (1981)
provided children deficient in division skills with cognitive modeling or didactic
instruction, followed by practice opportunities. The model verbalized operations
while applying them to problems. Cognitive modeling led to higher division skill,
but both treatments enhanced self-efficacy equally well.
Perceived similarity to models ought to be especially influential with ability-
related tasks, especially when observers have experienced difficulties and possess
doubts about performing well. Schunk and Hanson (1985) had elementary-school
children who had encountered difficulties learning subtraction with regrouping
observe videotapes portraying a peer-mastery model, a peer-coping model, a
teacher model, or no model. In the peer-model conditions, an adult teacher repeat-
edly provided instruction, after which the peer solved problems. Teacher-model
subjects observed videotapes portraying only the teacher providing instruction; no-
model subjects did not view videotapes. All children judged self-efficacy for learn-
ing to subtract and participated in an instructional program.
This study also investigated the effects of mastery and coping models. Coping
models are often employed in therapeutic contexts to reduce avoidance behaviors in
fearful clients (Thelen, Fry, Fehrenbach, & Frautschi, 1979). Unlike mastery
models who perform faultlessly from the outset, coping models initially demon-
strate the typical difficulties of observers but gradually improve their performances
and gain confidence. Coping models illustrate how coping behaviors and positive
thoughts can overcome difficulties. Coping models may be especially beneficial
with students who have difficulties learning academic content, because they may
perceive their typical performances as similar to those of coping models.
The peer-mastery model easily grasped operations and verbalized positive achieve-
ment beliefs reflecting high self-efficacy and ability, low task difficulty, and positive
attitudes. The peer-coping model initially made errors and verbalized negative
achievement beliefs, but gradually performed better and verbalized coping state-
ments (e.g., "I need to pay attention to what I'm doing"). Eventually, the coping
96 D.H. Schunk
model's problem-solving behaviors and verbalizations matched those of the mast-

ery model.
Observing a peer model enhanced self-efficacy and skill better than observing a
teacher model or no model; the teacher-model condition promoted these outcomes
better than no model. No differences were obtained between the mastery and coping
conditions. It is possible that children focused more on what the models had in com-
mon (task success) than on their differences (rate oflearning, number of errors, type
of achievement beliefs). Although subjects' prior successes in subtraction were
limited to problems without regrouping, they had these experiences to draw on and
may have concluded that if the model could learn, they could as well.
Schunk, Hanson, and Cox (1987) employed a similar methodology but used a task
(fractions) on which children had experienced few prior successes. Children viewed
videotapes portraying peer mastery or coping models learning to solve fraction
problems. Viewing coping models led to greater perceived similarity in competence,
higher self-efficacy for learning, more rapid problem solving during the instruc-
tional program, and higher posttest self-efficacy and skill, compared with observing
mastery models.
GOAL SETTING
Allowing students to set learning goals can enhance their commitment to attaining
them, which is necessary for goals to affect performance (Locke et aI., 1981).
Schunk (1985) also found that self-set goals promote self-efficacy. Sixth graders
classified as learning disabled in mathematics received subtraction instruction and
practice over sessions. Some children set performance goals each session, others
had comparable goals assigned, and children in a third condition did not set or
receive goals. Self-set goals led to the highest posttest self-efficacy and subtraction
performance. Children in the two goal conditions demonstrated greater task motiva-
tion during the instructional sessions (number of problems completed) compared
with no-goal subjects. Self-set children judged themselves more confident of attain-
ing their goals at the start of each session than did subjects in the assigned goals con-
dition. Allowing students to set their learning goals enhanced self-efficacy for
attaining them.
To test the idea that proximal goals enhance achievement behaviors better than
distant goals, Bandura and Schunk (1981) presented children with sets of subtraction
material. Some children pursued a proximal goal of completing one set during each
instructional session; a second group was given a distant goal of completing all sets
by the end of the last session; a third group was advised to work productively
(general goal). Proximal goals heightened motivation during the instructional pro-
gram and led to the highest posttest subtraction skill and self-efficacy. The distant
goal resulted in no benefits compared with the general goal. These findings support
the idea that when students can gauge their goal progress, the perception of
improvement enhances self-efficacy. Assessing progress toward a distant goal is
more difficult, and uncertainty about one's learning will not instill high self-efficacy
for improving one's skills.
Schunk: (1983c) tested the effects of goal difficulty. During a division training pro-
gram, children received either difficult (but attainable) or easier goals of completing
a given number of problems each session. To preclude children from perceiving the
goals as too difficult - which would have stifled motivation - half of the subjects in
each goal condition were told directly by the adult trainer that they could attain the
goal ("You can work 25 problems"). The other half received social comparative
information indicating that other similar children had been able to complete that
many problems. Difficult goals enhanced motivation and led to higher posttest divi-
sion skill; direct goal-attainment information promoted self-efficacy.
SOCIAL COMPARISON
Social comparison conveys normative information that is used to assess one's capa-
bilities. Schunk: (1983b) compared the effects of social comparative information
with those of goal setting during long-division instructional sessions. Half of the
children were given performance goals each session, whereas the other half were
advised to work productively. Within each goal condition, half of the subjects were
told the number of problems that other similar children had completed-which
matched the session goal- to convey that the goals were attainable; the other half
were not given comparative information. Goals enhanced posttest self-efficacy;
comparative information promoted motivation during the sessions. Subjects given
both goals and comparative information demonstrated the highest posttest division
skill. These results suggest that providing children with a goal and information that
it is attainable increases efficacy for learning, which contributes to more productive
performance during instructional sessions and greater skill acquisition.
ATTRIBUTIONAL FEEDBACK
Students' judgments about goal progress are tempered by their performance attribu-
tions. The development of self-regulated learning is facilitated by providing students
with attributional feedback. Students who attribute difficulties to low ability are apt
to hold a low sense of efficacy and not expend additional effort. Being told that one
can achieve better results through harder work can motivate one to do so and convey
that one possesses the necessary capability to succeed (Andrews & Debus, 1978;
Dweck, 1975). Providing effort feedback for prior successes supports students' per-
ceptions of their progress, sustains motivation, and increases efficacy for further
learning (Schunk:, 1989).
The timing of attributional feedback also is important. Early task successes con-
stitute a prominent cue for formulating ability attributions (Schunk:, 1989). Feed-
back that links early successes with ability (e.g., "That's correct. You're really good
at this.") should enhance learning efficacy. Many times, however, effort feedback for
early successes may be more credible, because when students lack skills they
realistically have to expend effort to succeed. As students develop skills, switching
to ability feedback better enhances self-efficacy.
98 D.H. Schunk
These ideas have been tested in several studies (Schunk, 1982, 1983a, 1984b;
Schunk & Cox, 1986). Schunk (1982) found that linking children's prior achieve-
ments with effort (e.g., "You've been working hard.") led to higher task motivation,
self-efficacy, and subtraction skill, compared with linking future achievement with
effort ("You need to work hard."). Schunk (1983a) showed that ability feedback for
prior successes ("You're good at this.") enhanced self-efficacy and skill better than
effort feedback or ability-plus-effort feedback. The latter subjects judged effort
expenditure during the instructional program greater than ability-only students.
Children in the combined condition may have discounted some ability information
in favor of effort.
To investigate sequence effects, Schunk (1984b) periodically provided one group
of children with ability feedback, a second group with effort feedback, and a third
condition with ability feedback during the first half ofthe instructional program and
effort feedback during the second half. This latter sequence was reversed for a
fourth condition. Ability feedback for early successes, regardless of whether it was
continued, led to higher ability attributions, posttest self-efficacy and skill, com-
pared with effort feedback for early successes.
Schunk and Cox (1986) presented subtraction instruction to middle-school stu-
dents classified as learning disabled in mathematics. While solving problems, stu-
dents received effort feedback during the first half of the instructional program,
effort feedback during the second half, or no effort feedback. Each type of feedback
promoted self-efficacy and skillful performance better than no feedback; first-half
feedback enhanced students' effort attributions. Given students' learning disabilities,
effort feedback for early or later successes likely seemed credible because they
realistically had to expend effort to succeed. Over a longer time, effort feedback for
successes on the same task could lose its effectiveness; as students become more
skillful they might wonder why they still have to work hard to succeed. (Attribu-
tional effects also are discussed by Paris & Byrnes, this volume.)
Self-Reaction
REWARD CONTINGENCIES
Rewarding consequences inform and motivate (Bandura, 1986). As students work at

a task, they learn which behaviors lead to successful outcomes and which result in
failures. Such information guides future behavior. The anticipation of attaining
desirable outcomes can motivate students to engage in a task and persevere
(McGraw, 1978).
Reward contingencies are important influences on students' self-efficacy and
assist the development of self-regulated learning (Schunk, 1989). Rewards are likely
to enhance efficacy when they are tied to students' actual accomplishments and thus
convey information about goal progress. Receipt of the reward also symbolizes
progress. When rewards are offered merely for task participation, students may not
experience a comparable sense of learning efficacy. Such rewards actually may con-
vey negative information; students might infer that they are not expected to learn
much because they do not possess the requisite capability.
Schunk (1983e) provided elementary-school children with division instruction

and practice opportunities. One group (performance-contingent reward) were told
that they would earn points for each problem solved and that they could buy prizes
based on the monetary value of the points. A second group (task-contingent reward)
were told that they would receive prizes for participating. The effects of reward
anticipation were disentangled from those of reward receipt by allowing students in
a third condition (unexpected reward) to unexpectedly choose prizes on completion
of the project. Performance-contingent rewards led to the greatest task motivation
and the highest posttest division self-efficacy and skill. Offering rewards for partici-
pation led to no benefits compared with merely providing instruction.
Schunk (1984a) compared the effects of performance-contingent rewards with
those of proximal goals. Of central interest was whether combining rewards with
goals would provide a clearer standard against which to gauge progress and thereby
heighten children's efficacy more than either treatment alone. Children received
division instruction and practice over sessions. Some were offered rewards based on
their actual performances, others pursued proximal performance goals each ses-
sion, and children in a third condition received rewards and goals. The three condi-
tions led to equally high motivation during the sessions, but combining rewards with
goals resulted in the highest self-efficacy and division performance.
Implications for Development and Acquisition

Self-regulation does not automatically develop as people become older, nor is it pas-
sively acquired from the environment. The subprocesses of self-regulated learning
are altered during development, and interventions differ in their effects on the
acquisition of self-regulatory skills. The implications of social-cognitive theory for
development and acquisition are discussed in this section.
Developmental Considerations
MODELING
Children's abilities to learn from models depend on developmental factors (Bandura,

1986). Young children have difficulty attending to modeled events for long periods
and distinguishing relevant from irrelevant cues. The ability to process information
effectively also improves with development. Children develop a more extensive
knowledge base to help them comprehend new information, and they become capa-
ble of using memory strategies. Young children may encode modeled events in terms
of physical properties, whereas older children represent information symbolically
(e.g., language). Information acquired through observation cannot be performed if
children lack the requisite physical capabilities. Production also requires translating
into action information stored in memory, comparing performance with memorial
representation, and correcting performance as necessary. Young children are highly
motivated by the immediate consequences of their actions. As children mature, they
are more likely to perform modeled actions that they find personally satisfying.
100 D.H. Schunk
SOCIAL COMPARISONS
The ability to use comparative information effectively depends on higher levels of

cognitive development and experience in making comparative evaluations (Veroff,
1969); therefore, Festinger's (1954) hypothesis may not apply to children younger
than age 5 or 6. Such children are characterized by what Piaget termed centration,
or the tendency not to relate two or more elements in thought, and egocentrism,
which refers to the "self" dominating one's cognitive focus and judgments (Higgins,
1981). These cognitive characteristics do not mean that young children cannot
evaluate themselves relative to others; rather, that they do not automatically do so.
Children show interest in comparative information in the early elementary-school
years and increasingly use such information to help form self-evaluations of perfor-
mance capabilities (Ruble, Boggiano, Feldman, & Loebl, 1980; Ruble, Feldman, &
Boggiano, 1976). By the fourth grade, children's performances on motor and learn-
ing tasks are influenced by peers' performances, whereas the behaviors of younger
children are affected more by direct adult social evaluation (e.g., "You're good
at this.").
Although young children engage in social comparison, the meaning and function
of comparative information change with development, especially after entering
school (Masters, 1971). Preschoolers actively compare at an overt physical level
(e.g., amount of reward). Mosatche and Bragonier (1981) found that preschoolers'
social comparisons primarily involved establishing how one was similar to and
different from others, and competition that seemed to be based on a desire to be bet-
ter than others but that did not involve self-evaluation (''I'm the general; that's higher
than the captain.").
The development of social comparisons is a multistep process (Ruble, 1983; Suls
& Sanders, 1982). The earliest comparisons primarily involve similarities and
differences but shift to a concern for how to perform tasks. Although first graders
engage in peer comparison, it often is directed toward obtaining correct answers.
Providing comparative information to young children may increase their motivation
more for practical reasons than for acquiring information about personal capabili-
ties (Ruble et aI., 1976). Telling young children who fail at a task that most other
children also do poorly may not alleviate the negative impact of failure. After first
grade, interest increases in determining how well peers are doing, and comparative
information is used to evaluate one's capabilities (Ruble & Flett, 1988).
GOAL SETTING
Developmental considerations impact goal-setting and self-evaluative capabilities.

Young children have short time frames of reference and may not be fully capable of
representing distant outcomes in thought. Proximal goals fit well with lesson plan-
ning in elementary classrooms; teachers plan activities around short blocks oftime.
Development produces the capacity to represent longer-term outcomes in thought
and to mentally subdivide distant goals into a series of short-term ones.
The process of comparing performances with goals to determine progress is
affected by developmental factors. Children can easily misjudge their capabilities;
they may overestimate or underestimate what they can do. Progress misjudgments
are especially likely when children learn some component subskills of a task but not
others. In mathematics, students often employ buggy algorithms, or erroneous
strategies that result in problem solutions (Brown & Burton, 1978). Because buggy
algorithms produce solutions, employing them can instate a false sense of compe-
tence. There also are students who, because they solve problems accurately but are
unsure of whether their answers are correct, do not feel efficacious. Feedback to stu-
dents concerning their learning progress is important when students cannot deter-
mine it on their own.
ATTRIBUTIONS
Important developmental changes occur in children's attributions (Frieze, 1980;

Nicholls, 1978). Very young children view effort as the prime cause of outcomes;
the concepts of effort and ability are intertwined. With development, a distinct con-
ception of ability emerges. Ability attributions become increasingly important
influences on performance expectations, whereas effort as a causal factor declines
in importance (Harari & Covington, 1981).
Developmental changes also occur in children's conceptions of intelligence, which
affect students' choices of learning goals, achievement beliefs, and behaviors
(Dweck & Bempechat, 1983). The "entity" theory holds that intelligence is a stable,
fixed trait, and is manifested in one's performances. One cannot become smarter,
although everyone is capable of learning. The "instrumental-incremental" theory
postulates that intelligence comprises one's knowledge and skills and can be
expanded through one's efforts. In this view, becoming smarter is synonymous with
acquiring knowledge and skills. Although children implicitly understand both
theories by the late elementary-school years, they tend to adopt one or the other
consistently in achievement contexts. Research is addressing how these views
develop and how instructional and social factors affect them (Dweck, 1986).
Acquisition of Self-Regulatory Skills

Many students acquire self-regulated learning strategies in the course of school
instruction; for some, however, strategy learning is problematic. Researchers are
increasingly emphasizing strategy training that includes instruction and practice in
applying a strategy, training in self-regulated implementation and monitoring of
strategy use, and information on strategy value and on the range of tasks to which
the strategy can be applied (Brown, Palincsar, & Armbruster, 1984). Each ofthese
components can enhance students' self-efficacy for continued skill improvement.
Training procedures that require extensive cognitive activity by learners can teach
them to self-regulate their performances and convey information about the useful-
ness of a strategy and their capabilities for applying it (Borkowski & Cavanaugh,
1979). An appropriate procedure is self-instructional training (Harris, 1982;
Meichenbaum & Asarnow, 1979). During the cognitive modeling phase, a student
observes a model verbalize the appropriate rules and procedures while performing
a task. The model then verbally instructs the student while the student performs the
102 D.H. Schunk
task (overt guidance), after which the student generates overt instructions while per-
forming (overt self-guidance). The student next whispers the instructions while per-
forming (jaded self-guidance), and eventually performs the task silently (covert
self-instruction). Types of statements that typically are modeled include: problem
definition (e.g., "What is it I have to do?"), focusing of attention ("I need to pay
attention to what I'm doing."), planning and response guidance ("I need to work
carefully:'), self-reinforcement ("I'm doing fine."), self-evaluation (')\m I doing
things in the right order?"), and coping statements ("I need to try again when I don't
get it right."). (See also Rohrkemper, this volume, for additional discussion of the
self-regulatory role of inner speech.)
Strategy Instruction in the Classroom

This section exemplifies how social-cognitive principles can be applied to foster
self-regulatory skills in the context of strategy training. Initially I will discuss some
recent research projects that 10 Mary Rice, Paula Cox, and I have conducted. I then
will provide educational implications of this work by describing how procedures can
be implemented in classrooms.
Research Evidence
Learning strategies are systematic plans that improve the encoding of information
and task performance (Paris et aI., 1983). Use of learning strategies improves
performance on the task at hand and can generalize beyond the learning context
(Pintrich et al., 1986). Strategy instruction is an effective means of promoting self-
regulated learning and perceived efficacy (Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Schunk,
1986). Such instruction makes salient to students the rules and steps that improve
performance and conveys that they are capable of applying them. The beliefthat one
can apply a strategy to improve learning instills in learners a sense of personal con-
trol over achievement outcomes, which can raise self-efficacy.
One means for helping students learn to use a strategy is to have them overtly
verbalize the steps in the strategy as they apply them. There are several ways that
overt verbalization can enhance self-regulated learning (Schunk, 1986). Verbaliza-
tion helps students attend to important task features and disregard irrelevant ones.
As a form of rehearsal, verbalization assists coding and retention of information.
Verbalization also promotes monitoring, as when students must detect and integrate
information needed to solve problems (Diefenderfer, Holzman, & Thompson,
1985).
Verbalization seems most beneficial for students who typically perform in a
deficient manner (Denney, 1975). Benefits have been obtained with children who
do not spontaneously rehearse material to be learned, impulsive subjects, learning-
disabled and retarded students, and remedial learners (Schunk, 1986). Verbal-
ization may help such students work at tasks systematically (Hallahan, Kneedler,
& Lloyd, 1983). Verbalization may not facilitate performance when children can
adequately handle the task demands. Verbalization even can hinder children's per-
formances, because it constitutes an additional task and can distract children from
the primary task.
To test the effects of verbalization, Schunk and Rice (1984) presented language-
deficient children in grades two through four with listening-comprehension instruc-
tion. Half of the children in each grade verbalized strategic steps prior to applying
them to questions; the other half applied but did not verbalize the steps. Strategy
verbalization led to higher self-efficacy across grades, and promoted performance
among third- and fourth-graders but not among second graders. The demands of
verbalization, along with those of the comprehension task itself, were too complex
for the youngest subjects. These children may have focused their efforts on the com-
prehension task, which would have interfered with strategy encoding and retention.
In a follow-up study (Schunk & Rice, 1985), children in grades four and five with
reading-comprehension deficiencies received instruction and practice. Within each
grade, half of the subjects verbalized a strategy prior to applying it. Strategy verbali-
zation led to higher reading comprehension, self-efficacy, and ability attributions
across grades. The latter finding suggests that strategy verbalization may enhance
self-efficacy through its effect on ability attributions.
In the Schunk and Cox (1986) study, some students verbalized aloud subtraction-
solution steps and their application to problems (continuous verbalization), others
verbalized aloud during the first half of the instructional program but not during the
second half (discontinued verbalization), and those in a third group did not verbal-
ize. Continuous verbalization led to higher posttest self-efficacy and skill than dis-
continued and no verbalization, which did not differ. When instructed to no longer
verbalize aloud, discontinued-verbalization students might have had difficulty inter-
nalizing the strategy and not used covert instructions to regulate their performances.
They also may have believed that, although the strategy was useful, other factors
(e.g., effort, time available) were more important for solving problems.
Strategy instruction does not ensure that students will continue to use the strategy
when not required to do so. To promote continued strategy use, researchers suggest
providing students with strategy-value information on how strategy use can improve
performance (Borkowski & Cavanaugh, 1979; Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981;
Paris et al., 1983). Some ways to convey strategy value are to instruct children to use
the strategy because it will help them perform better, to inform them that strategy
use benefited other students, and to provide them with feedback linking strategy use
with performance improvements. Strategy-value information promotes strategy
maintenance and better performance (Ringel & Springer, 1980).
Two experiments showed that strategy-value information also enhances self-
efficacy (Schunk & Rice, 1987). In both studies, children were given instruction on
finding main ideas. Children in the first experiment received specific strategy-value
information, general information, specific-plus-general information, or no
strategy-value information. The specific information was linked to the task at hand;
the general information conveyed the value of the strategy on all reading tasks. In the
second experiment, children received strategy-effectiveness feedback, specific
strategy-value information, or feedback-plus-specific information. The feedback
104 D.H. Schunk
linked children's improved performances with use of the comprehension strategy. In

each study, the combined treatment enhanced self-efficacy and skill better than the
other conditions, which did not differ.
Educational Implications
The research that Jo Mary Rice and I have conducted has been with elementary-
school remedial readers. These students regularly receive instruction in small
groups. As part of their regular instruction, students are taught basic reading, read-
ing comprehension (e.g., main ideas, sequencing, details, inferences), and listening-
comprehension skills.
We have applied many of the ideas discussed in this chapter. In this section, I will
exemplify the application of comprehension-strategy modeling, guided practice,
overt verbalization, strategy-value information, strategy-effectiveness feedback,
attributional feedback, and independent practice. Each of these procedures can be
easily implemented with regular instructional practices. Given that our subjects
have reading-skill deficiencies and hold a low sense of efficacy for improving their
skills, we have used procedures that are designed to enhance students' self-efficacy
by conveying to them that they are improving their skills and making progress
toward the goal of becoming better readers.
The context for these applications is reading-comprehension instruction on find-
ing main ideas. The instructional material consists of a training packet that includes
several reading passages, each of which is followed by multiple-choice questions
tapping comprehension of important ideas. The passages are drawn from different
sources and are similar to those typically used by children's remedial teachers. Chil-
dren work on this packet during each of the instructional sessions.
The sessions are administered by an adult member of our project staff. At the start
of each session, the trainer distributes the instructional packet. On a nearby poster
board is printed a five-step reading comprehension strategy, as follows:
What do I have to do? (1) Read the questions. (2) Read the passage to find out what it is mostly
about. (3) Think about what the details have in common. (4) Think about what would make
a good title. (5) Reread the story if I don't know the answer to a question.
After distributing the packet, the trainer points to the poster board and models the
application of the strategy by verbalizing, "What do I have to do? Read the ques-
tions:' The trainer reads aloud the multiple-choice questions for the first compre-
hension passage while children follow along, after which she points to and verbalizes
steps (2) and (3). The trainer explains that details refer to bits of information and
gives some examples, and states that while she is reading the passage she will be
thinking about what the details have in common. She then reads the passage aloud.
The trainer points to and verbalizes step (4), and explains that trying to think of a
good title helps to remember important ideas in a story. She states some of the
details in the story, explains what they have in common, and makes up a title. The
trainer then reads aloud the first question and its multiple-choice answers, selects
the correct answer, and explains her selection by referring to the passage. She
answers the remaining questions in the same fashion.
Following this modeled demonstration, the trainer instructs children to repeat

aloud each step after she verbalizes it. She then says, "What do I have to do? Read
the questions." After children verbalize these statements, she selects one student to
read the questions aloud. When this child finishes, the trainer instructs children to
repeat after her steps (2) and (3). The trainer then calls on a different child to read
the passage aloud, after which she asks children to repeat step (4) after her. A third
student is selected to think of a title for the story and explain his or her answer. The
trainer then calls on individual children to read aloud each of the questions with its
answers and to answer that question. If a child answers a questions incorrectly, the
student repeats step (5) and rereads enough of the passage to answer the question
correctly. When students stumble on a word, the trainer prompts with contextual
and phonetic cues.
This instructional format is used during the first session. The format for subse-
quent sessions is identical except that the trainer does not model strategies and chil-
dren do not verbalize each step prior to applying it. Instead, she refers to steps at the
appropriate places and occasionally asks children to verbalize them.
Strategy-value information can be delivered at various times during the instruc-
tional sessions. At the start of each session, for example, the trainer might point to
the poster board and say, "Today we're going to use these steps to answer questions
about main ideas:' To link the strategy with the task at hand, she then might remark:
Using these steps should help you whenever you have to answer questions about main ideas,
because most children like you find that using these steps helps them whenever they have to
answer questions about main ideas.
The general value of the strategy can be conveyed in similar fashion by the trainer
remarking:
Using steps like these should help you whenever you have to answer questions about passages
you've read, because most children like you find that using steps like these helps them
whenever they have to answer questions about passages they've read.
At the end of each session, the trainer can reemphasize the value of the strategy
for the task at hand (or in general) by remarking, "Remember that using these steps
should help you whenever you have to answer questions about main ideas (passages
you've read)."
Strategy-effectiveness feedback can be delivered periodically to each child during
each instructional session. For example, after a child correctly answers a compre-
hension question, the trainer provides performance feedback (e.g., "That's cor-
rect."), after which she delivers such effectiveness-feedback statements as:
You got it right because you followed the steps in the right order.
Answering questions is easier when you follow these steps.
You've been answering a lot more questions correctly since you've been using these steps.
Do you see how thinking about what the details have in common helps you to answer ques-
tions?
Since you've been thinking about what would make a good title you've been answering a lot
more questions correctly.
Effort-attributional feedback can be delivered to students following their con-
certed efforts to answer a question (e.g., "That's correct. You got it right because you
106 D.H. Schunk
really tried hard:'). As children's skills improve, ability feedback (e.g., "You're good
at answering these questions.") may seem more credible.
As with all strategy training, it is important that students maintain their use of the
strategy over time and generalize its application to other contexts. A good means for
fostering maintenance and generalization is to teach the strategy using multiple
tasks. This often entails showing students how to make minor modifications in the
strategy. For example, in teaching reading for details we altered the strategy as fol-
lows:
What do I have to do? (1) Read the questions. (2) Read the story, and (3) Look for key words.
(4) Reread each question, and (5) Answer that question. (6) Reread the story if I don't know
the answer.
Another means is to provide students with periods where they work on reading
tasks independently. Independent practice also builds self-efficacy. When students
successfully complete work on their own, they are likely to attribute the successes
to their own abilities and efforts rather than to outside assistance.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have attempted to demonstrate that social-cognitive principles are

useful for fostering self-regulatory skills among students. Social-cognitive theory
postulates that self-regulation includes three subprocesses: self-observation, self-
judgment, self-reaction. Observing one's behaviors can inform and motivate. The
information gained is used to determine how well one is progressing toward learning
goals. Observation of progress helps to instill a sense of self-efficacy for continuing
to improve one's skills. Self-efficacy, along with the anticipated satisfaction of
attaining the goal, can sustain students' motivation.
I also have discussed how various treatment procedures can teach students to
observe, judge, and react to their learning progress. Influential procedures include
progress monitoring, observation of models, goal setting, social comparison,
attributional feedback, reward contingencies, and strategy training. In addition to
addressing self-regulatory skills, each of these procedures also conveys information
to students about how well they are learning academic skills. The belief that one is
capable of learning is an important part of the self-regulation process.
This chapter also has addressed developmental considerations and the importance
of instruction aimed at fostering self-regulation in students. Although the processes
whereby such skills are acquired are constrained by students' level of development,
even young children can benefit from instruction designed to teach observation and
evaluation of progress toward learning goals. I have tried to show the educational
implications of social-cognitive theory by providing a detailed example of compre-
hension-strategy training with remedial readers.
As evidenced by this volume, the many perspectives on self-regulated learning
have created a significant research base. Much exciting research will occur in the
future. I believe that social-cognitive theory has an important role in this area, and
I hope that this chapter will increase the likelihood of this role being fulfilled.
References
Andrews, G.R., & Debus, R.L. (1978). Persistence and the causal perception of failure:
Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154-166.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing
the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45,
1017-1028.
Bandura, A., & Kupers, e.J. (1964). Transmission of patterns of self-reinforcement through
modeling. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 1-9.
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.
Borkowski, J.G., & Cavanaugh, J.e. (1979). Maintenance and generalization of skills and
strategies by the retarded. In N.R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook ofmental deficiency, psychologi-
cal theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 569-617). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Broden, M., Hall, R.V., & Mitts, B. (1971). The effect of self-recording on the class-
room behavior of two eighth-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4,
191-199.
Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18,200-
215.
Brown, A.L., Campione, J.e., & Day, J.D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to
learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14-21.
Brown, A.L., Palincsar, A.S., & Armbruster, B.B. (1984). Instructing comprehension-
fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In H. Mandl, N.L. Stein, & T.
Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 255-286). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Brown, J.S., & Burton, R.R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathe-
matical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155-192.
Bryan, J.H., & Bryan, T.H. (1983). The social life ofthe learning disabled youngster. In J.D.
McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 57-85).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Como, L., & Mandinach, E.B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learn-
ing and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88-108.
Como, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners.
In M.e. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 605-629). New
York: Macmillan.
Covington, M.V., & Omelich, e.L. (1979). Are causal attributions causal? A path analysis
of the cognitive model of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 37, 1487-1504.
Davidson, E.S., & Smith, w.P. (1982). Imitation, social comparison, and self-reward. Child
Development, 53, 928-932.
Denney, D.R. (1975). The effects of exemplary and cognitive models and self-rehearsal on
children's interrogative strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 476-
488.
Diefenderfer, K.K., Holzman, T.G:, & Thompson, D.N. (1985). Verbal self-monitoring and
solution flexibility in rule induction. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 79-88.
108 D.H. Schunk
Dweck, e.S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,674-685.
Dweck, e.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048.
Dweck, e.S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children's theories of intelligence: Consequences for
learning. In S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation
in the classroom (pp. 239-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Frieze, I.H. (1980). Beliefs about success and failure in the classroom. In J.H. McMillan
(Ed.), The social psychology of school learning (pp. 39-78). New York: Academic Press.
Hallahan, D.P., Kneedler, R.D., & Lloyd, J.W. (1983). Cognitive behavior modification tech-
niques for learning disabled children: Self-instruction and self-monitoring. In J.D. McKin-
ney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 207-244).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harari, 0., & Covington, M.V. (1981). Reactions to achievement behavior from a teacher and
student perspective: A developmental analysis. American Educational Research Journal,
18, 15-28.
Harris, K.R. (1982). Cognitive-behavior modification: Application with exceptional stu-
dents. Focus on Exceptional Children, 15, 1-16.
Higgins, E.T. (1981). Role taking and social judgment: Alternative developmental perspec-
tives and processes. In J.H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Front-
iers and possible futures (pp. 119-153). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kanfer, EH., & Gaelick, K. (1986). Self-management methods. In EH. Kanfer & A.P. Gold-
stein (Eds.), Helping people change: A textbook of methods (3rd ed., pp. 283-345). New
York: Pergamon.
Karoly, P. (1982). Perspectives on self-management and behavior change. In P. Karoly & EH.
Kanfer (Eds.), Self-management and behavior change: From theory to practice (pp. 3-31).
New York: Pergamon.
Licht, B.G., & Kistner, J.A. (1986). Motivational problems oflearning-disabled children:
Individual differences and their implications for treatment. In J.K. Torgesen & B.W.L.
Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp.
225-255). Orlando: Academic Press.
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and taskperfor-
mance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Masters, J.C. (1971). Social comparison by young children. Young Children, 27, 37-60.
McGraw, K.o. (1978). The detrimental effects of reward on performance: A literature review
and a prediction model. In M.R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward:
New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation (pp. 33-60). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Meichenbaum, D., & Asarnow, J. (1979). Cognitive-behavioral modification and metacogni-
tive development: Implications for the classroom. In P.e. Kendall & S.D. Hollon (Eds.),
Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Theory, research, and procedures (pp. 11-35). New
York: Academic Press.
Miller, N.E., & Dollard, J. (1941). social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Mosatche, H.S., & Bragonier, P. (1981). An observational study of social comparison in
preschoolers. Child Development, 52, 376-378.
Nicholls,lG. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of aca-
demic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child
Development, 49, 800-814.
Paris, S.G., Cross, D.R., & Lipson, M.Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program
to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 76, 1239-1252.
Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Pintrich, P.R., Cross, D.R., Kozma, R.B., & McKeachie, w.J. (1986). Instructional psychol-
ogy. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 611-651.
Ringel, B.A., & Springer, C.l (1980). On knowing how well one is remembering: The persis-
tence of strategy use during transfer. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 29, 322-
333.
Rosenthal, T.L., & Zimmerman, B.l (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Rotter, lB. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforce-
ment. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609).
Ruble, D.N. (1983). The development of social-comparison processes and their role in
achievement-related self-socialization. In E.T. Higgins, D.N. Ruble, & W.W. Hartup
(Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 134-157). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ruble, D.N., Boggiano, A.K., Feldman, N.S., & Loebl, lH. (1980). Developmental analysis
of the role of social comparison in self-evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 16, 105-
115.
Ruble, D.N., Feldman, N.S., & Boggiano, A.K. (1976). Social comparison between young
children in achievement situations. Developmental Psychology, 12, 191-197.
Ruble, D.N., & Flett, G.L. (1988). Conflicting goals in self-evaluative information seeking:
Developmental and ability level analyses. Child Development, 59, 97-106.
Sagotsky, G., Patterson, C.l, & Lepper, M.R. (1978). Training children's self-control: A field
experiment in self-monitoring and goal-setting in the classroom. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 25, 242-253.
Schunk, D.H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-
efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.
Schunk, D.H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children's perceived self-
efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548-556.
Schunk, D.H. (1983a). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848-856.
Schunk, D.H. (1983b). Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social
comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8,
76-86.
Schunk, D.H. (1983c). Goal difficulty and attainment information: Effects on children's
achievement behaviors. Human Learning, 2, 107-117.
Schunk, D.H. (1983d). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children's self-efficacy and
achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 89-93.
Schunk, D.H. (1983e). Reward contingencies and the development of children's skills and
self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,511-518.
Schunk, D.H. (1984a). Enhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards and goals:
Motivational and informational effects. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 29-34.
Schunk, D.H. (1984b). Sequential attributional feedback and children's achievement behav-
iors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1159-1169.
llO D.H. Schunk
Schunk, D.H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self-efficacy and skills oflearn-
ing disabled children. Journal of Special Education, 19,307-317.
Schunk, D.H. (1986). Verbalization and children's self-regulated learning. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 11,347-369.
Schunk, D.H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational
Research, 57, 149-174.
Schunk D.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 13-44). Orlando: Academic Press.
Schunk, D.H., & Cox, P.D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning
disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,201-209.
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children's self-efficacy and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,313-322.
Schunk, D.H., Hanson, A.R., & Cox, P.D. (1987). Peer model attributes and children's
achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, l M. (1984). Strategy self-verbalization during remedial listening
comprehension instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 49-54.
Schunk, D.H., & Rice, lM. (1985). Verbalization of comprehension strategies: Effects on
children's achievement outcomes. Human Learning, 4, l-lO.
Schunk, D.H., & Rice, lM. (1987). Enhancing comprehension skill and self-efficacy with
strategy value information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19,285-302.
Shepard, R. (1978). The mental image. American Psychologist, 33, 125-137.
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Suls, l, & Sanders, G.S. (1982). Self-evaluation through social comparison: A developmen-
tal analysis. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review ofpersonality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp.
171-197). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Thelen, M.H., Fry, R.A., Fehrenbach, P.A., & Frautschi, N.M. (1979). Therapeutic video-
tape and film modeling: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 701-720.
Veroff, 1. (1969). Social comparison and the development of achievement motivation. In C. P.
Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related motives in children (pp. 46-101). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal ofEduca-
tional Psychology, 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psycho-
logical Review, 92, 548-573.
Winne, P.H. (1985). Cognitive processing in the classroom. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 2, pp. 795-808). Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
Zimmerman, B.l (1977). Modeling. In H. Hom & P. Robinson (Eds.), Psychological
processes in children's early education (pp. 37-70). New York: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B.l (1985). The development of "intrinsic" motivation: A social learning
analysis. Annals of Child Development, 2,117-160.
Zimmerman, B.l (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key sub-
processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-313.
Zimmerman, B.l, & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements of confi-
dence on children's self-efficacy and problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,
73, 485-493.

Schunc, 1989

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schunc, 1989

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

Social Cognitive Theory and

B. J. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement

FIGURE 4-1. Human functioning as reciprocal interactions between behaviors, environmen-

Bandura's (1986) social-cognitive learning theory views human functioning as

scious deliberation. Students' behaviors often alter the instructional environment. If

ENACfIVE AND VICARIOUS LEARNING

Learning is a change in behavior or behavioral potential brought about by interven-

LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE

Social-cognitive theory distinguishes between learning and performance of previ-

Observational learning through modeling is hypothesized to comprise four sub-

Vicarious consequences convey information to observers about the functional value

The motivational effects of vicarious consequences theoretically depend in part on

Subprocesses of Self-Regulated Learning

STUDENT BELIEFS SELF-REGULATORY PROCESSES

FIGURE 4-2. Social-cognitive model of self-regulated learning.

CRITERIA FOR AsSESSMENT

Self-observation is aided with the use of self-recording, where instances of the

The self-judgment subprocess refers to comparing present performance level with

ABSOLUTE AND NORMATIVE STANDARDS

Learning goals may be cast as absolute or normative standards. Absolute standards

IMPORTANCE OF GOAL ATTAINMENT

Self-judgments are affected by the importance of goal attainment. When individuals

Attributions, or perceived causes of outcomes (successes, failures), can influence

Self-reactions to goal progress exert motivational effects on behavior (Bandura,

An important means of acquiring self-evaluative standards is through observation of

model's problem-solving behaviors and verbalizations matched those of the mast-

Rewarding consequences inform and motivate (Bandura, 1986). As students work at

Schunk (1983e) provided elementary-school children with division instruction

Implications for Development and Acquisition

Children's abilities to learn from models depend on developmental factors (Bandura,

The ability to use comparative information effectively depends on higher levels of

Developmental considerations impact goal-setting and self-evaluative capabilities.

Important developmental changes occur in children's attributions (Frieze, 1980;

Acquisition of Self-Regulatory Skills

Strategy Instruction in the Classroom

linked children's improved performances with use of the comprehension strategy. In

Following this modeled demonstration, the trainer instructs children to repeat

In this chapter I have attempted to demonstrate that social-cognitive principles are

You might also like