Self-Regulated-Learningin English Language Instruction - Walaa M. El-Henawy - El-Sayed M. Dadour

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/274311342
Self-Regulated Learning in English Language Instruction
Conference Paper · March 2010
CITATIONS READS
2 8,191
4 authors, including:
Walaa M. El-Henawy El Sayed Mohamad Dadour

Port Said University Damietta University
26 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Classroom Communication View project
Self-Regulated Learning View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Walaa M. El-Henawy on 17 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The First International Conference, College of Education, Port Said University (27-28), March, 2010
"Quality and Accreditation Standards in Open Education in Egypt and the Arab World" pp. 825-851
Self-Regulated Learning in English Language Instruction

Walaa M. El-Henawy
Assistant Lecturer at the dept. of Curriculum& Instruction (EFL),
Port-Said Faculty of Education
Dr. El-Sayed M. Dadour
Professor of Curriculum& Instruction (EFL),Vice Dean for Higher Studies & Research,
Damietta Faculty of Education, Mansoura University
Dr. Mohamed M. Salem
Professor of Curriculum& Instruction, Faculty of Education, Port-Said University
Dr. Jehan M. El-Bassuony
Lecturer of Curriculum& Instruction (EFL), Faculty of Education, Port-Said University
Abstract:
Self-regulated learning is an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their
learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior,
guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment. This paper
addresses self-regulated learning strategies. The purpose of this paper is to review recent research on
self-regulated learning and discuss the implications of this research for language instruction. The
discussion presents definition of self-regulated learning, characteristics of self-regulated learner, and
common self-regulated learning strategies. Also, it discusses the theoretical models, phases and
processes of self-regulation. Further, the paper focuses on instructional models for improving self-
regulation. In addition, the factors influencing success of self-regulated learning strategy use are
mentioned. Also, these aspects of self-regulation were related to current practices in language
instruction, especially reading and writing.
Introduction:
Self-regulated learning concerns the application of general models of regulation and
self-regulation to issues of learning, in particular, academic learning that takes places in
school or classroom contexts. There are a number of different models of self-regulated
learning that propose different constructs and different conceptualizations, but all of
these models share some general assumptions and features. The purpose of this paper is
to present a general framework for academic self-regulated learning.
Research investigating how to develop academic and self-regulation strategies of
students with disabilities and other average learners has received increasing emphasis
since the 1980s; it has become a major area of research in general and special education.
Self-regulation is central to understanding learning processes in the classroom and
research into its dynamics and outcomes has potential implications for creating optimal
learning environments. Contemporary self-regulated learning theory focuses on the
transition from dependent to autonomous learner. Self-regulated learning is
825
characterized as an intermediate construct describing the ways in which individuals

regulate their own cognitive processes, motivation, and behavior within an educational
setting. Self-regulatory strategies and processes are significant in that educators need to
take them into account when designing instruction that supports or promotes self-
regulation. Instructional principles that can be used to support self-regulation in courses
are therefore identified and discussed. This paper intends to prompt educators and
researchers to think more carefully about the infusion of SRL with other instructional
strategies.
Definition of Self-Regulated Learning:

Berger, Kofman, Livneh and Henik (2007, P.257) point out that the concept of self-
regulation has received many different definitions within the literature, depending on the
different theoretical perspectives under which it has been studied. The broader
definition, as they argue, would be that self-regulation refers to "the ability to monitor
and modulate cognition, emotion and behavior, to accomplish one’s goal and/or to adapt
to the cognitive and social demands of specific situations." This definition above does
not refer to a single process, but to a group of monitoring mechanisms underlying the
ability to self-regulate. Self-regulation of emotion can be distinguished from self-
regulation of cognition, which might or might not include regulation of overt behavior.
According to Zimmerman (2002, p.65), self-regulation "is not a mental ability or an
academic performance skill; rather it is the self-directive process by which learners
transform their mental abilities into academic skills". Learning is viewed as an activity
that students do for themselves in a proactive way rather than as a covert event that
happens to them in reaction to teaching. Self-regulation refers to self-generated
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are oriented to attaining goals.
In addition, Wolters, Pintrich and Karabenick (2003, p.2) define self-regulated
learning as "an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning
and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and
behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the
environment". From this point of view, Nückles, Hübner and Renkl (2009, p.259) affirm
that Self-regulated learning is the ability to control and influence one’s learning
processes positively. The learners take personal initiative, apply powerful strategies to
attain individually valued learning goals and monitor their understanding in order to
detect and eliminate possible comprehension problems.
826
Zimmerman (2002, p.66) stressed the following three characteristics of self-

regulated learning:
 First, self-regulation of learning involves more than detailed knowledge of a skill; it
involves the self-awareness, self-motivation, and behavioral skill to implement that
knowledge appropriately. For example, experts differ from non-experts in their
application of knowledge at crucial times during learning performances, such as
correcting specific deficiencies in technique.
 Second, self-regulation of learning is not a single personal trait that individual
students either possess or lack. Instead, it involves the selective use of specific
processes that must be personally adapted to each learning task. The component
skills include: (a) setting specific proximal goals for oneself, (b) adopting powerful
strategies for attaining the goals, (c) monitoring one's performance selectively for
signs of progress, (d) restructuring one's physical and social context to make it
compatible with one's goals, (e) managing one's time use efficiently, (f) self-
evaluating one's methods, (g) attributing causation to results, and (h) adapting
future methods. A students' level of learning has been found to vary based on the
presence or absence of these key self-regulatory processes.
 Third, the self-motivated quality of self-regulated learners depends on several
underlying beliefs, including perceived efficacy and intrinsic interest.
Furthermore, Zimmerman (2002, p.69) states that contrary to a commonly held
belief, self-regulated learning is not asocial in nature and origin. Each self-regulatory
process or belief, such as goal setting, strategy use, and self-evaluation, can be learned
from instruction and modeling by parents, teachers, coaches, and peers. In fact, self-
regulated students seek out help from others to improve their learning. What defines
them as "self-regulated" is not their reliance on socially isolated methods of learning, but
rather their personal initiative, perseverance, and adoptive skill. Self-regulated students
focus on how they activate, alter, and sustain specific learning practices in social as well
as solitary contexts.
Characteristics of Self-Regulated Leaner:

Harris, Santangelo and Graham (2008, P.397-398) point out that self-regulation
assumes a prominent position in contemporary models of teaching and learning, and is a
major focus in the new learning environments approach. Students who are self-regulated
actively participate in their own learning, rather than relying solely on teachers, parents,
or other external change agents to impart knowledge. Self-regulated learners are
described as self-starters who persist on instructional tasks, prevail over problems, and
react appropriately to task performance outcomes. In contrast, students who lack self-
regulation are self-handicapping typically have low efficacy for learning, avoid failure
827
and damage to self-esteem by seeking easy tasks, procrastinating, or avoiding work all
together. They more likely to exhibit impulsive behavior, set lower academic goals,
inaccurately assess their abilities, engage in self-criticism, experience limited academic
success, and give up easily. Difficulties with self-regulation can significantly and
negatively effect students’ emotional well being, self-esteem, and motivation.
The specific characteristics most often attributed to self-regulated learners concern
their motivational beliefs or attitudes, their cognitive strategy use, and their
metacognitive abilities (Wolters, 2003a, p.189). First, self-regulated learners possess a
great deal of knowledge or skill concerning various cognitive strategies that, when used
properly, increase students’ learning. Second, self-regulated learners are metacognitively
skilled; they are knowledgeable about the thinking and learning process and have the
strategies to monitor and control important aspects of their learning behavior. Finally,
these students exhibit an array of adaptive motivational beliefs and attitudes that include
high levels of self-efficacy and an orientation toward mastery goals. Together, this
constellation of beliefs, knowledge, and skills allows self- regulated learners to be
independent students who actively manage their own learning across a variety of
academic contexts (Wolters, 2003b, p.179).
According to Zimmerman (2002, p.66), self-regulated learners are proactive in their
efforts to learn because they are aware of their strengths and limitations and because
they are guided by personally set goals and task -related strategies, such as using an
arithmetic addition strategy to check the accuracy of solutions to subtraction problems.
These learners monitor their behavior in terms of their goals and self-reflect on their
increasing effectiveness. This enhances their self-satisfaction and motivation to continue
to improve their methods of learning. Because of their superior motivation and adaptive
learning methods, self-regulated students are not only more likely to succeed
academically but to view their futures optimistically.
Self-regulated learners engage recursively in a cycle of cognitive activities as they
work through a given task. To begin, self-regulated learners analyze task demands
(Butler, 2002, p.82). Self-regulated learners set task specific goals, which they use as a
basis for selecting, adapting, or even inventing appropriate strategies to accomplish their
objectives (Butler, 1996, p.2). Once self-regulated learners implement strategies, they
monitor outcomes associated with strategy use. Effective learners self-evaluate by
comparing progress against task criteria to generate judgments about how they are
doing. If they perceive gaps between desired and actual performance, they adjust
learning activities accordingly. Effective learners also interpret externally provided
feedback (e.g., marks on tests, teacher or peer comments on writing) as they self-
evaluate performance. They use feedback strategically to diagnose challenges. As with
task analysis, monitoring is critical to effective self-regulation. This is because, during
828
monitoring, students generate judgments about progress and make decisions that shape
further learning activities (Butler, 2002, p.82). In sum, self-regulated learners actively
manage their learning activities as they engage with a task, flexibly adapting their
approaches as required. Further, self-regulated learners also adaptively employ
motivation and volition control strategies to keep themselves on task when they become
discouraged or encounter an obstacle (Butler, 1996, p.2).
Self-Regulated Learning Strategies:

In regards to self-regulated learning strategies, students can become active learners
using their own learning process metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally.
Metacognitively, students can perform such activities as planning, organizing, self-
instructing, and self-evaluating. Motivationally, students view themselves as being
motivated intrinsically, practice self-efficacy, and have some control over their ability to
complete learning tasks. Behaviorally, students set up controlled structures and create
social structures that lead to successful learning (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988, p.
284).
Ruban and Reis (2006, p.149) point out that a major component of academic self-
regulation is self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies, defined by Zimmerman (1989,
p.329) as “actions and processes directed at acquiring information or skills that involve
agency, purpose, and instrumentality perceptions by the learners”. Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1986, 1988) develop and validate a structured interview for assessing
students' use of self-regulated learning strategies in naturalistic settings. Using
interviews with high school students, found evidence for 14 types of self-regulated
learning strategies. Olaussen and Braten (1999, p. 412) state that although SRL
Interview Schedule was originally developed with high school students, the instrument
has also been used effectively with college students. Moreover, students’ use of these
strategies was highly correlated with their achievement and with teachers’ ratings of
their self-regulation in a classroom setting.
The self-regulated learning strategies described by Zimmerman (1989) encompass
three classes of strategies that all students use to improve self-regulation of their (a)
personal functioning; (b) academic behavioral performance; and (c) learning
environment. Zimmerman (1989, p.334) explained that, for example, students use
organizing and transforming strategies (i.e., rearrangement of instructional materials to
enhance learning) and goal-setting and planning strategies (i.e., setting educational goals
and sub-goals and planning, timing, sequencing, and completing goals) to optimize their
personal self-regulation. Furthermore, learners employ strategies of self-evaluating (i.e.,
evaluation of the quality or progress of their own work) and self-consequating (i.e.,
rewarding oneself for good work) to enhance their behavioral regulation. Additional
829
strategies include seeking social assistance (e.g., seeking help from peers, teachers, and
other adults), seeking information (e.g., doing research in the library), and keeping
records (e.g., keeping a list of misspelled words) in order to optimize learning.
Models, Phases, and processes of Self-Regulated Learning:

Multiple theoretical perspectives have informed research on the development of
self-regulation and strategic performance, resulting in numerous intervention models
(Zito, Adkins, Gavins, Harris, & Graham, 2007, p.77). Accordingly, there exist several
different models of self-regulated learning that have been developed over the past two
decades (Puustinen, & Pulkkinen, 2001, p.269). Among these models are Biggs' Model
of Metalearning, Boekaerts’ Model of Adaptable Learning, Borkowski’s Process-
oriented Model of Metacognition, Winne and Hadwin's Four Stage Model of Self-
Regulated Learning, Pintrich's general framework for self-regulated learning, and
Zimmerman's social cognitive view of academic self-regulation. Each of these models is
outlined briefly below.
1. Biggs' Model of Metalearning
In his model of metalearning (then classified as a sophisticated form of
metacognition), Biggs (1978, 1985) suggests that effective learning requires that
students are aware of the task demands and that they exert control over their cognitive
resources to meet these task demands. Biggs' three-stage model suggests three sets of
factors that characterize students' learning: presage factors, process factors, and product
variables. According to the model, the presage factors include personal factors such as
prior knowledge, as well as situational factors such as teaching method, task demands
and assessment demands. The process factors include such factors as motives, and the
cognitive learning strategies used by the learner. The product variables in Biggs' model
include factors such as performance on exams and recall. It should be noted that it is
likely that more contemporary research would classify Biggs' model of "metalearning"
as a model of self-regulated learning (Ross, Salisbury-Glennon, Guarino, Reed, &
Marshall, 2003, p.192).
2. Boekaerts’ Model of Adaptable Learning
Boekaerts' model of self-regulated learning is characterized as an interaction of
cognitive, metacognitive and motivational processes, which work together during
information processing. Boekaerts’ model illustrates the relationship between these three
categories of strategies: the first level consists of cognitive strategies, which refer
directly to information processing. The second level relates to the use of metacognitive
strategies aiming at the regulation of the learning process. The third level illustrates the
maintenance of motivation, which is characterized by the willingness of independent
830
goal setting, self-activation, as well as adaptive coping with success and failure
(Dignath, Buettner, & Langfeldt, 2008, pp.103-104)
Puustinen and Pulkkinen (2001, pp.270-271) mention that Boekaerts (1992, 1995,
1996) developed a model of adaptable learning in the classroom, affording appraisal a
central role in the SRL process. Appraisals were considered to be unique and they were
assumed to direct students’ behavior in the classroom. Boekaerts emphasizes the
following characteristics of SRL: (a) the non-unitary character of the SRL process as
SRL is assumed to necessitate interaction between diverse (e.g. metacognitive,
motivational and emotional) control systems; (b) another aspect of importance is the
distinction between optimal and non-optimal conditions for SRL to occur; (c) SRL does
not necessarily proceed in a linear way through the different phases of the model,
students may backtrack to a previous phase or they may bypass phases. Recently,
Boekaerts and Niemivirta in 2000 put forward an extended and refined version of the
model of adaptable learning which is centered round goal processes.
Furthermore, Boekaerts (2002; cited in Ainley, & Patrick, 2006, p.268) has argued
that the key to understanding both the dynamics of self –regulated learning and how to
create classroom environments that promote self-regulation, is to appreciate that self-
regulation is about aptitude and about outcome. Aptitude involves making personal
meaning by establishing connections between personal goals and the demands of
achievement tasks as they are presented in context. Students connect with tasks that are
perceived to be of value to them. Outcome is about the activation of scripts or action
sequences that serve personal goals, scripts that are extended and elaborated by the
learning process.
3. Borkowski’s Process-oriented Model of Metacognition
According to Borkowski, successful integration of cognitive, motivational,
personal and situational components underlies good information processing. Borkowski
integrated these characteristics into a process-oriented model of metacognition. The
most important individual element of the model is strategy selection and use. Links
between personal and motivational variables and self-regulation form the focus of
Borkowski’s model. Furthermore, Borkowski's model (1992, 1996) studies factors of
successes and failures encountered in strategy generalization. Borkowski argues that
successful generalization of previously learned skills and knowledge is based on these
elements; self-regulation, or executive functioning, activates the cognitive system and
allows strategic behavior to occur, whereas motivational factors and attributions provoke
self-regulation in new and challenging situations. In addition, contextual factors such as
parents, teachers and the learning environments created by them, as well as social
collaboration with peers, are judged to be important in developing flexible, adaptive
learning (Puustinen, & Pulkkinen, 2001, pp. 272-273).
831
4. Winne and Hadwin’s Four-stage Model of Self-regulated Learning

Puustinen and Pulkkinen (2001, p.276) mention that according to Winne and
Hadwin's model, SRL is defined as metacognitively guided behavior enabling students
to adaptively regulate their use of cognitive tactics and strategies in the face of a task.
Winne and Hadwin's model of SRL includes four distinct stages: (1) task definition, is
characterized by the perceptions that students generate about the task, (2) goal setting
and planning, (3) enacting tactics and strategies planned in stage two, (4)
metacognitively adapting studying techniques for the future (Steffens, 2006, P.355).
Each stage, Puustinen and Pulkkinen (2001, p.277) argue, is supposed to share the same
general structure, referred to as the COPES (i.e. Conditions–Operations–Products–
Evaluations–Standards). Conditions include information about the task conditions and
cognitive conditions that influence how the task will be engaged. Operations are defined
as the cognitive processes, tactics and strategies students engage in when faced with a
task, and products refer to information created by operations in transforming conditions.
Products can be internal (e.g. the inference drawn from an attribution) or external (i.e.
observable behavior or performance). Evaluations consist of internal or external
feedback about the products. Finally, standards are the criteria against which the
products are monitored. Metacognitive monitoring is a central element in Winne’s
model, producing internal feedback about the discrepancy between products and
standards at each stage. That feedback further serves as a basis for future actions. The
model is described as recursive, in that the products of earlier stages are assumed to
update the conditions on which operations work during the next stage.
5. Pintrich’s General Framework for SRL
One of the major contributions Paul Pintrich made to the field of self-regulated
learning was the conceptual framework he formulated. Pintrich synthesizes the work of
a variety of self-regulation theorists into a general organizing framework. This
framework suggests that SRL is composed of four phases, namely forethought,
monitoring, control and reflection phases. For each phase, self-regulatory activities are
listed in four separate areas, including cognitive, motivational and affective, behavioral
and contextual areas. The framework is presented as a heuristic, since it is not supposed
that all academic learning necessarily involves explicit self-regulation (Puustinen, &
Pulkkinen 2001, p.274).
The four phases, Pintrich (2004, p.389) argues, do represent a general time-ordered
sequence that individuals would go through as they perform a task, but there is no strong
assumption that the phases are hierarchically or linearly structured such that earlier
phases must always occur before later phases. In most models of self-regulated learning,
monitoring, control, and reaction can occur simultaneously and dynamically as the
individual progresses through the task, with the goals and plans being changed or
832
updated on the basis of the feedback from the monitoring, control, and reaction
processes.
Pintrich (2004, pp.387-388) assures that his General Framework of SRL model
shares the following assumptions that are common to other models of self-regulation.
 One common assumption is the active, constructive assumption that follows from a
general cognitive perspective. Under a SRL perspective, learners are viewed as
active participants in the learning process. Learners are assumed to construct their
own meanings, goals, and strategies from the information available in the
“external” environment as well as information in their own minds (the “internal”
environment).
 A second assumption is the potential for control assumption. An SRL perspective
assumes that learners can potentially monitor, control, and regulate certain aspects
of their own cognition, motivation, and behavior as well as some features of their
environments. This assumption does not mean that individuals will or can monitor
and control their cognition, motivation, or behavior at all times or in all contexts.
 A third general assumption is the goal, criterion, or standard assumption. SRL
models of regulation assume that there is some type of goal, criterion, or standard
against which comparisons are made in order to assess whether the learning process
should continue or if some type of change is necessary.
 A fourth general assumption of a SRL perspective is that self-regulatory activities
are mediators between personal and contextual characteristics and actual
achievement or performance. That is, it is not just individuals’ characteristics that
influence achievement and learning directly, nor just the contextual characteristics
of the classroom environment that shape achievement, but the individuals’ self-
regulation of their cognition, motivation, and behavior that mediate the relations
between the person, context, and eventual achievement.
6. Zimmerman’s Social Cognitive Model of Self-regulation
Based on Bandura's triadic model, Zimmerman (1989) formulated a social
cognitive model of self-regulated learning that views self-regulation as the interaction of
personal, behavioral, and environmental processes. Further expanding on this triadic
model, Zimmerman (1998) asserts that from a social cognitive perspective, self-
regulatory processes occur through three phases: forethought, performance or volitional
control, and self-regulatory processes.
Zimmerman (2002, p. 67) points out that social learning psychologists view the
structure of self-regulatory processes in terms of three cyclical phases. Zimmerman
(1998) suggested a social cognitive model which was rich with respect to the processes
which are considered at each stage. According to this model, self-regulation is achieved
in cycles consisting of (1) forethought, (2) performance or volitional control, and (3)
833
self-reflection. The processes that have been studied in each phase are shown in Figure
1, and the function of each process will be described next.
 Forethought phase: It refers to processes and beliefs that occur before efforts to
learn. There are two major classes of forethought phase processes: task analysis and
self-motivation. Task analysis involves goal setting and strategic planning. There is
considerable evidence of increased academic success by learners who set specific
proximal goals for themselves. Self-motivation stems from students’ beliefs about
learning, such as self-efficacy beliefs about having the personal capability to learn
and outcome expectations about personal consequences of learning. Intrinsic
interest refers to the students’ valuing of the task skill for its own merits, and
learning goal orientation refers to valuing the process of learning for its own merits.
 Performance phase: It refers to processes that occur during behavioral
implementation. Performance phase processes fall into two major classes: self-
control and self-observation. Self-control refers to the deployment of specific
methods or strategies that were selected during the forethought phase. Among the
key types of self-control methods that have been studied to date are the use of
imagery, self-instruction, attention focusing, and task strategies. Self-observation
refers to self-recording personal events or self-experimentation to find out the cause
of these events. Self-monitoring, a covert form of self-observation, refers to one’s
cognitive tracking of personal functioning.
 Self-reflection phase: It refers to processes that occur after each learning effort.
There are two major classes of self-reflection phase processes: self-judgment and
self-reaction. One form of self-judgment, self-evaluation, refers to comparisons of
self-observed performances against some standard, such as one’s prior
performance, another person’s performance, or an absolute standard of
performance. Another form of self-judgment involves causal attribution, which
refers to beliefs about the cause of one’s errors or successes. One form of self-
reaction involves feelings of self-satisfaction and positive affect regarding one’s
performance. Increases in self-satisfaction enhance motivation, whereas decreases
in self-satisfaction undermine further efforts to learn. Self-reactions also take the
form of adaptive/ defensive responses. Defensive reactions refer to efforts to
protect one’s self-image by withdrawing or avoiding opportunities to learn and
perform. In contrast, adaptive reactions refer to adjustments designed to increase
the effectiveness of one’s method of learning. This view of self-regulation is
cyclical in that self-reflections from prior efforts to learn affect subsequent
forethought processes.
834
Figure 1. Phases and Subprocesses of Self-Regulation.

Source: Zimmerman (2002, p. 67)
In light of the growing evidence of the importance of self-regulatory processes in
studying to students' success in school, Schunk and Zimmerman (1998, cited in
Zimmerman, 1998, pp.82-84) developed a cyclical model of self-regulating academic
studying. This model (see Figure 2) is cyclical because self-monitoring on each learning
trial provides information that can change subsequent goals, strategies, or performance
efforts. The cyclical model of self-regulating academic studying includes the following
four steps:
 The first step of the cycle, self-evaluation and monitoring, occurs when students
determine the effectiveness of their current study methods.
 When the areas of deficiency are identified, students can consider the second step
in the cycle of self-regulation, goal setting and strategic planning. This involves
setting a specific learning goal for oneself and selecting an appropriate strategy to
attain it. The selection of an appropriate study strategy to attain the goal depends on
students' repertoire of existing strategies and on access to teachers or peers who can
describe a new strategy, demonstrate it, and explain its effectiveness.
835
 The third step in the cycle of self-regulated learning, strategy implementation and
monitoring occurs when students try to execute a study strategy in structured
contexts and monitor their accuracy in implementing it. Students need to focus on
performing all aspects of the strategy just like a skilled model would.
 The fourth step in self-regulation, strategic outcome monitoring, occurs when
students focus their attention on their studying outcomes in order to adapt their
strategy to achieve optimal effectiveness. The quality of strategic outcome
monitoring depends on one's routinization of the strategy, the specificity of one's
outcome goals, and one's strategy attributions.
Self-Evaluation and
Monitoring
Strategic Outcome
Monitoring Goal Setting and Strategic
Planning
Strategy
Implementation and
Monitoring
Figure (2): A cyclical model of self-regulated learning.

Source: Zimmerman (1998, p.83)
Self-Regulated Learning and Instructional Implications

Butler's Strategic Content Learning (SCL) Instructional Model
The development and implementation of instructional approaches that promote
self-regulated learning presents a significant challenge for all educators, particularly for
students with learning disabilities (Butler, Elaschuk, Poole, MacLeod, & Syer, 1997,
p.2). One instructional model designed to promote self-regulated learning and strategic
learning by students with learning disabilities is the Strategic Content Learning approach
(SCL).
Butler (2003b, p. 43) reveals that SCL evolved from earlier approaches to strategy
training (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Harris, & Pressley, 1991; Pressley, Brown,
Peggy, & Schuder, 1995; Pressley, & Wharton-McDonald, 1997). As such, SCL builds
836
on previous research and shares features with other instructional models, particularly
with self-regulation and mechanisms associated with transfer. In addition, Butler (1997,
p.6) points out that consistent with other strategy training models, (a) SCL aims to teach
students to engage recursively in the full set of activities central to self-regulation, (b)
also in SCL instruction is provided via interactive dialogues in the context of meaningful
work. At the same time, SCL differs from many instructional models in that explicit
instruction about pre-defined strategies is not directly provided. Instead, instructors use
comments or questions to guide students’ processing as they struggle to build strategies
for themselves. These comments or questions push students to examine presuppositions
and/or support students’ judgments at key decision making points (e.g., when figuring
out performance criteria, when setting goals, when identifying or selecting strategy
options, when self-evaluating progress, when adjusting approaches to tasks). In SCL
instructors rely “more on scaffolding and guiding or prompting than on explicit
modeling or discovery alone”.
Strategic Content Learning (SCL) is an empirically validated instructional model
designed to promote self-regulated learning (Butler, 2002, pp. 83-86). Butler (1999, p.4)
points out that SCL instruction has been provided as an adjunct to regular classroom
instruction in postsecondary settings. SCL was implemented as a model for
individualized tutoring by learning specialists, counselors, or teachers, as a model for
peer tutor training, and within small group discussions as part of a study skills course
(e.g. Butler, 1995; Butler, 1998; Butler, Elaschuk, Poole, MacLeod, & Syer, 1997).
Across these studies, participants were students enrolled in colleges or universities. SCL
intervention, as stated by Butler (1999, p.14), has been associated with improvements in
students’ task performance, metacognitive knowledge about tasks, strategies, and self-
monitoring, perceptions of self-efficacy, and patterns of attributions. Students have
developed personalized strategies that address their individual needs. Students also have
been observed to take an active role in strategy development and to transfer strategic
performance across contexts and across tasks.
SCL is a promising intervention model for supporting students’ development of
self-regulation, at least in one to one instruction with adult students (Butler & Kamann,
1996, p.16). At the secondary level, SCL has been adapted to foster self-regulated
writing in English classrooms (Butler, 1999a). Also, Butler, Cartier, Schnellert and
Gagnon (2006, p.4) reported the efficacy of SCL in enhancing students’ engagement in
learning through reading (LTR) activities. Furthermore, SCL has been adapted to
promote teachers’ self-regulated learning in collaborative professional development
projects (Butler, 2003a).In sum, as stated by Butler (2003b, p. 46), the main hypothesis
in the SCL theoretical model, is that sociocultural and individual forces interact to shape
837
students’ construction of self-regulated approaches to academic work, metacognitive

knowledge, and motivational beliefs.
Harris and Graham's Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)
Starting in the 1980s, Harris and Graham began investigating the effectiveness of
an instructional approach they initially called self-instructional strategy training. They
later changed the name to self-regulated strategy development to capture the emphasis
their instruction placed on students’ development of self-regulatory skills. SRSD
involves explicitly teaching students strategies for accomplishing specific tasks.
Students further learn to use a variety of self-regulation procedures (self-instructions,
goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement) to enhance motivation and regulate
their use of the target strategies, the task, and their behavior during learning.
(Lienemann, Graham, Leader-Janssen, & Reid, 2006, p.67; Luke, 2006, p.6).
The primary focus of SRSD is teaching students strategies for successfully
completing an academic task. SRSD is based on the belief that the development of self-
regulation processes is an important part of learning and maturing and that self-
regulatory mechanisms can be fostered and improved through instruction (Saddler,
2006, p.292). Moreover, SRSD is designed to help students become fluent, independent,
self-regulated, goal-oriented learners (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Saddler, 2002, p.111).
SRSD instruction addresses three major goals. First, help students develop higher-level
cognitive processes that are involved in academic performance. Second, help students
develop powerful self-regulation strategies to monitor and manage their academic
performance. Third, help students develop positive attitudes about learning and
themselves as students (Zito, Adkins, Gavins, Harris, & Graham, 2007, p.80).
Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model is not a strategy, but rather is a
guide for strategy instruction. Put simply, it helps a teacher teach a strategy. Using a
model insures that a teacher will follow all the steps needed for students to successfully
master a strategy and thus can derive maximum benefit from the strategy (Jacobson, &
Reid, 2007, p.2). SRSD is one instructional approach that combines explicit instruction
in self-regulation procedures with strategy instruction. SRSD supports students’
cognitive, affective, and behavioral strengths and needs by providing focused,
structured, explicit, and individualized instruction (Mason, & Shriner, 2008, p.74).
Harris, Graham, & Mason (2003, p.5-8) illustrate that the SRSD instructional
framework includes six stages that guide students’ acquisition and application of task
strategy and the corresponding self-regulation procedures. Four basic components of
self-regulation—self-instruction, goal setting, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement—can
be combined or used individually to help students in the development of strategy
acquisition and usage. The SRSD stages provide a general format and guidelines. These
838
stages can be reordered, combined, revisited, modified, or deleted to meet student and
teacher needs. Further, the stages are meant to be recursive—if a concept or component
is not mastered at a certain stage, students and teachers can revisit or continue that stage
as they move on to others. Some stages may not be needed by all students. The SRSD
stages are explained below.
Stage one: Develop background knowledge.
The focus during the introductory stage is on ensuring that students have the
knowledge and skills to successfully understand, learn, and apply the strategy and self-
regulation techniques. Underlying this goal is the teacher’s ability to identify and assess
these prerequisites.
Stage two: Discuss it.
During the beginning of this stage, the teacher and students examine and discuss
current performance, any existing strategies being used, and students’ perceptions of the
target skill. Next, the new strategy is introduced and its purpose, benefit, and use are
explored. Students are then asked to make a commitment to learn the strategy and act as
collaborative partners in this endeavor. Throughout this stage, special attention should
be given to examining students’ maladaptive beliefs and behaviors and ways to reverse
those negative effects should be introduced. This is also the perfect time to introduce the
concept of progress monitoring and begin discussing the techniques that will be used to
evaluate the strategy.
Stage three: Model it.
This stage focuses on demonstrating how to effectively use the strategy and
accompanying self-regulation procedures. “Think-aloud” techniques and visual aids
have been found to enhance the modeling process. In this stage teacher should introduce
some self-regulation techniques such as goal setting, self-instruction, self-reinforcement,
and self-monitoring should be introduced.
Stage four: Memorize it.
During this stage, students memorize the steps of the strategy, relevant mnemonic
devices, and their personalized self-statements. If necessary, instructional aids may be
used to help students memorize the strategy and self-regulation procedures (e.g., a poster
with the strategy steps or index cards that list self-statements).
Stage five: Support it.
During this stage, students practice using the new strategy and self-regulatory
techniques that were introduced (e.g., progress monitoring, goal setting, self-statements,
and self-instructions). To meet the needs of individual students, teachers should offer
scaffolded assistance (e.g., remodeling, reminders to use self-regulation techniques,
additional opportunities to practice and receive corrective feedback, or extra positive
839
reinforcement and praise). During this stage, students should be encouraged to work
cooperatively, because peer support is a helpful way to initially learn and apply a
strategy.
Stage six: Independent performance.
During this stage, students independently use the writing strategy. After students
demonstrate they can consistently use the strategy and self-regulation techniques, the
teacher can consider whether it is appropriate to fade the use of goal-setting and progress
monitoring processes.
SRSD has been used in several academic areas, including math and reading, and
has been applied to homework completion and organization. The majority of research,
however, has focused on writing instruction (Harris, Santangelo, & Graham, 2008,
P.397). The Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model (SRSD) was originally
designed for teaching students with learning disabilities to write, but has since been
utilized for a number of different populations for reading (Mason, Meadan, Hedin, &
Corso, 2006; Nelson, & Manset-Williamson, 2006) and math (Case, Harris, & Graham,
1992; Montague, 2008), as well as writing (Tracy, Graham, & Robert, 2009; Lane,
Harris, Graham, Weisenbach, Brindle, & Morphy, 2008; Lienemann, & Reid, 2008;
Mason, & Shriner, 2008; Santangelo, Harris, & Graham, 2008; Harris, Graham, &
Mason, 2006; Saddler, 2006), with great success. SRSD has been empirically validated
in several studies implemented in small groups and whole classrooms, and in one-to-one
tutoring sessions by pre-service and in-service teachers.
Self-Regulation and Language Instruction

Self-Regulation and Writing:
Becoming a skilled writer involves more than knowledge of vocabulary and
grammar, it depends on high levels of personal regulation because writing activities are
usually self-planned, self-initiated, and self-sustained (Zimmerman & Riesemberg,
1997). In addition, Graham and Harris (2000, pp.3-4) argued that skilled writing is
commonly viewed as a difficult and demanding task, requiring extensive self-regulation
and attentional control to manage the writing environment, the constraints imposed by
the writing topic, and the processes involved in composing. These assumptions are
reflected in the prominent position that self-regulation is assigned in the writing process.
According to Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997, p.76-77), Self-regulation of writing
refers to "self-initiated thoughts, feelings, and actions that writers use to attain various
literary goals, including improving their writing skills as well as enhancing the quality of
the text they create".
840
A number of studies have examined the impact of SRSD on writing in the areas of
text length and overall quality. Graham and Harris conducting a large body of research
in the use of SRSD showed that students who received self-regulation instruction
showed significant gains in writing quality. Throughout SRSD instruction, students are
supported in the development of attributions for effort and the use of powerful writing
strategies, knowledge of writing genres, self-efficacy, and high levels of engagement.
SRSD has proven to be a versatile approach for improving writing motivational aspects,
as it influences writing self-efficacy and writing course attainment (Zimmerman &
Bandura, 1994).
SRSD has proven to be a versatile approach for improving writing, as it has
improved the writing performance of students with learning disabilities (e.g., Chalk,
Hagan-Burke & Burke, 2005; Saddler, 2006), students with attention deficit
hyperactivity and behavioral disorders (e.g., De La Paz, 2001b; Lane, Harris, Graham &
Weisenbach, 2006; Reid & Lienemann, 2006b; Delano, 2007a; Delano, 2007b; Lane,
Harris, Graham, Weisenbach, Brindle & Morphy, 2008; Mason& Shriner, 2008),
struggling writers without an identified disability (Harris, Graham & Mason, 2006;
Helsel & Greenberg, 2007), at-risk writers including students with and without
disabilities (De La Paz, 1999b; Lienemann, Graham, Leader-Janssen & Reid, 2006), and
regularly achieving writers (De La Paz & Graham, 2002; Tracy, Graham & Robert,
2009). That SRSD improves the writing of both normally achieving students as well as
students with LD makes it a good fit for inclusive classrooms.
There has been SRSD research with respect to a variety of genres, including
personal narratives, story writing (Saddler, 2006), persuasive essays (Harris, Graham &
Mason, 2002), report writing, expository essays (Lienemann & Reid, 2008), academic
writing (Hammann, 2005) and writing tests (De La Paz, Owen, Harris & Graham, 2000).
Furthermore, SRSD produces significant and meaningful improvements in students’
development of planning and revising strategies, including brainstorming, self-
monitoring, reading for information and semantic webbing, generating and organizing
writing content, advanced planning and dictation, revising with peers, and revising for
both substance and mechanics (Graham & Harris, 2003). In addition, SRSD has resulted
in improvements in four main aspects of students’ performance: quality of writing;
knowledge of writing; approach to writing; and self-efficacy, effort, or motivation
(García-Sấnchez & Fidalgo-Redondo, 2006; Harris, Graham & Mason, 2006). Across a
variety of strategies and genres, the quality, length, and structure of students’
compositions have improved. Depending on the strategy taught, improvements have
been documented in planning, revising, content, and mechanics.
841
Self-Regulation and Reading:

Research on the implementation of reading strategies suggests that self-regulated
learning might be a powerful framework to optimize effects on reading comprehension.
Dasinger (2002) assured the role of instructional scaffolding and the development of
self-regulated reading strategies of at-risk first graders in a reading recover program.
Using a multiple probe across participants design, Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, and
Kedem (2006) examine the expository comprehension and informative writing
performance of 9 fourth-grade low-achieving students, 4 with disabilities and 5 without
disabilities, following Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction for
TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think After reading) and PLANS
(Pick goals, List ways to meet goals. And, make Notes and Sequence notes). Student
performance, as measured by oral and written retells, improved and was maintained
following instruction. Students also liked the strategies as well as instruction, and
believed that TWA + PLANS improved their reading and writing.
Additional support for the use of self-regulatory procedures for students with
reading difficulties was reported in study conducted by Nelson, & Manset-Williamson
(2006). The study compared a reading intervention that consisted of explicit, self-
regulatory strategy instruction to a strategy intervention that was less explicit to
determine the impact on the reading self-efficacy, and attributions of students with
reading disabilities (RD). Participants included 20 students with RD who were entering
grades 4-8. Results showed that those receiving the explicit, self-regulatory strategy
intervention showed greater gains in their attributions to incorrect strategy usage for
reading failure than participants in the less explicit intervention.
Self-Regulated Learning in the EFL/ESL Context:
Regarding self-regulated learning in the context of EFL, although the term is rarely
mentioned, Ruan (2005, p.175-6) points out that research on composing within the
cognitive framework suggests that the composing processes of skilled writers involve
extensive self-regulation and metacognitive control. However, this self-regulatory
dimension of writing has been little recognized in L2 writing research and pedagogy,
which traditionally pay more attention to the development of student writers’ linguistic
competence than to the growth of mature composing processes. Recently, Mourad
(2009) examined the effectiveness of a SRSD-based program on the development of
writing skills among EFL writing-disabled first year secondary school students in Kafr
El-Sheik. Students received 3 training sessions a week, lasting between 40 and 45
minutes. Results revealed that SRSD was effective in improving the writing
performance of students. The study suggested that teachers should adopt a model (such
as the SRSD) that suits students' interests and challenges their abilities with its various
modalities.
842
Also, Ammar (2004) investigated the effects of a suggested SRR-based program on

the prospective EFL teachers’ critical reading skills and reading motivation. The sample
of the study involved 81 third-year EFL students at Sohag Faculty of Education.
Findings of the study indicated that students’ self-regulation of their EFL reading
resulted in significant gains in their critical reading skills as well as in their motivation
to read in English as a foreign language compared to the traditional reading instruction
practices. In addition, Koehler (2007) conducted a study which used a qualitative
classroom-based research method. The sample of the study involved 8 ESL secondary
students who are described as high intermediate or advanced proficiency level English
speakers. The study revealed that the integration of self-regulated learning strategies
instruction for reading in ESL secondary curriculum raised students’ awareness of their
self-efficacy.
Features of Educational Contexts that Promote SRL

Paris and Paris (2001, p.97-8) and Perry, Hutchinson and Thauberger (2007, p.28),
agreed that there are some features of teaching and learning contexts that promote self-
regulated learning. Each of these essential characteristics will be briefly discussed.
1. Students and teacher function as a community of learners. The teaching and
learning context is positive and encouraging. Students respect one another and take
responsibility for their learning and behavior. Sharing and using ideas and strategies are
considered effective tactics for learning, and there is broad acceptance of and support for
individuals’ strengths and challenges.
2. Students and teacher are engaged in complex, cognitively demanding activities.
Complex tasks address multiple goals, integrate reading and writing processes, carry on
over multiple reading and writing periods, and result in the production of extended
discourse. These tasks require students to think metacognitively and act strategically.
3. Increasingly, students take control of learning by making choices, controlling
challenge, and evaluating their work. Having choices and opportunities to control the
degree of challenge posed by particular tasks increases students’ interest in and
commitment to tasks. They are more likely to persist when difficulties arise. Self-
evaluation promotes awareness of the qualities of good reading and writing and provides
opportunities for learners to analyze and align their behaviors with those good models.
4. Evaluation is non-threatening. It is embedded in ongoing activities, emphasizes
processes as well as products, focuses on personal progress, and encourages students to
view errors as opportunities to learn. Students are involved in generating evaluation
criteria and, therefore, sense they have control over outcomes.
5. Teacher provides instrumental support for students’ learning, combining explicit
instruction and extensive scaffolding to help students acquire the knowledge and skills
843
they need to complete complex tasks independently and successfully, and tailoring
support to meet the needs of individuals.
Conclusion:
In this paper, it was established that self-regulation is a complex, recursive process
that relies heavily on individuals’ purposeful, interactive efforts to improve their own
learning using a variety of cognitive, metacognitive, resource management and
motivational strategies. Furthermore, this paper revealed the characteristics associated
with self-regulated learners, self-regulated learning strategies, and self-regulated
processes. Such processes are associated with academic success and performance and
can be considered valuable to educators when designing and developing learning
environments that support self-regulated learning. In addition, principles of successful
self-regulated learning context were presented that educators can use to embed support
for self-regulation in instruction.
There are several areas in which further empirical research is needed to explore the
theories and models of self-regulation discussed in this paper. To date, few studies are
available on the effects self-regulated learning strategies on the achievement of EFL
students. Thus, this paper advocates the value of using self-regulated learning strategies in
improving academic skills and treating learning difficulties of struggling and
underachiever students. Thus, the author provides the following recommendations for
further research:
 Replicating SRL studies with EFL learners in the Egyptian context.
 Investigating the effect of self-regulation on students with foreign language learning
disability.
 Conducting a comparative study of self-regulation among low-achievers and high-
achievers EFL students.
 Extending research on the self-efficacy needs of ESL learners.
 Developing more research concerning EFL metacognition and motivation.
References:
Ainley, M. & Patrick, L. (2006) Measuring Self-Regulated Learning Processes through Tracking
Patterns of Student Interaction with Achievement Activities. Educational Psychology Review,
18, pp. 267–286
Ammar, A. (2004). The Effects of Self-Regulated Reading Strategy Development on the Prospective
EFL Teachers’ Critical Reading Skills and Reading Motivation. Journal of Aswan Faculty of
Education, 18, pp. 264-238
844
Berger, A., Kofman, O., Livneh, U. & Henik, A. (2007). Multidisciplinary perspectives on attention
and the development of self-regulation. Progress in Neurobiology, 82, PP. 256–286
Butler, D. (2003a). Self-Regulation and Collaborative Learning in Teachers’ Professional

Development. Paper presented at the 2003 annual meetings of the European Association for
Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI).
Butler, D. (2003b). Structuring Instruction to Promote Self-Regulated Learning by Adolescents and

Adults with Learning Disabilities. Exceptionality, 11, 1, pp. 39–60
Butler, D. (2002). Individualizing Instruction in Self-Regulated Learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 2,
pp. 81-92
Butler, D. (1999). The Importance of Explicit Writing Instruction for Post-Secondary Students with
Learning Disabilities. Paper presented at the 1999 (April) meeting of Council for Exceptional
Children in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Butler, D. (1998). Promoting Self-Regulation in the Context of Academic Tasks: The Strategic Content
Learning Approach. Paper presented at the 1998 (August) meeting of American Psychological
Association in San Francisco, California.
Butler, D. (1997). The Roles of Goal Setting and Self-Monitoring in Students’ Self-Regulated
Engagement in Tasks. Paper presented at the 1997 (April) meeting of American Educational
Research Association in Chicago, Illinois.
Butler, D. (1996). The Strategic Content Learning Approach to Promoting Self-Regulated Learning:
An Introduction to the Coordinated Symposium. Paper presented at the 1996 (April) meeting of
American Educational Research Association in New York.
Butler, D. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by post secondary students with LD. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 28, pp. 170–190.
Butler, D., Cartier, S., Schnellert, L., & Gagnon, F. (2006). Secondary Students’ Self-Regulated
Engagement in “Learning through Reading”: Findings from an Integrative Research Project.
Paper presented at the 2006 meetings of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Toronto,
Canada.
Butler, D., Elaschuk, C., Poole, S., MacLeod, W., & Syer, K. (1997). Strategic Interventions for Post-
Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities. Paper presented at the 1997 (June) meeting of
Canadian Society for Studies in Education in St. John’s, Newfoundland.
Butler, D., & Kamann, M. (1996). Strategic Content Learning: An Instructional Analysis. Paper
presented at the 1996 (April) meeting of American Educational Research Association in
NewYork, New York.
845
Case, L., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills of
Students with Learning Disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special
Education, 26, pp. 1–19.
Chalk, J., Hagan-Burke, S. & Burke, M. (2005). The Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development
on the Writing Process for High School Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 28, winter, pp. 75-87
Dasinger, S. (2002). Instructional Scaffolding and the Development of Self-Regulated Reading
Strategies of At-Risk First Graders in a Reading Recover Program. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Alabama.
Delano, M. (2007a). Improving written language performance of adolescents with asperger syndrome.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 2, pp. 345-351.
Delano, M. (2007b). Use of Strategy Instruction to Improve the Story Writing Skills of a Student with
Asperger Syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 4, pp. 252-258
De La Paz, S. (2001b). Teaching Writing to Students with Attention Deficit Disorders and Specific
Language Impairment. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 1, pp. 37-47
De La Paz, S. (1999b). Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction in Regular Education Settings: Improving

Outcomes for Students with and without Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 14, 2, pp. 92-106
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly Teaching Strategies, Skills, and Knowledge: Writing
Instruction in Middle School Classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 4, pp. 687-698
De La Paz, S., Owen, B., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (2000). Riding Elvis's Motorcycle: Using Self-
Regulated Strategy Development to PLAN and WRITE for a State Writing Exam. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 2, pp. 101-109
Dignath, C., Buettner, G. & Langfeldt, H. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated
learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes.
Educational Research Review, 3, pp. 101–129
García, J. N., & Fidalgo, R. (2006). Effects of two self-regulatory instruction programs in students with
learning disabilities in writing products, process and self-efficacy. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 29, pp. 181-211
Graham, S., & Harris K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-
analysis of SRSD studies. In Swanson L.H, Harris, K., & Graham, S. (Eds.), Handbook of
Learning Disabilities. (pp. 323–344). New York: Guilford
Graham, S. & Harris, K. (2000). The Role of Self-Regulation and Transcription Skills in Writing and
Writing Development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 1, pp. 3–12
846
Hammann, L. (2005). Self-Regulation in Academic Writing Tasks. International Journal of Teaching

and Learning in Higher Education, 17, 1, pp. 15-26
Harris, K., Graham, S. & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the Writing, Knowledge, and Motivation of
Struggling Young Writers: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development with and Without
Peer Support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 2, pp. 295–340
Harris, K., Graham, S. & Mason, L. (2003). Self-Regulated Strategy Development in the Classroom:
Part of a Balanced Approach to Writing Instruction for Students with Disabilities. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 35, 7, pp. 1-16
Harris, K., Graham, S. & Mason, L. (2002). POW Plus TREE Equals Powerful Opinion Essays:
Improving Writing in the Early Grades. CASL News, 6, pp. 1-4
Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy
construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 5, pp. 392–404.
Harris, K., Santangelo, T. & Graham, S. (2008). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Going
beyond NLEs to a more balanced approach. Instructional Science, 36, 5-6, pp. 395-408
Helsel, L. & Greenberg, D. (2007). Helping Struggling Writers Succeed: A Self-Regulated Strategy
Instruction Program. Reading Teacher, 60, 8, May, pp. 752-760
Jacobson, L. & Reid, R. (2007). Self-Regulated Strategy Development for written expression: Is it
effective for adolescents? EBP Briefs, 2, 3, pp. 1-13
Koehler, A. (2007). Raising Awareness of Self-Efficacy through Self-Regulated Learning Strategies for
Reading in a Secondary ESL Classroom. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hamline University
Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J., Brindle, M. & Morphy, P. (2008). The Effects of
Self-Regulated Strategy Development on the Writing Performance of Second-Grade Students
with Behavioral and Writing Difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 4, pp. 234-253
Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S. & Weisenbach, J. (2006). Teaching Writing Strategies to Young
Students Struggling Writing and At Risk for Behavioral Disorders: Self-Regulated Strategy
Development. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 1, pp. 60-64
Lienemann, T., Graham, S., Leader-Janssen, B. & Reid, R. (2006). Improving the Writing Performance
of Struggling Writers in Second Grade. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 2, PP. 66–78
Lienemann, T. & Reid, R. (2008). Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development to Improve Expository
Writing with Students with Attention Deficit Hyper activity Disorder. Exceptional Children, 74,
4, pp. 471-486.
847
Luke, S. (2006). The Power of Strategy Instruction. Evidence for Education, 1, 1, pp. 1-12
Mason, L. Snyder, K., Sukhram, D., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA + PLANS Strategies for Expository
Reading and Writing: Effects for Nine Eourth-Grade Students. Exceptional Children, 73, 1, pp.
69-89.
Mason, L. & Shriner, J. (2008). Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instruction for Writing an
Opinion Essay: Effects for Six Students with Emotional/Behavior Disorders. Read Writ, 21, PP.
71–93
Montague, M. (2008). Self-Regulation Strategies to Improve Mathematical Problem Solving for

Students with Learning Disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 1, pp.37-44
Montalvo, F. & Torres, M. (2004). Self-Regulated Learning: Current and Future Directions. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2, 1, (PP. 1-34)
Mourad, A. (2009). The Effectiveness of a Program based on Self-Regulated Strategy Development on

the Writing Skills of Writing-Disabled Secondary School Students. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 7, 1, pp. 5-24
Nelson, J. & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The Impact of Explicit Self-Regulatory Reading

Comprehension Strategy on the Reading-Specific Self-Efficacy, Attributions, and Affect of
Students with Reading Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, pp. 213-230
Nückles, M., Hübner, S. & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing Self-Regulated Learning by Writing Learning
Protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19, pp. 259-271
Olaussen, B., & Braten, I. (1999). Students' Use of Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning: Cross-
Cultural Perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43, 4, pp. 409-432
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 2, pp. 117–175.
Paris, S. & Paris, A. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning.

Educational Psychologist, 36, 2, pp. 89–101
Perry, N., Hutchinson, L. & Thauberger, C. (2007). Mentoring Student Teachers to Design and
Implement Literacy Tasks that Support Self-Regulated Reading and Writing. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 23, pp. 27–50
Pintrich, P. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in
College Students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 4, December, PP. 385-407
Pressley, M., Brown, R., Peggy, V., & Schuder, T. (1995). Transactional strategies. Educational
Leadership; May95, Vol. 52 Issue 8, p81
848
Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled Comprehension and Its Development through
Instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 3, pp. 448-66
Puustinen, M. & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of Self-regulated Learning: a Review. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 45, 3, pp. 269-286
Reid, R. & Lienemann, T. (2006b). Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Written Expression with
Students with Attention Deficit/hyperactivity Disorder. Exceptional Children, 73, 1, pp. 53-68
Ross, M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Guarino, A., Reed, C., & Marshall, M. (2003). Situated Self-
Regulation: Modeling the Interrelationships among Instruction, Assessment, Learning Strategies
and Academic Performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9, 2, pp. 189-209
Ruan, Z. (2005). A Metacognitive Perspective on the Growth of Self-Regulated EFL Student Writers.
Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, pp. 175-202.
Ruban, L., & Reis, S. (2006). Patterns of Self-Regulatory Strategy Use Among Low-Achieving and
High-Achieving University Students. Roeper Review, 28, 3, pp. 148-156
Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing Story-Writing Ability through Self-Regulated Strategy Development:

Effects on Young Writers with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 29, pp.
291-305
Santangelo, T., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (2008). Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development to
Support Students Who Have “Trubol Giting Thangs Into Werds”. Remedial and Special
Education, 29, 2, pp. 78-89
Santangelo, T., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (2007). Self-Regulated Strategy Development: A Validated
Model to Support Students Who Struggle with Writing. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary
Journal, 5, 1, pp. 1–20
Shiel, G. (2005). Associations Between Attributes of Self-Regulated Learning and Reading Literacy in
PISA 2000. In Pandis, M., Ward, A., and Mathews, S. (eds.) Reading, Writing, Thinking:
Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Reading. (Pp. 190-198) International Reading
Association
Tracy, B., Graham, S. & Robert, R. (2009). Teaching Young Students Strategies for Planning and
Drafting Stories: The Impact of Self-Regulated Strategy Development. The Journal of
Educational Research, 102, 5, pp. 223-231
Wolters, C. (2003a). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-

Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 4, pp. 189–205
849
Wolters, C. (2003b). Understanding Procrastination from a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 1, pp. 179–187
Wolters, C., Pintrich, P. & Karabenick, S. (2003). Assessing Academic Self-regulated Learning. Paper
prepared for the Conference on Indicators of Positive Development: Definitions, Measures, and
Prospective Validity.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 2,
pp. 64-70
Zimmerman, B. (1998). Academic Studying and the Development of Personal Skill: A Self-Regulatory
Perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 2/3, pp. 73-86
Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 81, pp. 329–339.
Zimmerman, B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of Self-Regulatory Influences on Writing Course
Attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 4, pp. 845-862
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct Validation of a Strategy Model of Student
Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 3, pp. 284-90
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a Structured Interview for Assessing
Student Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23,
4, pp. 614-628
Zimmerman, B., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a Self-Regulated Writer: A Social Cognitive
Perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, pp. 73-101
Zito, J., Adkins, M., Gavins, M., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (2007). Self-Regulated Strategy
Development: Relationship to the Social-Cognitive Perspective and Development of Self-
Regulation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, pp. 77–95
850
View publication stats

Self-Regulated-Learningin English Language Instruction - Walaa M. El-Henawy - El-Sayed M. Dadour

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

Self-Regulated-Learningin English Language Instruction - Walaa M. El-Henawy - El-Sayed M. Dadour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Self-Regulated Learning in English Language Instruction

Conference Paper · March 2010

Walaa M. El-Henawy El Sayed Mohamad Dadour

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Classroom Communication View project

Self-Regulated Learning View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Self-Regulated Learning in English Language Instruction

characterized as an intermediate construct describing the ways in which individuals

Definition of Self-Regulated Learning:

Zimmerman (2002, p.66) stressed the following three characteristics of self-

Characteristics of Self-Regulated Leaner:

Self-Regulated Learning Strategies:

Models, Phases, and processes of Self-Regulated Learning:

4. Winne and Hadwin’s Four-stage Model of Self-regulated Learning

Figure 1. Phases and Subprocesses of Self-Regulation.

Figure (2): A cyclical model of self-regulated learning.

Self-Regulated Learning and Instructional Implications

students’ construction of self-regulated approaches to academic work, metacognitive

Self-Regulation and Language Instruction

Self-Regulation and Reading:

Also, Ammar (2004) investigated the effects of a suggested SRR-based program on

Features of Educational Contexts that Promote SRL

Butler, D. (2003a). Self-Regulation and Collaborative Learning in Teachers’ Professional

Butler, D. (2003b). Structuring Instruction to Promote Self-Regulated Learning by Adolescents and

De La Paz, S. (1999b). Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction in Regular Education Settings: Improving

Hammann, L. (2005). Self-Regulation in Academic Writing Tasks. International Journal of Teaching

Montague, M. (2008). Self-Regulation Strategies to Improve Mathematical Problem Solving for

Mourad, A. (2009). The Effectiveness of a Program based on Self-Regulated Strategy Development on

Nelson, J. & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The Impact of Explicit Self-Regulatory Reading

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

Paris, S. & Paris, A. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning.

Puustinen, M. & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of Self-regulated Learning: a Review. Scandinavian

Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing Story-Writing Ability through Self-Regulated Strategy Development:

Wolters, C. (2003a). Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an Underemphasized Aspect of Self-

Wolters, C. (2003b). Understanding Procrastination from a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective.

Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of

View publication stats

You might also like