2011 Art SitzmannEly SelfregMetAn04898 001

Psychological Bulletin © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 137, No. 3, 421– 442 0033-2909/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022777
A Meta-Analysis of Self-Regulated Learning in Work-Related Training and

Educational Attainment: What We Know and Where We Need to Go
Traci Sitzmann Katherine Ely

University of Colorado Denver Fors Marsh Group, Arlington, Virginia
Researchers have been applying their knowledge of goal-oriented behavior to the self-regulated learning
domain for more than 30 years. This review examines the current state of research on self-regulated learning
and gaps in the field’s understanding of how adults regulate their learning of work-related knowledge and
skills. Self-regulation theory was used as a conceptual lens for deriving a heuristic framework of 16
fundamental constructs that constitute self-regulated learning. Meta-analytic findings (k ⫽ 430, N ⫽ 90,380)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
support theoretical propositions that self-regulation constructs are interrelated—30% of the corrected corre-
lations among constructs were .50 or greater. Goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy were the
self-regulation constructs with the strongest effects on learning. Together these constructs accounted for 17%
of the variance in learning, after controlling for cognitive ability and pretraining knowledge. However, 4
self-regulatory processes—planning, monitoring, help seeking, and emotion control— did not exhibit signif-
icant relationships with learning. Thus, a parsimonious framework of the self-regulated learning domain is
presented that focuses on a subset of self-regulatory processes that have both limited overlap with other core
processes and meaningful effects on learning. Research is needed to advance the field’s understanding of how
adults regulate their learning in an increasingly complex and knowledge-centric work environment. Such
investigations should capture the dynamic nature of self-regulated learning, address the role of self-regulation
in informal learning, and investigate how trainees regulate their transfer of training.
Keywords: self-regulation, self-regulated learning, training, meta-analysis
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022777.supp
Scholars have been examining goal-oriented behavior for more self-regulate may be their most essential asset (Porath & Bateman,
than 100 years to understand how people regulate their behavior 2006). Self-regulation enables people to function effectively in
across a breadth of situations (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Self- their personal lives as well as to acquire the knowledge and skills
regulation refers to processes that enable individuals to guide their needed to succeed in higher education and the workforce. Re-
goal-directed activities over time, including the modulation of searchers have been applying their understanding of goal-oriented
affect, cognition, and behavior (Karoly, 1993). Self-regulation is behavior to self-regulated learning for the past 30 years, and the
designed to maximize the long-term best interest of an individual, field of self-regulation has been instrumental in understanding how
resulting in people controlling their impulses and looking out for adults regulate their learning of work-related training.
their well-being (Hayes, 1989; F. H. Kanfer & Karoly, 1972; Self-regulated learning refers to the modulation of affective,
Mischel, 1996; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). This literature base cognitive, and behavioral processes throughout a learning experi-
can be used to understand how people exert control over an ence to reach a desired level of achievement. This definition
extensive range of behaviors from dieting to religious practices encompasses the core features of most definitions of self-
(McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; Muraven & Baumeister, regulation (e.g., Boekaerts, Maes, & Karoly, 2005; Karoly, 1993;
2000). Furthermore, self-regulation theory can be used to explain Pintrich, 2000; Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1986): It reflects goal-
why both children and adults are willing to exert considerable oriented behavior and includes multiple processes operating in
mental effort to learn the alphabet, solve a math problem, or concert. However, this definition is distinct because it focuses on
understand Newton’s law of motion. For adults, the ability to
goal striving within a learning context. The self-regulation litera-
ture has played a substantial role in shaping researchers’ under-
standing of the processes though which trainees systematically
This article was published Online First March 14, 2011. adapt their actions during training to achieve their learning goals.
Traci Sitzmann, University of Colorado Denver; Katherine Ely, Fors However, after more than 30 years of research, it is time to step
Marsh Group, Arlington, Virginia. back and examine the state of self-regulated learning research and
We would like to thank Ruth Kanfer for her invaluable insights as we identify gaps in the field’s collective understanding of how adults
developed the theoretical framework for this article. Thanks also to Kris-
regulate their learning of work-related knowledge and skills.
tina Bauer for her assistance coding the articles included in the meta-
analysis. Understanding the role of self-regulation in a learning context is
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Traci increasingly important as the nature of training evolves. Over time,
Sitzmann, Business School, University of Colorado Denver, PO Box work has become progressively more complex and knowledge-
173364, Denver, CO 80217. E-mail: traci.sitzmann@ucdenver.edu centric, requiring employees to adapt to changing job demands (Bell
421
422 SITZMANN AND ELY
& Kozlowski, 2008). Furthermore, employees are often given control and persistence and stimulates the discovery and use of task-
over which training courses they participate in and over the content, relevant knowledge and strategies (Locke & Latham, 2002). Re-
sequence, and pace of material in the training environment (Kraiger & search has shown that goal setting is more effective when the goal
Jerden, 2007; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & is specific and when individuals are committed to reaching the
Wisher, 2006). Informal learning and peer production of training goal, possess task knowledge, and receive feedback on their goal
material (e.g., YouTube, Wikipedia) are also becoming more preva- progress. Within a training context, performance goals can have a
lent, increasing the requirement for employees to evaluate what they deleterious effect on the performance of complex tasks, whereas
need to know and where they can obtain accurate information (Brown learning goals lead to higher levels of performance on such tasks
& Sitzmann, 2011). All these changes are escalating the demands (Seijts, & Latham, 2001; Winters & Latham, 1996).
placed on employees and higher education students to self-regulate Self-efficacy theory evolved from Bandura’s (1977) work in clin-
their learning. As such, researchers need to stop and examine the ical psychology. The theory focuses on the cognitive processes in-
current state of research on self-regulated learning and how this volved in the acquisition and retention of new behaviors. When
understanding needs to evolve to accommodate how learning occurs trainees judge their self-efficacy for novel tasks, they rely on their past
in the modern work and college environments. performance in similar situations (Bandura, 1991, 1997; Wood &
The first objective of the current review was to develop a heuristic Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy then exerts a strong, positive effect on
framework of the self-regulated learning domain. The lack of a performance through goal setting, effort, and persistence (Bandura,
comprehensive, yet manageable, list of self-regulation constructs is 1977, 1997). Trainees with high self-efficacy engage in positive
one factor that hinders the field’s understanding of how adults regu- discrepancy creation by setting goals that are higher than their previ-
late their learning activities (Vancouver & Day, 2005). Thus, we ous performance levels, exerting more effort, and persisting in stress-
examined several of the most frequently cited and influential self- ful situations. The relationship between self-efficacy and performance
regulation theories in the training and education literatures to educe a tends to be stronger when an individual has knowledge of the task to
heuristic framework of the self-regulated learning domain. Our sec- be performed, when measures of self-efficacy are collected in tem-
ond objective was to use the heuristic framework as a foundation for poral proximity to performance measures, and when the self-efficacy
a meta-analysis examining the interrelationships among the self- items are task specific (Bandura, 1997).
regulation constructs and their effects on learning (k ⫽ 430, N ⫽ Control theory is based on a machine model derived from
90,380). The results from the meta-analysis capture the degree of cybernetic engineering (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1990; Powers,
measurement overlap in self-regulation constructs and provide insight 1978). According to control theory, one source of motivation is a
as to which constructs have the strongest effects on learning. In negative feedback loop that eliminates goal–performance discrep-
addressing these two objectives, this article provides an overview of
ancies (Powers, 1978). Once a goal is reached, individuals turn
the current state of research in the self-regulated learning domain and
their attention toward other goal pursuits. During training, trainees
identifies gaps in the literature that preclude a comprehensive under-
rely on their self-efficacy to determine how much effort to exert to
standing of the domain. We conclude with an examination of how
reach their goals (Ilies & Judge, 2005; Thomas & Mathieu, 1994).
researchers’ understanding of self-regulated learning must be adapted
Higher levels of self-efficacy result in trainees devoting more
to reflect the changing nature of knowledge and skill acquisition in the
resources toward their goal. Moreover, trainees’ rate of goal prog-
modern work environment.
ress influences their affect (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Affect is
positive when trainees’ self-evaluation indicates that their progress
Theoretical Overview and Heuristic Framework of is quicker than expected and negative when their progress is
Self-Regulated Learning slower than expected.1
Action regulation theory originated in Germany (Hacker, 1985)
The self-regulated learning domain includes a range of theories
and was translated to English by Frese and Zapf (1994). The theory
that emerged from different disciplines. Some of the most influ-
proposes that the psychology of work should be concerned with
ential theories have emerged from cybernetic engineering (control
theory, Carver & Scheier, 1981), clinical psychology (self-efficacy actions, which are defined as goal-oriented behaviors. The action
theory, Bandura, 1977), industrial and organizational psychology process begins with developing a goal and deciding between
(goal setting, Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; action regulation, competing goals. Individuals must then decide on their orientation
Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1982; resource allocation, R. Kanfer (i.e., collect information relevant to competing goals and develop
& Ackerman, 1989), and educational psychology (Pintrich, 2000; a prognosis of future events), generate plans, make decisions by
Zimmerman, 1990). Despite their divergent backgrounds, the com- selecting a plan from the range of available plans, execute the plan
monalities among these theories are vast, and together they provide while monitoring progress, and review feedback on progress to-
a fairly comprehensive understanding of self-regulated learning. ward their goals. External feedback is necessary for learning to
One commonality across all the theories is that goal setting occur. Errors also play an essential role in action regulation theory
triggers self-regulation. Locke and Latham (1984, 1990, 2002) are because they are a critical component of feedback and influence
renowned in the goal-setting literature for examining the mecha-
nisms through which goals operate and the moderators of the 1
There has been extensive debate regarding Bandura’s and Carver and
effects of goal setting on performance. Their meta-analytic results Scheier’s perspectives on positive discrepancy creation (for more information,
indicate a positive and linear relationship between goal level and see Bandura & Locke, 2003; Phillips, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 1996). Rather than
performance with effect sizes (d effects) ranging from 0.52 to 0.82 restate the differences between these theories, the current review focuses on
(Locke & Latham, 1990). Goals operate by directing attention commonalities across theories to derive a heuristic framework that specifies
toward goal-related activity, which leads to increases in both effort the core constructs in the self-regulated learning domain.
SELF-REGULATION 423
the efficiency of action. When trainees are given the opportunity to initiate self-regulated learning on a path toward achieving one’s
make errors in training, it stimulates metacognition as trainees objectives. Regulatory mechanisms are the processes trainees use
reflect on the causes of their errors (Ivancic & Hesketh, 2000; to maximize progress toward their goals in an efficient and orga-
Keith & Frese, 2005). nized manner. Looking across self-regulation theories, we identi-
R. Kanfer and Ackerman’s (1989) resource allocation theory fied 12 core regulatory mechanisms: planning, monitoring, meta-
emerged from the industrial and organizational psychology liter- cognition, attention, learning strategies, persistence, time
ature. They proposed that attentional resources are an undifferen- management, environmental structuring, help seeking, motivation,
tiated pool that must be allocated among competing task demands, emotion control, and effort. Regulatory appraisals are instrumental
such that trainees divide their attention between on-task activities, in evaluating trainees’ progress and determining whether trainees
off-task activities, and self-regulation. Proximal and distal moti- will either begin or continue striving to make progress toward their
vational processes are used to allocate resources among competing goals. The three regulatory appraisals discussed in self-regulation
task demands. Distal motivational processes are antecedents to theories are self-evaluation, attributions, and self-efficacy. In the
task engagement, referring to the choice of whether to pursue a following sections, we provide a broad theoretical overview of
goal and how much of one’s resources to devote toward goal each of the regulatory agents, mechanisms, and appraisals and
attainment. Proximal motivational processes comprise self- discuss whether the current state of the literature provides an avid
regulatory activity; they determine the distribution of attention understanding of the role of each construct in facilitating learning.
across on-task and off-task activities during task engagement.
Additional theories of self-regulated learning have emerged Regulatory Agents
from the educational psychology literature, including theories by
Pintrich (2000) and Zimmerman (1990, 2000). These researchers Regulatory agents are instrumental for initiating self-regulated
proposed phase models of self-regulation that focus on a broad learning. Goals are regulatory agents, and numerous experiments
range of self-regulatory processes. In addition to goal setting, have examined their effects on training outcomes. Goals reflect the
self-efficacy, and the other processes included in the aforemen- standard for successfully accomplishing a task, and self-regulation
tioned theories, these theories include learning strategies, time theories agree that goals provide a criterion for monitoring, eval-
management, and environmental structuring as part of the reper- uating, and guiding self-regulatory activity (Bandura, 1977; Carver
toire of strategies that trainees employ to succeed in learning & Scheier, 2000; R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Locke & Latham,
situations. 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1986). Goals initiate action
Zimmerman (1990, 1996, 1998, 2000) proposed a social cogni- (Frese & Zapf, 1994). They direct trainees’ attention, increase
tive model based on the work of Bandura (1986) and elaborated on effort and persistence, and lead to the use of relevant task strategies
the processes enacted in the forethought, performance, and reflec- (Locke & Latham, 2002).
tion phases of learning. The forethought phase precedes perfor- There is an extensive knowledge base on the effects of goal
mance and prepares trainees for learning. The performance control setting (see Locke & Latham, 2002, for a review). However, in
phase occurs during learning and affects trainees’ attention and research on self-regulated learning, goals are often experimentally
action. Finally, self-reflection occurs after performance as trainees
react to their efforts. Zimmerman (2000) acknowledged that learn- 2
To develop the heuristic framework, we identified the most frequently
ing conditions are constantly changing, necessitating continuous cited and influential theories in the adult self-regulated learning domain.
observation and monitoring of self-oriented feedback loops. First, we identified 15 self-regulation theories that were included in pre-
Pintrich (2000) developed a framework that proposes that self- vious self-regulation review articles (e.g., Diefendorff & Lord, 2008;
regulation occurs in four phases. Phase 1 involves planning, goal Kanfer, 1990; Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Vancouver, 2000). From this
setting, and activation of knowledge and motivational factors list we eliminated content theories, which do not focus on the components
relevant to the task. During Phase 2, trainees monitor various of self-regulation (i.e., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Dweck, 1986; Higgins, 1997).
aspects of themselves, the task, and the context, which they sub- Then the seven aforementioned theories as well as Boekaerts and Niemi-
sequently control and regulate in Phase 3 and react and reflect virta (2000), Borkowski (1996), Corno (1993), Kuhl (1992), and Winne
and Hadwin (1998) were compared in terms of their number of citations in
upon in Phase 4. During the four phases of self-regulation, trainees
Web of Science and Google Scholar. There was a clear cutoff in the
focus on four areas: cognition, motivation, behavior, and the number of hits per theory such that those included in our review received
context. Pintrich then provided a 4 ⫻ 4 grid for classifying more than 100 citations in Web of Science and more than 200 citations in
self-regulatory processes based on the phase and the focus area Google Scholar and those not included in the review fell below both of
(e.g., pretraining self-efficacy occurs during Phase 1 and in the these criteria. After choosing the theories, each theory was reviewed by
motivation focus area). two independent raters to establish which constructs constitute the self-
Taken together, these theories focus on a wide range of self- regulated learning domain. The raters independently developed a list of the
regulation constructs. By examining their commonalities, it is core constructs in each of the theories (interrater agreement was .89) and
possible to derive a heuristic framework of the fundamental con- then reached a consensus on the construct lists. There is a range of
structs that constitute self-regulated learning. Our review of self- constructs included in self-regulation theories, and many theories include
constructs that do not have analogous components in other theories (e.g.,
regulation theories suggests that there are 16 core self-regulated
orientation in Frese & Zapf, 1994, and context evaluation in Pintrich,
learning constructs.2 Table 1 lists the self-regulated learning con- 2000). Thus, each of the constructs included in the heuristic framework
structs as well as the theories that indicate the construct is included was a component of at least two of the reviewed theories. The next step in
in the self-regulation domain. Each of the constructs can be clas- the rating process involved classifying the constructs as regulatory agents,
sified as a regulatory agent, regulatory mechanism, or regulatory mechanisms, and appraisals. Interrater agreement was .93, and once again
appraisal. Trainees’ goal levels serve as regulatory agents; they a consensus was reached regarding all coding discrepancies.
Table 1
A Heuristic Framework of the Self-Regulated Learning Domain
Zimmerman
Bandura Carver & Scheier Kanfer & Locke & Latham (1990,
(1977, 1997, (1981, 1990, Frese & Zapf (1994); Ackerman (1984, 1990, Pintrich 1996, 1998,
Construct 1991) 2000) Hacker (1985) (1989) 2002) (2000) 2000)
Regulatory agent
Goal level X X X X X X X
Regulatory mechanisms
Planning X X X X X
Monitoring X X X X X
Metacognition X X X X
Attention X X X X
Learning strategies X X
Persistence X X X X X X X
Time management X X
Environmental structuring X X
Help seeking X X X
Motivation X X X X X X X
Emotion control X X
Effort X X X X X X X
Regulatory appraisals
Self-evaluation X X X X
Attributions X X X X
Self-efficacy X X X X X X
Note. An X denotes the theory suggests that the construct is a component of self-regulation.
manipulated, as opposed to having trainees report the goals they individuals create plans to determine which strategies they can use
are pursuing. Research on goals tends to focus on the effects of to reach their goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). Carver and Scheier
qualitatively different goals and how goal content influences self- (2000) acknowledged that people do not plan too far into the future
regulatory processes. For example, researchers have manipulated (Anderson, 1990). Although individuals tend to have a general
whether trainees pursue learning or performance goals (e.g., Bar- idea of how to reach their goals, they often have only a few
ron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Kozlowski & Bell, 2006) and whether specific steps planned out at a time, and the plan evolves as
trainees strive for proximal or distal goals (e.g., Bandura & Sc- trainees carry out the task (Frese & Zapf, 1994).
hunk, 1981; Kozlowski & Bell, 2006; Kozlowski et al., 2001; Monitoring. Monitoring refers to paying attention to one’s
Latham & Seijts, 1999). However, manipulating trainees’ goals in performance and understanding of the course material (R. Kanfer
experimental research does not provide insight into the relation- & Ackerman, 1989). Monitoring is a critical component of self-
ships between goals and other self-regulatory processes. When regulation because it provides awareness of one’s knowledge level,
goals are assessed, most self-report measures assess the perfor- which then leads to changes in one’s affect, cognition, and behav-
mance goal level that trainees are striving to achieve (Vancouver ior (Pintrich, 2000). Accurate monitoring enhances the regulation
& Day, 2005). Thus, the construct included in this meta-analytic of learning because it reveals what trainees already know and
review is trainees’ self-set goal level for performance in the where they need to focus their resources (Dunlosky, Kubat-Silam,
training environment. For example, Vancouver and Kendall (2006) & Hertzog, 2003; Zimmerman, 2000).
asked trainees to report what grade they were aiming for on an Metacognition. As its name implies, metacognition is a
upcoming test. Many studies have examined the effects of trainees’ metaconstruct that subsumes various components of self-
self-set goal level on learning, but limited correlational research
regulation. However, theories differ in the range of constructs that
has examined how trainees’ self-set goal level is related to other
fall in the metacognition domain. R. Kanfer and Ackerman (1989)
self-regulated learning constructs.
used the term extremely broadly, such that metacognition seems to
include all aspects of self-regulation. Pintrich (2000) used the term
Regulatory Mechanisms to refer to an implicit awareness of various aspects of the self, task,
Regulatory mechanisms are the crux of self-regulated learning and context. Zimmerman (2000) proposed that metacognition en-
because they are largely under the control of trainees and have an compasses all aspects of cognitive self-regulation. Action regula-
instrumental role in determining whether trainees make progress tion theory suggests that metacognition is an aspect of personality
toward their goals in an efficient and organized manner. Further- (Frese & Zapf, 1994).
more, the majority of these constructs have been subjected to Attention. Attention refers to the degree to which trainees are
extensive empirical investigations. able to maintain their cognitive focus and concentrate during
Planning. When trainees engage in planning activities, they training (Zimmerman, 2000). According to resource allocation
think through what they need to learn and set task-specific goals theory, trainees divide their cognitive resources between on-task,
(Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). When facing a novel task, off-task, and self-regulatory activities (R. Kanfer & Ackerman,
SELF-REGULATION 425
1989). Proximal motivational processes determine the distribution long as trainees are committed to achieving the goal (Locke &
of resources across on-task and off-task activities, and goals direct Latham, 2002).
trainees’ attention toward on-task activities (R. Kanfer & Acker- Emotion control. Emotion control limits the intrusion of
man, 1989; Locke & Latham, 2002). performance anxiety and other negative emotions during task
Learning strategies. A core cognitive control activity is the performance (R. Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996). Trainees
selection and use of learning strategies, including elaborating on can engage in relaxation exercises, self-encouragement, and self-
the training material as well as integrating all the components of talk to regulate their emotional states (R. Kanfer et al., 1996;
the material with each other and with one’s existing knowledge Pintrich, 2000). Emotion control facilitates performance by keep-
(Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich, Smith, ing off-task concerns from diverting attention away from the
Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Learning strategies are useful for current task (Keith & Frese, 2005; Porath & Bateman, 2006).
breaking a task into smaller parts and reorganizing the parts Effort. Effort reflects the amount of time that trainees devote
(Zimmerman, 2000). They assist trainees in building knowledge to learning (Fisher & Ford, 1998; Wilhite, 1990; Zimmerman &
structures that are meaningful and coherent so that information can Risemberg, 1997). Trainees regulate the amount of effort that they
be stored in long-term memory (Winne, 1996; Zimmerman, 2000). devote to learning by monitoring their behavior and feedback on
Persistence. Persistence enables trainees to devote effort to their performance (Pintrich, 2000). When trainees detect a nega-
learning and concentrate on the training material, despite boredom tive goal–performance discrepancy, they adjust their concentration
or failure to make progress toward their goals (Elliot et al., 1999). or effort to reduce the discrepancy (Carver & Scheier, 2000).
Persistence is a function of trainees’ outcome expectancy for a Current state of research on regulatory mechanisms. Ex-
given task (Carver & Scheier, 2000). Goal setting, self-efficacy, tensive empirical research has examined the associations among
and feedback all have positive effects on persistence (Bandura, multiple regulatory mechanisms (e.g., DiBattista & Gosse, 2006;
1977; Frese & Zapf, 1994; Locke & Latham, 2002). Garcia, McCann, Turner, & Roska, 1998), their interrelationships
Time management. Time management involves making with regulatory agents and appraisals (e.g., Orvis, Horn, & Be-
study schedules and allocating time for study activities (Pintrich, lanich, 2008; Yeo & Neal, 2008), and their effects on learning
2000). Trainees monitor their time and effort levels to meet task (e.g., Nisbet, Tindall, & Arroyo, 2005; Quiñones, 1995). However,
deadlines. Procrastination is the opposite of time management and limited empirical research has focused on four regulatory mecha-
involves voluntarily delaying an intended course of action, despite nisms—planning, monitoring, environmental structuring, and
expecting to be worse off for the delay (Steel, 2007). Zimmerman emotion control—and these regulatory mechanisms have not been
(2000) suggested that procrastination is a defensive self-reaction. examined in concert with the full range of self-regulation con-
Trainees procrastinate to avoid future dissatisfaction, but procras- structs. Only five studies have examined the role of environmental
tination undermines successful adaptation and limits personal structuring in self-regulated learning (Al-Ansari, 2005; Klomegah,
growth (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Zimmerman, 2000). 2007; Kumrow, 2007, who reported correlations from two sam-
Environmental structuring. Environmental structuring in- ples; Pintrich, 1989; Plant, Ericsson, Hill, & Asberg, 2005). Emo-
volves choosing a study location that is conducive to learning (i.e., tion control scales (Keith & Frese, 2005; Warr & Downing, 2000)
quiet and free from distractions; Pintrich, 2000). Monitoring one’s recently appeared in the literature, and only 11 studies have ad-
learning environment for distractions and removing the distrac- opted these scales or developed other measures of emotion control
tions to create an environment that is advantageous for studying in self-regulation research (e.g., Bourgeois, 2007; Warr, Allan, &
are critical components of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000; Birdi, 1999).
Zimmerman, 1998). Environmental structuring is imperative in Both planning and monitoring tend to be measured as part of
online training, as trainees tend to have control over where and metacognition scales (e.g., Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Sa-
when they review the training material (Lynch & Dembo, 2004). las, 1998; Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
However, environmental structuring is mentioned only in two of [MSLQ], Pintrich et al., 1991), rather than as separate constructs.
the theories included in this review, the educational psychology These metacognition scales assess a combination of planning and
theories of Pintrich (2000) and Zimmerman (1998). monitoring (as well as attention for the MSLQ) but do not include
Help seeking. Help seeking refers to the degree to which all aspects of self-regulation that are suggested by theory as
trainees seek assistance when they have difficulty understanding belonging to the metacognition construct domain. Thus, there is a
concepts during training (Pintrich et al., 1991). Good students disconnect between theory and measurement that limits the field’s
know when, why, and to whom they should turn when seeking understanding of the role of metacognition in self-regulated learn-
help (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988). ing.
Help seeking plays an essential role in both Pintrich’s (2000) and
Zimmerman’s (1986) theories and has been included in research Regulatory Appraisals
on action regulation theory (e.g., Brodbeck, Zapf, Prümper, &
Frese, 1993). Regulatory appraisals are instrumental in assessing goal prog-
Motivation. Motivation reflects trainees’ willingness to en- ress as well as determining whether trainees will either begin or
gage in learning and desire to learn the course content (Noe, 1986; continue striving to make progress toward their goals. A scarcity of
Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, empirical evidence exists regarding the role of two regulatory
1993). Trainees’ beliefs about the incentives or value of learning appraisal constructs—self-evaluation and attributions—in self-
have a direct effect on learning because trainees show little interest regulated learning, but extensive research has focused on the third
in activities that they do not value (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). regulatory appraisal: self-efficacy. It is also important to note that
Specific, difficult, but attainable goals motivate performance as self-efficacy judgments can occur before trainees undertake a task
as well as during or after task engagement, whereas self-evaluation and identified where there are gaps in research regarding how
and attributions typically occur during or after task engagement. these constructs are related.
Self-evaluation. Self-evaluation refers to assessing goal Second, we examined the effect of self-regulation on learning.
progress by comparing one’s current level of knowledge or per- Only 12 of the studies included in the review examined whether
formance with the desired goal state (R. Kanfer & Ackerman, self-regulation during training predicted training transfer, which
1989). Self-evaluation has important implications for affective we are defining as the maintenance of trained skills after trainees
states. Unfavorable self-evaluations diminish trainees’ self- leave the training environment (Bell & Roberson, 2006; Gardner,
efficacy, motivation, and self-satisfaction unless the individuals Moorcroft, & Metford, 1989; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991;
believe that they can adapt their self-regulatory processes by using Myers, 1997; Nietfeld & Schraw, 2002; Poteet, 1996; Ramirez,
different strategies, seeking help, or restructuring their environ- 2000; Simmering, 1999; Smith, 1996; Towler & Dipboye, 2001;
ment (Bandura, 1977; R. Kanfer & Kanfer, 2001; Schunk & Warr & Bunce, 1995; Yi & Davis, 2003). Furthermore, these
Ertmer, 1999, 2000). studies focused on different self-regulation constructs, such that
Attributions. People attempt to understand the causes of only three constructs (i.e., metacognition, motivation, and self-
outcomes in achievement situations and attribute the outcome to efficacy) have been examined in concert with training transfer in
several causal dimensions, including ability versus effort (Dweck, more than two studies, attention has been examined in concert with
1986). Trainees’ attribution analysis is one component that influ- training transfer in one study, and the remaining 12 constructs have
ences whether they continue to pursue their goals following self- never been examined in concert with training transfer. Thus, we
evaluation (Carver & Scheier, 1982). Trainees react negatively and focused our meta-analytic investigation on posttraining assess-
are unlikely to try to improve when errors are attributed to internal, ments of learning.
stable factors, such as low ability (Zimmerman, 2000), but effec- Third, one of the advantages of meta-analysis is that it allows for
tive self-regulators tend to attribute failure to low effort and poor a comparison of studies that differ in experimental rigor and other
use of learning strategies (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsan- methodological factors (Lipsey, 2003). The current meta-analysis
tas, 1997). examined whether five moderators influenced the associations
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to trainees’ beliefs regard- between self-regulatory processes and learning: study population
ing their capability to succeed in training and perform training- (college students or employees), length of the training course,
related tasks (Bandura, 1997). Previous performance in similar publication status (published or unpublished), research design (ex-
situations is a powerful predictor of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; perimental or correlational), and year of the publication, disserta-
Carver & Scheier, 1990). Compared with less efficacious trainees, tion, or presentation. This set of analyses permitted an examination
trainees with high self-efficacy set challenging goals, develop of whether the relations between self-regulation constructs and
useful task strategies, persist, expend effort, and perform at a high learning generalize across courses that differ in length, reports that
level (Bandura, 1977; Carver & Scheier, 2000; Locke & Latham, differ in the population sampled and experimental rigor, and recent
2002; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Thomas & Mathieu, versus older research reports.
1994; Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000). Taken together, the heuristic framework and meta-analysis clar-
Current state of research on regulatory appraisals. Self- ify the constructs that constitute the self-regulated learning do-
efficacy is one of the most extensively studied constructs in main, how these constructs are interrelated, their effects on learn-
self-regulation research (Vancouver & Day, 2005) and is the only ing, and gaps in the field’s understanding of the self-regulated
regulatory appraisal that has been examined in concert with the learning domain. A meta-analysis of the self-regulated learning
majority of self-regulation constructs. Attributions are included in domain is also valuable for determining whether the theoretical
the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991). Thus, attributions have been definitions of constructs correspond with how these constructs are
studied in concert with other MSLQ scales (e.g., learning strategies measured in the literature. Next, we review discrepancies between
and persistence) but have not been widely researched outside construct definitions and measurement, followed by meta-analytic
educational psychology. As monitoring is an implied precursor to methods and results.
self-evaluation, it is difficult to tease apart trainees’ monitoring of One of the challenges in the self-regulated learning domain is
their performance from their evaluation of their performance (Pin- developing reliable and valid measures that tap only the target
trich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000). As such, we are unaware of any construct. Several measures have been validated and employed in
studies that have measured self-evaluation as an independent con- a breadth of studies for the majority of self-regulation constructs.
struct; therefore, self-evaluation could not be included in the However, some of the measures do not tap the full range of
meta-analysis. In the following section, we outline the objectives learning activities that theoretically fall in the construct domain,
of the meta-analytic investigation. and a few of the scales include items that tap multiple self-
regulation constructs. Researchers’ understanding of a domain is
Meta-Analytic Objectives limited by the quality of the measures employed, so we begin the
results section with a discussion of the construct validity of pop-
The first goal of the meta-analysis was to examine the interre- ular self-regulated learning measures, including criterion defi-
lations among the self-regulation constructs. As highlighted by the ciency and contamination regarding some frequently used mea-
heuristic framework, theory suggests that self-regulation is a broad sures.
domain and encompasses 16 fundamental constructs. Thus, one Theoretically, metacognition is an umbrella construct that sub-
cannot fully understand the self-regulated learning domain without sumes multiple self-regulatory processes (R. Kanfer & Ackerman,
understanding their associations. Our meta-analytic review exam- 1989; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1990). The metacognition
ined the strength of the relations among self-regulation constructs scales of Ford et al. (1998) and Schmidt and Ford (2003) assess a
SELF-REGULATION 427
combination of planning and monitoring, whereas Pintrich et al.’s In short, our review of self-regulation measurement suggests
(1991) scale also assesses attention. Thus, we expect to see strong that there is evidence of criterion overlap in several of the most
intercorrelations with these constructs due to common item con- popular measures used to assess self-regulation constructs.3 Re-
tent. searchers’ collective understanding of the self-regulated learning
Several measures of different constructs are also intricately domain is limited by the quality of the measures employed, and the
related. Popular attention scales (e.g., R. Kanfer & Ackerman, meta-analytic findings must be interpreted in light of these validity
1989; Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987) ask trainees whether issues. However, a meta-analysis of the domain is needed for
they focused their cognitive resources on the training material, diagnosing measurement problems and providing the empirical
whereas motivation scales (e.g., Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Pintrich et support needed to identify where further validation research is
al., 1991; Yeo & Neal, 2004) assess trainees’ willingness to engage warranted.
in learning and desire to learn the training material. Measures of
persistence (e.g., Elliot et al., 1999; Pintrich et al., 1991; Warr & Method
Downing, 2000) overlap substantially with these scales, except
Literature Search and Meta-Analytic Sample
that they target trainees’ ability to concentrate and remain moti-

vated specifically when they are bored or dissatisfied with the Computer-based literature searches of PsycINFO, ERIC, Pro-
training material. Quest, and Digital Dissertations were used to locate studies in the
Expectancy (Vroom, 1964), motivation to learn (Noe, 1986; training and education literatures. To be included in the initial
Noe & Schmitt, 1986), and task value (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; review, abstracts had to contain terms relevant to self-regulation or
Pintrich et al., 1993) theories have all influenced the measurement one of the self-regulation constructs and training or education.
and naming of motivation scales. However, a recent meta-analysis Initial searches resulted in 26,767 possible studies. Next, we man-
demonstrated that the various types of motivation—including task ually searched reference lists from meta-analyses in the training
value and motivation to learn— have similar nomological net- domain (e.g., Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Payne, Youngcourt,
works (Bauer, Orvis, Ely, & Sitzmann, 2010). Thus, it is appro- & Beaubien, 2007; Sitzmann, Brown, Casper, Ely, & Zimmerman,
priate to average across these aspects of motivation when exam- 2008; Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). An extensive search
ining the role of motivation in self-regulated learning. for unpublished studies was also conducted. First, several confer-
Emotion control is an important construct in R. Kanfer and ence programs (e.g., the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Ackerman’s (1989) and Pintrich’s (2000) theoretical paradigms, Psychology) were manually searched. Second, practitioners and
but few measures have been developed to assess it. Keith and Frese researchers with expertise in training were asked to provide leads
(2005) developed an eight-item measure of emotion control, but on unpublished work. In all, we contacted 156 individuals.
several of the items tap attention (e.g., “When difficulties arose, I Studies were included in the meta-analysis if (a) participants
was able to focus all of my attention on the task”) and persistence were nondisabled adults ages 18 or older, (b) training facilitated
(e.g., “When difficulties arose, I was able to motivate myself to potentially job-relevant or education-relevant knowledge or skills
continue”) when difficulties arose during training, as well as the (i.e., not coping with physical or mental health challenges), and (c)
degree to which trainees tried to combat feelings of anxiety and relevant between-subjects correlations were reported or could be
worry (e.g., “When difficulties arose, I did not allow myself to lose calculated given the reported data. The first two criteria support
my composure”). This “contamination” may explain why two generalization to adults participating in workplace training or
studies have found that Keith and Frese’s measure correlated .77 college education. The vast majority of studies that were not
with attention (Sitzmann, Bauer, & Ely, 2008), .69 with a cognitive included in the meta-analysis were eliminated for the following
regulation scale, and .39 with an affective regulation scale (Yeo & reasons: participants were children, self-regulatory processes were
Frederiks, in press). Thus, the scale may be capturing cognitive discussed in the manuscript but were not measured, or the authors
regulation to a greater extent than affective regulation. did not report correlations either among the self-regulatory pro-
Measures of learning strategies ask trainees whether they used cesses or between self-regulation and learning.
strategies such as elaboration and deep processing to help them The 369 research reports contributing data to the meta-analysis
learn the material (e.g., Pintrich et al., 1991). However, certain included 210 published studies, 135 dissertations, and 24 unpub-
learning strategies may be more or less beneficial depending on
situational factors, such as the nature of the training content and 3
It is imperative that a meta-analysis of the self-regulated learning
trainees’ preexisting knowledge of the course topic. Thus, the way domain use only scales that assess a single self-regulated learning con-
in which learning strategies are measured does not account for the struct. Thus, we excluded scales that assessed a combination of multiple
utility of different strategies across trainees and training contexts. constructs, with the exception of metacognition, which by definition is
Finally, the four items in Pintrich et al.’s (1991) attribution scale multidimensional. For example, the Learning and Study Strategies Inven-
assess both whether trainees’ believe that they can learn the course tory motivation scale (Weinstein et al., 1987) assesses a combination of
material—similar to self-efficacy scales—and the reasons why planning (e.g., “I set goals for the grades I want to get in my classes”) and
persistence (e.g., “When work is difficult, I give up or only study the easy
they are able to understand the material. A sample item is “If I try
parts”). Although Weinstein et al. (1987) labeled the scale motivation, we
hard enough, then I will understand the course material.” Thus, the
did not include it with the other motivation measures in the meta-analysis
most popular attribution scale includes several double-barreled because the scale label does not match the construct assessed by other
questions that assess both trainees’ confidence in their ability and motivation scales. This scale, along with many others, was excluded from
whether their success is determined by factors within or outside the meta-analysis because the only way to clarify this domain is to focus on
their control. clean measures of self-regulated learning constructs.
lished studies. These studies included 430 independent samples among the measures. Studies that included multiple independent
with data gathered from 90,380 trainees. Trainees were university samples were coded separately and treated as independent.
students in 82% of studies, employees in 16% of studies, and There are a variety of techniques for detecting moderators in
military personnel in 2% of studies. Across all studies providing meta-analytic research. Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2002) dem-
demographic data, the average age of trainees was 23 years, and onstrated that weighted least squares regression provides the most
43% of participants were male. accurate results. Thus, we used weighted least squares regression
to examine the joint effect of the moderators on the self-regulation/
Coding and Interrater Agreement learning relationships. Correlations were weighted by the study
sample sizes, and categorical variables were dummy coded. Pop-
Table 2 presents definitions of the self-regulation constructs and ulation was dummy coded such that college students (coded 1)
examples of scales used to assess the constructs. All the constructs were compared to employees (coded 0). Publication status was
in the heuristic framework were included in the meta-analysis dummy coded such that 0 indicates that the document was unpub-
except for self-evaluation, for which correlational data were not lished and 1 indicates that the document was published. Research
available. Furthermore, learning was coded based on Kraiger, design was dummy coded such that 0 indicates that the design was
Ford, and Salas’s (1993) multidimensional framework and in- correlational and 1 indicates that the design was experimental or
cluded assessments designed to measure whether trainees remem- quasi-experimental.
bered concepts presented in training or their ability to perform the
skills taught in training. Learning was assessed posttraining with a
written test (e.g., Vancouver & Kendall, 2006) or through partic- Meta-Analytic Results and Discussion
ipation in a posttraining performance-based activity, such as a
simulation (e.g., Yeo & Neal, 2004). Finally, five moderators were Relationships Among the Self-Regulatory Processes
coded: population (college students vs. employees), length of the
course (hours spent in training), publication status (published vs. Table 3 presents the corrected correlations among the self-
unpublished), research design (experimental or quasi-experimental regulatory processes. The corrected correlations ranged from ⫺.30
vs. correlational), and year of the publication, dissertation, or to .83. One of the strongest correlations was between metacogni-
presentation. tion and learning strategies (␳ ⫽ .83, k ⫽ 39, N ⫽ 9,529). These
Two raters independently categorized the self-regulation mea- two constructs also had similar patterns of association with other
sures and recorded the moderators, correlations, sample sizes, and self-regulatory processes, and self-regulation theories suggest that
reliabilities for the self-regulation and learning measures. The they are distinct but intricately related constructs (Pintrich, 2000;
absolute agreement across raters was 99% for categorizing the Zimmerman, 2000). For example, Zimmerman (2000) proposed
study measures and 97% for moderators. Coders then discussed that metacognition is a broad construct that encompasses all as-
discrepancies and reached a consensus. pects of trainees’ cognitive self-regulation. Learning strategies are
one aspect of cognitive self-regulation; they enhance learning by
Meta-Analytic Methods breaking a task down into its essential components and meaning-
fully reorganizing the parts. Pintrich’s (2000) theory proposes that
The corrected mean and variance in validity coefficients across metacognitive monitoring of one’s knowledge is closely related to
studies were calculated with formulas for a random-effects model the use of learning strategies for increasing one’s knowledge
from Hunter and Schmidt (2004). The mean and variance of the levels. Thus, learning strategies are theoretically one component of
correlations across studies were corrected for sampling error and the multidimensional construct of metacognition (Butler & Winne,
unreliability in the predictor and criterion. Artifact distributions of 1995; Nelson & Narens, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989, 1994). In em-
the reliability coefficients were created for each construct based on pirical research, both metacognition and learning strategies are
formulas from Hunter and Schmidt. Reliabilities for self-regulation captured with self-report measures, and meta-analytic evidence
constructs and learning measures from all coded studies were suggests that trainees may not distinguish between these processes.
included in the distributions. Range restriction estimates were Thus, researchers should be aware that there is unlikely to be
unavailable, so no attempt was made to correct for this bias. incremental validity in measuring both metacognition and learning
Prior to finalizing the analyses, a search for outliers was con- strategies. Similar results are likely regardless of whether a meta-
ducted with a modified Huffcutt and Arthur (1995) sample- cognition or learning strategies scale is employed.
adjusted meta-analytic deviancy statistic with the variance of the The attention–time management meta-analytic corrected corre-
mean correlation calculated according to the formula specified by lation was .78, based on data from 29 effect sizes and 10,143
Beal, Corey, and Dunlap (2002). On the basis of the results of trainees. However, these constructs exhibited different patterns of
these analyses and inspection of the studies, no studies warranted relations with other self-regulatory processes, suggesting that there
exclusion. may be some (albeit minimal) incremental validity in assessing
Some of the studies included in the meta-analysis reported both of these constructs in self-regulation research.
correlations with multiple learning measures (e.g., Kozlowski & Six other correlations were .70 or greater (i.e., monitoring with
Bell, 2006). However, single studies contributing multiple corre- persistence, planning with time management, monitoring with help
lations to a single analysis can result in biased sampling error seeking, metacognition with emotion control, persistence with
estimates. Thus, when multiple learning measures were present in time management, and motivation with emotion control), and 35 of
a sample, the Hunter and Schmidt (2004) formula was used to the 116 (30%) correlations on Table 3 were .50 or greater. How-
calculate a single estimate that took into account the correlations ever, five of the correlations that were greater than .70 were based
SELF-REGULATION 429
Table 2
Definitions of Self-Regulation Constructs, Representative Scales, and Sample Scale Items
Construct and definition Scale that assesses the construct Sample item
Regulatory agent
Goal level: Standards trainees aim to Self-set goal level (1 item; Yeo & Neal, 2008) I aim to achieve an error penalty of less
achieve during training than ___ on the next trial.
Goal level (1 item; Vancouver & Kendall, What grade are you really aiming for
2006) on the upcoming test?
Planning: Thinking through what one Planning (7 items; Schraw & Dennison, 1994) I think about what I really need to learn
needs to learn, setting task-specific before I begin a task. I set specific
goals, and deciding which goals before I begin a task. I think of
strategies to employ to achieve the several ways to solve a problem and

goals choose the best one.

Planning (2 items; Young, 2005) I skim through the chapter to see how it
is organized before I read it
thoroughly. I set goals for myself in
order to direct my study activities.
Monitoring: Paying attention to one’s Monitoring (3 items; Miller, Behrens, Greene, As I read the text, I seldom checked my
performance and understanding of & Newman, 1993) understanding by trying to solve
the course material practice problems. (Reverse)
Comprehension monitoring (7 items; Schraw I ask myself questions about how well I
& Dennison, 1994) am doing while learning.
Comprehension monitoring (5 items; Warr & I made a special effort to check how
Downing, 2000) well I understood what was being
taught.
Metacognition: Planning and Metacognitive self-regulation (12 items; When I study for this class, I set goals
monitoring goal-directed behavior Pintrich et al., 1991) for myself in order to direct my
and devoting attention toward the activities in each study period.
course material (Planning) I ask myself questions to
make sure I understand the material I
have been studying in this class.
(Monitoring) During class time I
often miss important points because I
am thinking of other things.
(Attention; reverse)
Metacognitive activity (12 items; Ford et al., I thought ahead to what I would do
1998) next to improve my performance.
(Planning) I tried to monitor closely
the areas where I needed the most
study and practice. (Monitoring)
Metacognitive activity (15 items; Schmidt & During this training program, I tried to
Ford, 2003) think through each topic and decide
what I was supposed to learn from it,
rather than just jumping in without
thinking. (Planning) During this
training program, I asked myself
questions to make sure I understood
the things I have been trying to learn.
(Monitoring)
Attention: Concentrating and Concentration (8 items; Weinstein et al., 1987) I concentrate fully when studying.
maintaining one’s mental focus
during training
Off-task attention (2 items; Kanfer & I daydreamed while doing the task.
Ackerman, 1989) (Reverse)
Learning strategies: Techniques Deep processing (5 items; Elliot et al., 1999) When a theoretical point or conclusion
employed to elaborate on the is presented in lecture or in the text, I
training material as well as try to decide if there is good
integrate all the components of the supporting evidence.
material with each other and with
one’s existing knowledge
Elaboration (6 items; Pintrich et al., 1991) When I study for this class, I pull
together information from different
sources, such as lectures, readings,
and discussions.
(table continues)
Table 2 (continued)
Construct and definition Scale that assesses the construct Sample item
Information processing (8 items; Weinstein et I try to find relationships between what

al., 1987) I am learning and what I already
know.
Persistence: Continuing to allocate Persistence (4 items; Elliot et al., 1999) Regardless of whether or not I like the
effort and attention toward the material, I work my hardest to learn
training material, despite boredom it.
or failure to make progress toward
one’s goals
Effort regulation (4 items; Pintrich et al., Even when course materials are dull
1991) and uninteresting, I manage to keep
working until I finish.
Motivation control (5 items; Warr & Whenever I was feeling bored, I forced
Downing, 2000) myself to pay attention.

Time management: Making study Time management (8 items; Weinstein et al., When I decide to study, I set aside a
schedules and allocating time for 1987) specific length of time and stick to it.
study activities
Procrastination (3 items; McGregor & Elliot, I procrastinated in my studying for the
2002) exam. (Reverse)
Environmental structuring: Choosing Study environment (2 items; Plant et al., Percentage of time trainees reported
a study location that is conducive 2005) studying at the library versus at
to learning (i.e., quiet and free home.
from distractions)
Environmental restructuring (3 items; Gredler I turn off the TV/radio so I can
& Garavalia, 2000) concentrate on what I am doing.
Help seeking: Seeking assistance Help seeking (4 items; Pintrich et al., 1991) I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I
when one has difficulty don’t understand well.
understanding concepts during
training
Motivation: Willingness to engage in Motivation to learn (8 items; Noe & Schmitt, I am motivated to learn the skills
learning and desire to learn the 1986) emphasized in the training program.
course content
Task value (6 items; Pintrich et al., 1991) It is important for me to learn the
course material in this class.
Expectancy (7 items; Noe & Schmitt, 1986) I am willing to exert considerable effort
in the training program in order to
improve my skills.
Emotion control: Keeping negative Emotion control (5 items; Warr & Downing, I told myself not to worry when things
emotions (e.g., anxiety and worry) 2000) were difficult.
at bay while learning
Emotion control (8 items; Keith & Frese, When difficulties arose, I calmly
2005) considered how I could continue the
task.
Effort: The amount of time that Effort (1 item; Fisher & Ford, 1998) Total time spent learning.
trainees devote to learning
Time on task (1 item; Brown, 2001) Total time spent in self-paced training.
Study time (1 item; Wilhite, 1990) Trainees’ estimates of weekly study
time.
Attributions: Trainees’ beliefs about Control of learning beliefs (4 items; Pintrich If I try hard enough, then I will
the causes of outcomes in et al., 1991) understand the course material.
achievement situations
Self-efficacy: Trainees’ beliefs Self-efficacy for learning and performance (8 I’m certain I can understand the basic
regarding their capability to items; Pintrich et al., 1991) concepts in this course.
succeed in training and perform
training-related tasks
Performance expectations (3 items; Considering the difficulty of this course
Harackiewicz et al., 2000) and my skills, I think I will do well
in this class.
Confidence expectancy (2 items; Elliot & I expect to do well in this class.
Church, 1997)
Note. One sample item is provided when all the scale items are fairly similar and the exemplar is representative of all scale items; several sample items
are provided for multidimensional scales. Self-evaluation was not included on the table because there are no existing measures of this construct.
SELF-REGULATION 431
on a single study, and one of the correlations was based on data 1998; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). As such,
from three studies. Basing a meta-analytic effect size on data from researchers need to examine the pattern of correlations among all
few studies is less likely to affect estimates of mean corrected 16 self-regulation constructs to inform theory as to which concep-
correlations than to affect estimates of the variance of the corre- tualization is a more accurate representation of the domain.
lations (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). This suggests that we can be
confident that the effect sizes reported on Table 3 are close
approximations of the actual population values. Predicting Learning
It is interesting to note that all the correlations that are .70 or
Table 4 presents the meta-analytic correlations between each of
greater are between pairs of regulatory mechanisms. It is likely that
the self-regulatory processes and learning.4 According to the heu-
trainees are not able to mentally distinguish among all 12 regula-
ristic framework, regulatory agents (i.e., goal level) had the largest
tory mechanisms in the heuristic framework. Also, it may not be
effect on learning with a moderate to strong effect size. Both
possible to engage in some of these self-regulatory processes
regulatory mechanisms and appraisals had effect sizes ranging
without influencing other interrelated processes. For example,
from weak to moderate (0.08 – 0.28 and 0.18 – 0.35, respectively).
trainees who are managing their time during training should nat-
The self-regulation constructs with the strongest corrected cor-
urally focus their attention on the training material. Thus, there

relations with learning were goal level (␳ ⫽ .44, k ⫽ 24, N ⫽
may be only limited incremental validity for measuring both time
3,565), self-efficacy (␳ ⫽ .35, k ⫽ 160, N ⫽ 25,798), effort (␳ ⫽
management and attention as well as other strongly related con-
.28, k ⫽ 61, N ⫽ 8,569), and persistence (␳ ⫽ .27, k ⫽ 30,
structs in self-regulated learning research.
N ⫽ 6,979). Each of the theories included in this review acknowl-
There was also evidence that some of the self-regulation con-
edges the essential role of these four constructs in the self-
structs were only weakly related. Twenty-two (19%) of the corre-
regulated learning domain (the one exception is that self-efficacy
lations reported on Table 3 were less than .20. However, several of
is not mentioned as part of action regulation theory; Frese & Zapf,
these correlations were based on a limited number of studies.
1994). Goals initiate action (Frese & Zapf, 1994), whereas high
When we focused exclusively on meta-analytic correlations cal-
self-efficacy leads to setting more difficult goals, developing use-
culated from a minimum of three effect sizes, 10 correlations
ful task strategies, persisting, and expending effort to reach one’s
among the constructs were less than .20, and the majority of the
goals (Bandura, 1977; Carver & Scheier, 2000; Locke & Latham,
weak correlations occurred with help seeking, effort, and pretrain-
2002; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Thomas & Mathieu,
ing self-efficacy. Effort is the only construct in the heuristic
1994; Zimmerman, 2000). Learning requires considerable time;
framework that is often collected with objective rather than self-
thus, trainees who exert substantial effort also learn more from
report measures. This construct was weakly related to six of the 16
training (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011). Finally, persistence enables
other constructs in Table 3 and only strongly related to two
trainees to continuously devote effort to learning and concentrate
constructs (i.e., goal level and time management). Relying on
on the training material, despite boredom or dissatisfaction with
objective assessments of self-regulatory processes may reduce
their current performance (R. Kanfer et al., 1996).
common method variance and, thus, the intercorrelations among
Meta-analytic true score regression analysis with maximum
the measures.
likelihood estimates was used to examine the joint effect of these
There was great variability in the sample sizes for the relation-
four self-regulatory processes on learning. In this analysis, we
ships between self-regulatory processes. Specifically, the corrected
controlled for cognitive ability—the strongest predictor of learning
correlations among 25% (29 out of 116) of the constructs were
(Ree & Earles, 1991)—and pretraining knowledge to account for
based on data from 15 or more studies. Conversely, only five
potential reciprocal effects between trainees’ knowledge levels and
studies reported correlations with environmental structuring, 11
self-regulatory processes. Together cognitive ability and pretrain-
studies with emotion control, and self-evaluation could not be
ing knowledge accounted for 32% of the variance in posttraining
included in the meta-analysis due to the lack of correlational
knowledge (␤ ⫽ .24, .43, respectively, p ⬍ .05). Goal level,
research on this construct. Moreover, 17% (20 out of 116) of the
persistence, effort, and self-efficacy accounted for an additional
correlations on Table 3 could not be calculated because of missing
17% of the variance in learning (␤ ⫽ ⫺.29, .37, .28, .07, respec-
data, and 42% (49 out of 116) of the correlations were based on
tively, p ⬍ .05; total R2 ⫽ .49; harmonic mean ⫽ 796). Thus,
only one or two studies. Future research on self-regulation should
collectively the most influential regulatory agent, mechanism, and
examine these underresearched constructs to better understand the
appraisal constructs captured 17% of the variance in learning, after
relationships among self-regulatory processes.
controlling for cognitive ability and pretraining knowledge. This
The absence of empirical research on the interrelationships
finding confirms that self-regulatory processes play an indepen-
among the full range of self-regulation constructs precluded an
dent and instrumental role in the learning process. It is also worth
empirical test of the optimal conceptualization of the self-regulated
noting that the effect of goals on learning was positive when
learning domain. For example, some researchers have focused on
examined in concert with cognitive ability, persistence, effort, and
understanding self-regulation by grouping the constructs into dif-
self-efficacy (␤ ⫽ .17). However, setting more challenging goals
ferent regulatory pathways (e.g., affective, cognitive, and behav-
resulted in trainees learning less when pretraining knowledge was
ioral), whereas others have used phase models of self-regulation,
grouping constructs together based on when they occur during goal
pursuit (Diefendorff & Lord, 2008). Understanding the correct 4
Many trainees contributed data to multiple analyses (e.g., both pre-
specification of domains with multiple dimensions is necessary for training and posttraining self-efficacy with learning). Thus, although
demonstrating construct validity and for making correct inferences 90,380 trainees contributed data to the meta-analysis, the total sample in
from empirical tests (Edwards, 2001; Law, Wong, & Mobley, Table 3 is 175,389.
Table 3
Meta-Analytic Correlations Among the Self-Regulation Constructs
Goal level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Construct k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳
1. Planning — — — —
2. Monitoring — — 9 (1,171) .66 — —
3. Metacognition 4 (650) .20 3 (618) .68 2 (230) .47 — —
4. Attention — — 1 (234) .33 2 (279) .66 4 (753) .52 — —
5. Learning strategies — — 6 (1,350) .45 5 (752) .52 39 (9,529) .83 28 (9,952) .31 — —
6. Persistence 1 (259) .51 1 (234) .69 1 (152) .83 25 (7,168) .69 1 (234) .67 25 (8,204) .58 — —
7. Time management — — 1 (234) .72 — — 1 (164) .28 29 (10,143) .78 26 (9,603) .24 1 (235) .72 — —
8. Environmental
structuring 1 (103) .20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
9. Help seeking — — 1 (234) .51 1 (152) .71 19 (4,569) .45 1 (234) .23 17 (4,420) .36 18 (3,837) .24 2 (370) .51
10. Pretraining motivation 1 (26) .05 1 (67) .37 2 (219) .32 8 (1,266) .41 2 (339) .40 3 (614) .42 3 (685) .30 1 (224) .06
11. Motivation 3 (331) .32 2 (480) .30 3 (736) .32 26 (6,940) .55 5 (708) .23 27 (7,708) .54 19 (5,609) .48 7 (1,482) .23
12. Emotion control — — 2 (812) .12 1 (152) .53 3 (520) .71 1 (234) .12 2 (500) .67 2 (386) .35 1 (234) .09
13. Effort 3 (388) .43 1 (233) .38 2 (270) .33 10 (1,428) .19 7 (1,657) .15 3 (441) .29 1 (234) .28 1 (233) .47
14. Attributions 2 (592) .27 3 (844) .41 3 (662) .33 17 (5,323) .38 1 (279) .59 22 (6,391) .42 16 (5,560) .36 3 (750) .55
15. Pretraining self-efficacy 4 (283) .53 3 (299) .05 2 (195) .24 15 (2,532) .30 5 (853) .11 6 (1,481) .21 2 (533) .37 1 (224) .19
16. Self-efficacy 16 (2,632) .50 8 (1,155) .37 8 (1,499) .27 48 (10,338) .49 9 (2,076) .38 33 (8,940) .49 21 (6,353) .49 8 (1,638) .23
Note. Self-evaluation was not included in the table, as correlations were not available from any of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Dashes (other
than those on the diagonal) indicate that the meta-analytic correlation could not be calculated due to missing data.
also included as covariate in the model. Trainees with high pre- cating that the corrected correlations are statistically significant.
training knowledge are likely to set more challenging goals but Planning, monitoring, help seeking, and emotion control had con-
also have less room for improvement. fidence intervals that included zero, suggesting that they are not
The self-regulation constructs with the weakest correlations significant predictors of learning, which is inconsistent with the-
with learning were help seeking (␳ ⫽ .08, k ⫽ 24, N ⫽ 4,827), ories that support their role in self-regulation (e.g., R. Kanfer &
emotion control (␳ ⫽ .08, k ⫽ 9, N ⫽ 13,051), and pretraining Ackerman, 1989; Pintrich, 2000). For example, both Pintrich
motivation (␳ ⫽ .10, k ⫽ 52, N ⫽ 18,402). In addition, 76% (13 (2000) and Zimmerman (2000) proposed that planning occurs
out of 17) of the confidence intervals did not include zero, indi- along with goal setting during the forethought phase of self-
Table 4
Meta-Analytic Correlations for Self-Regulation Constructs With Learning
95% CI 80% CrI

N weighted Var (e) ⫹ Population Variance due to
Construct k Total N mean r ␳ Var (a) variance artifacts (%) LL UL LL UL
Regulatory agent
Goal level 24 3,565 .37 .44 .01 .03 22.75 .33 .56 .22 .66
Planning 9 1,022 .11 .15 .01 .01 71.93 ⫺.08 .38 .05 .25
Monitoring 12 1,185 .12 .17 .01 .05 26.30 ⫺.04 .38 ⫺.13 .46
Metacognition 77 12,996 .12 .16 .01 .02 32.89 .11 .21 ⫺.02 .34
Attention 39 9,949 .19 .24 .00 .01 43.83 .17 .31 .12 .36
Learning strategies 72 16,613 .12 .16 .00 .01 38.20 .10 .22 .02 .30
Persistence 30 6,979 .20 .27 .00 .03 20.14 .18 .37 .04 .50
Time management 31 8,518 .17 .21 .00 .00 64.95 .13 .30 .14 .29
Environmental structuring 6 779 .14 .20 .01 .00 100.00 .08 .31 .20 .20
Help Seeking 24 4,827 .06 .08 .01 .04 21.60 ⫺.04 .21 ⫺.16 .33
Pretraining motivation 52 18,402 .08 .10 .00 .01 30.93 .03 .16 ⫺.03 .22
Motivation 67 11,612 .15 .18 .01 .03 25.10 .12 .24 ⫺.03 .39
Emotion control 9 13,051 .06 .08 .00 .00 40.55 ⫺.02 .17 .02 .13
Effort 61 8,569 .22 .28 .01 .04 22.89 .21 .35 .02 .54
Attributions 35 8,667 .14 .18 .00 .02 26.12 .12 .24 .00 .37
Pretraining self-efficacy 86 22,857 .18 .22 .00 .01 28.95 .17 .27 .06 .37
Self-efficacy 160 25,798 .29 .35 .01 .04 19.65 .31 .38 .10 .59
Note. Self-evaluation was not included in the table as correlations were not available from any of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Var (e) ⫹
Var (a) ⫽ sampling error variance plus variance due to unreliability in the predictor and criterion; CI ⫽ confidence interval; CrI ⫽ credibility interval; LL ⫽
lower limit; UL ⫽ upper limit.
SELF-REGULATION 433
Table 3 (continued)
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳
— —
— — — —
1 (224) .04 4 (848) .05 — —

1 (336) .04 15 (4,459) .25 19 (2,503) .68 — —

— — 3 (549) .54 3 (14,779) .51 1 (372) .76 — —
1 (83) ⫺.30 1 (234) .26 3 (362) .22 1 (234) .36 1 (233) .13 — —
1 (336) .37 13 (2,632) .10 — — 18 (5,514) .60 — — 1 (184) .12 — —
1 (224) .21 3 (696) .04 36 (20,594) .53 8 (2,816) .23 2 (14,627) .47 8 (615) .03 2 (164) .09 — —
2 (439) .22 17 (4,934) .11 12 (2,251) .29 45 (11,765) .48 — — 18 (3,428) .10 29 (6,929) .53 54 (7,821) .51 — —
regulation and influences subsequent self-regulatory activity and, magnitude, direction, or significance of a study’s results (Begg,
thus, learning. However, there may be mediators of the effects of 1994). Three of the constructs—pretraining motivation, pretrain-
these self-regulatory processes on learning. For example, the qual- ing self-efficacy, and posttraining self-efficacy—tended to have
ity of trainees’ plans and whether they follow through on their stronger relationships with learning in published than unpublished
plans may explain the effect of planning on learning. Examining research (␤ ⫽ .40, .47, .47, respectively). Thus, there is some
whether the effects of these nonsignificant self-regulatory pro- evidence that weaker results are less likely to be published than
cesses (as well as other processes) on learning are indirect via the stronger results.
quality of self-regulatory activity is an essential avenue for future
research.
Meta-Analytic Conclusions
Moderator Results Self-regulation theories tend to be extremely broad, and together
Next, we examined whether the relationships between self- seven of the most influential theories suggest that there are 16 core
regulatory processes and learning were influenced by five potential constructs that account for the extent to which trainees learn from
moderators: study population (college students or employees), adult work-related training. Moreover, in examining which con-
length of the training course, publication status (published or structs were included in each theory, we found that the number of
unpublished), research design (experimental or correlational), and theories that discussed a given construct was significantly related
year of the publication, dissertation, or presentation. Together the to the strength of the self-regulation/learning relationship (r ⫽
five moderators accounted for between 4% and 49% of the vari- .48). That is, the constructs included in more theories are also the
ance in the relationships between self-regulatory processes and ones that have stronger effects on learning. This provides initial
learning (see Table 5). However, the impact of four of the mod- evidence that by examining communalities across theories, a con-
erators—study population, length of course, research design, and cise list of core self-regulation constructs might be derived.
year—were minimal. The population and research design moder- Ideally, a heuristic framework of self-regulated learning should
ator results were never statistically significant. The length of be comprehensive, parsimonious, and internally consistent (Austin
course analysis was significant only for goal level, such that & Vancouver, 1996). However, the meta-analytic results provide
trainees’ goal level had a stronger effect on learning in shorter than evidence that trainees may not mentally distinguish among all the
longer courses (␤ ⫽ ⫺.49, p ⬍ .05). The year of publication processes when regulating their learning activity, as suggested by
moderator was significant only for self-efficacy: Self-efficacy had the strong intercorrelations among the constructs. Thus, we pro-
a stronger effect on learning in recent than older publications (␤ ⫽ pose a parsimonious framework, which focuses on nine self-
.21, p ⬍ .05). Thus, the effects of self-regulatory processes on regulatory processes (see Figure 1). To develop the framework, we
learning tend to generalize across trainee populations, shorter and started by identifying the constructs that had significant effects on
longer courses, experimental and correlational designs, and recent learning. We then combined constructs if they met three criteria:
and older publications. In contrast, there was some evidence of strong intercorrelations with one another, similar patterns of cor-
publication bias in self-regulated learning research. Publication relations with the other self-regulation constructs and learning, and
bias is often referred to as the “file-drawer problem” and occurs self-regulation theories suggest that the constructs are strongly
when the probability that a study is published is dependent on the related.
Table 5
Weighted Least Squares Regression Results for Moderators of the Relationships Between Self-Regulation Constructs and Learning
Goal Learning Time

Moderator level Planning Monitoring Metacognition Attention strategies Persistence management
Populationa — — — ⫺.21 .29 — .26 —

Hours spent in training ⫺.49ⴱ ⫺.17 ⫺.21 ⫺.18 ⫺.20 ⫺.10 — ⫺.43
Publication statusb .06 — ⫺.17 .21 .33 .17 .24 ⫺.04
Research designc — — .10 ⫺.13 ⫺.11 .01 ⫺.10 ⫺.49
Year of publication ⫺.11 .09 .60 ⫺.17 ⫺.17 ⫺.09 ⫺.01 ⫺.05
R2 .25 .04 .46 .13 .21 .05 .15 .40
Note. Dashes indicate that the effect of the moderator could not be examined due to limited variability in the moderator variable.
a
1 ⫽ college students, 0 ⫽ employees. b 1 ⫽ published, 0 ⫽ unpublished. c 1 ⫽ design was experimental or quasi-experimental, 0 ⫽ design was
correlational.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
The outer ring of Figure 1 includes goal level and self-efficacy, This reduced list of nine self-regulatory processes allows for a
which have moderate to strong effects on learning and are not more parsimonious explanation of how trainees regulate their
redundant with other self-regulatory processes. Effort is included learning activity. Furthermore, it may help to guide self-regulation
in the center ring of the framework because of its moderate effect research by providing a manageable list of the processes that
on learning. As noted earlier, metacognition measures routinely explain meaningful components of the learning process. Future
assess a combination of both planning and monitoring.5 Also, research should elucidate how trainees self-direct their learning
metacognition and learning strategies are strongly interrelated, activities outside training environments and how these core pro-
have similar patterns of correlations with other constructs, and are cesses interact over time as adults strive to acquire work-related
linked theoretically (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, we knowledge and skills.
propose that metacognition (and its narrower components of plan-
ning and monitoring) should be combined with learning strategies
into a broader construct, which we label metacognitive strategies. Integrating Meta-Analytic Findings
Attention and time management are also strongly related and have
Several previous training meta-analyses have examined predic-
similar relationships with learning, but their pattern of correlations
tors of learning. Comparing our results with the results of previous
with other self-regulatory processes differs, so these constructs are
meta-analyses provides a comprehensive understanding of the
included separately in the center ring of the framework. Although
predictors of learning and how self-regulation constructs compare
persistence is among the constructs with the strongest effects on
with other predictors.
learning, it also has strong correlations with nine self-regulatory
Colquitt et al. (2000) used meta-analytic techniques to test a
processes: goal level, planning, monitoring, metacognition, atten-
model of motivation to learn. They found moderate relationships
tion, learning strategies, time management, motivation, and self-
between pretraining self-efficacy and both declarative knowledge
efficacy. Persistence and metacognition have the greatest evidence
(␳ ⫽ .30, k ⫽ 16, N ⫽ 2,806) and skill acquisition (␳ ⫽ .32, k ⫽
of criterion overlap with the other self-regulatory processes, but
20, N ⫽ 2,745) and between motivation and both declarative
persistence does not have a similar pattern of relationships with
knowledge (␳ ⫽ .27, k ⫽ 11, N ⫽ 1,509) and skill acquisition (␳ ⫽
any other construct, suggesting that persistence should not be
.16, k ⫽ 9, N ⫽ 1,615). Although we found slightly weaker
combined with other constructs. Thus, persistence is excluded
relationships (␳ ⫽ .22, k ⫽ 86, N ⫽ 22,857, for pretraining
from the parsimonious framework to reduce criterion overlap
self-efficacy and ␳ ⫽ .18, k ⫽ 67, N ⫽ 11,612, for motivation with
across constructs. Finally, the remaining constructs in the frame-
learning), our results are based on data from about 4 times as many
work with weak to moderate effects on learning are environmental
trainees, adding confidence in our results.
structuring, motivation, and attributions.
Compared with goal orientations and trainee reactions, the ma-
Two self-regulated learning constructs— help seeking and emo-
jority of self-regulation constructs are stronger predictors of learn-
tion control— had nonsignificant effects on learning and were
ing. Payne et al. (2007) examined the effects of goal orientations
therefore not included in the parsimonious framework of adult
on learning and found small meta-analytic relationships (mastery
self-regulated learning. Help seeking may influence learning only
goal orientation, ␳ ⫽ .12, k ⫽ 43, N ⫽ 8,676; prove perfor-
if trainees are able to find the correct answers to their questions.
mance goal orientation, ␳ ⫽ ⫺.01, k ⫽ 38, N ⫽ 7,598; avoid
Thus, future research on help seeking should examine the mech-
performance goal orientation, ␳ ⫽ ⫺.13, k ⫽ 13, N ⫽ 2,856).
anisms that mediate and moderate the effect of seeking help on
Thus, the relationships between the goal orientation dimensions
learning. Emotion control may be beneficial in learning situations
and learning tend to be weaker than the relationships between
only if trainees are able to control their emotions without pulling
significant attentional resources away from task engagement while
gaining control over their emotional responses. Finally, given the 5
The MSLQ metacognition scale (Pintrich et al., 1991) also includes
strong theoretical link between monitoring and self-evaluation and items assessing attention. To reduce criterion overlap with attention, meta-
the weak effect of monitoring on learning, self-evaluation is not cognition scales should eliminate items that tap attention and focus more
included in the framework. narrowly on planning and monitoring.
SELF-REGULATION 435
Table 5 (continued)
Environmental Help Pretraining Emotion Pretraining

structuring seeking motivation Motivation control Effort Attributions self-efficacy Self-efficacy
— .05 ⫺.09 ⫺.06 .74 .07 ⫺.07 ⫺.01 ⫺.10

— .30 ⫺.06 ⫺.01 — ⫺.17 .06 ⫺.13 ⫺.06
— .40 .40ⴱ .24 — ⫺.22 .37 .47ⴱ .47ⴱ
⫺.55 ⫺.20 ⫺.22 ⫺.22 ⫺.08 ⫺.27 .08 ⫺.12 ⫺.16
.33 ⫺.34 .09 ⫺.07 ⫺.48 .12 .30 .01 .21ⴱ
.34 .12 .23 .09 .49 .07 .34 .26ⴱ .30ⴱ
self-regulatory processes and learning. However, Payne et al. are pursuing. Thus, future research should explicate the goals
noted that learning is a distal outcome of trainees’ goal orientations trainees are striving for by measuring trainees’ goals (including
and suggested that the effects of goal orientations on learning are both the level that they are striving for and the content of their
likely mediated by self-regulatory processes, such as goals, learn- goals) and examine the relationships between goal level and con-
ing strategies, and self-efficacy. Sitzmann, Brown, et al. (2008) tent with self-regulatory processes.
found small meta-analytic relationships between trainee reactions
and both declarative (␳ ⫽ .12, k ⫽ 78, N ⫽ 11,005) and procedural Study Limitations
knowledge (␳ ⫽ .15, k ⫽ 43, N ⫽ 4,688). This pattern suggests
that the majority of self-regulation constructs have stronger rela- As with any research, there are limitations to the current study.
tionships than trainee reactions with learning. Together these find- First, although we identified 16 core constructs in the heuristic
ings indicate that self-regulation has a substantial role in predicting framework, gaps in existing primary research resulted in missing
learning and may mediate the effects of trainees’ goal orientations correlations among self-regulatory processes. This limitation can
on learning. Furthermore, self-regulatory processes collectively be addressed only when more primary studies are conducted that
account for more variability in learning than the strongest inde- assess these understudied constructs and measure them in concert
pendent predictor: cognitive ability (Ree & Earles, 1991). with other self-regulatory processes. Second, correlations between
In addition to previous training meta-analyses, a meta-analysis some of the self-regulation constructs are likely inflated by com-
was conducted in the performance domain to examine the effect of mon method bias, as many of the measures are self-reported and
regulatory agents. Specifically, Wood, Mento, and Locke (1987) completed at the end of training. To reduce this bias in the future,
found evidence of a moderate positive effect of goal level on researchers should examine which processes can be assessed with
performance (d ⫽ 0.58, k ⫽ 72, N ⫽ 7,548). Converting the d to non-self-report measures. Third, according to self-regulation the-
an r to aid comparison with our findings yields a corrected corre- ory, self-regulation is a dynamic and cyclical process (Carver &
lation of .28. Although our study is not directly comparable to Scheier, 2000; R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Pintrich, 2000;
Wood et al. in that we examined the effect of self-set goal levels Zimmerman, 2000). However, our meta-analytic results cannot
on learning (whereas they focused on the effect of assigned goal provide evidence of causal or reciprocal relationships. Longitudi-
levels on performance), our results are generally consistent with nal research is needed to further examine the relationships among
these findings and support the benefits of goals in enhancing the self-regulatory processes and how these relationships change
learning. Overall, the current findings and previous research point over time. We return to this point in the next section.
out the instrumental role of self-regulation in predicting learning
and suggest that trainees who engage in self-regulatory activity Directions for Future Research
tend to learn more than those who fail to self-regulate.
Goals are a central construct in all self-regulation theories (e.g., After reviewing theoretical models of self-regulation and con-
Locke & Latham, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000), yet a ducting a meta-analysis of the self-regulated learning domain, we
paucity of research has examined the interrelationships between believe that the field is on the verge of a paradigm shift in the
trainees’ self-set goal levels and the majority of self-regulation topics examined and methods used to collect data. Specifically, we
constructs. In most self-regulation studies, trainees’ goals are believe that the future of self-regulation research involves exam-
implied (e.g., to learn the course material) rather than explicitly ining the optimal timing of measurement and using longitudinal
measured. However, trainees may be striving for different goals. designs to capture the dynamic nature of self-regulated learning.
Some may be trying to outperform other trainees, whereas others Our review also suggests that as organizational training shifts
may be striving for an A in the course or want to improve their away from instructor-driven classroom learning, theory and re-
knowledge of the training material. As demonstrated by Payne et search need to adapt to address the role of self-regulation in
al. (2007), these goals have different relations with self-regulation informal learning. Finally, we must begin to examine how self-
constructs and learning. It is also likely that the interrelationships regulation after trainees leave the training environment influences
among self-regulation constructs differ based on the goals trainees training transfer. The following sections review some of the ques-
Figure 1. A parsimonious framework of adult self-regulated learning. Metacognitive strategies encompasses

metacognition (including planning and monitoring) and learning strategies.
tions that need to be answered in the next generation of self- cesses should be measured as well as the optimal timing for
regulation research. implementing training interventions designed to induce self-
Dynamic nature of self-regulated learning. The majority of regulation. Furthermore, quantitative research needs to collect
research included in the current review assessed self-regulation more data at the point in training when changes in self-regulatory
constructs pre-, mid-, or posttraining. However, research is needed processes are likely to occur, rather than equally space the waves
to better understand the progression of self-regulation over time of data (Singer & Willett, 2003).
and to determine the right episodic unit of analysis in different Additionally, limited research has examined differences in the
learning situations. For example, in academic learning, where a effects of self-regulatory processes at the within- and between-
typical undergraduate course might include two or three tests subjects levels of analysis. Theoretically, self-regulation is a cy-
spread across the semester, self-regulatory processes are likely to clical process by which trainees establish training goals, develop
look different across the semester. Gersick’s (1988) punctuated metacognitive strategies, channel their attention toward learning,
equilibrium model proposes that groups undergo periods of stag- and subsequently modify their self-regulatory processes over time
nation punctuated by concentrated periods of activity. Self- (Carver & Scheier, 2000; R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Pintrich,
regulation may also entail long periods of inactivity followed by 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, it is a within-person process that
spurts of intense activity. For example, college students may go evolves over time. Switching from the between- to within-subjects
several weeks without engaging in self-regulated learning only to level of analysis requires researchers to rethink self-regulated
fervently begin to regulate as a key milestone approaches—such as learning theory, adopt new research methodologies and analytic
in the weeks (or days) before a test—and then return to a period of techniques, and contemplate how self-regulatory processes evolve
decreased regulation immediately following the test. In contrast, over time and in the context of work and family demands that may
during organizational training, trainees may be motivated to con- compete for trainees time (Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall,
tinually regulate to ensure that they are learning the knowledge and 2010). Some progress has been made in this area. Sitzmann and
skills that are necessary for their jobs. These examples highlight Ely (2010) found that trainees’ learning performance had a posi-
the need for qualitative research to better understand how self- tive effect on self-regulatory activity in the subsequent module.
regulation plays out over time in different environments. Research Both Vancouver and Kendall (2006) and Yeo and Neal (2006)
in this area could provide insight as to when self-regulatory pro- found that self-efficacy was negatively related to performance at
SELF-REGULATION 437
the within-subject level but positively related to performance at the process, because an implicit assumption underlying training is that
between-subjects level.6 Moreover, Vancouver and Kendall found learning will transfer to the work environment (Brown & Sitz-
a cyclical relationship between self-efficacy and test performance: mann, 2011). However, some researchers have offered dismal
Past performance was a positive predictor of subsequent self- assessments of training transfer, specifically that only 10% of
efficacy magnitude, but self-efficacy was negatively related to training transfers (e.g., Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Examining how
future performance. Furthermore, Sitzmann and Johnson (2011) trainees regulate their transfer of material from training to the job
found a cyclical relationship between the amount of time that may explain essential variance in the transfer process.
trainees planned to devote to studying, effort, and learning perfor- Action regulation theory is the only self-regulation theory in our
mance. Planned time on task had a positive effect on effort, which review that discusses training transfer (Frese & Zapf, 1994;
led to higher learning performance. However, performing well Hacker, 1982). This theory focuses on job design and changing
resulted in trainees planning to allocate less time to the subsequent employees’ mentality during training to enhance training transfer.
module, relative to when they performed poorly on the learning However, we are not aware of any theories that address how
assessment. Future research should continue in this direction, engaging in self-regulation after returning to the job enhances
employing longitudinal designs to examine changes in self- training transfer. That is, what is the role of self-regulation after
regulatory processes as well as the dynamic interplay between leaving the training environment in determining whether trainees
learning and self-regulatory processes over time. transfer knowledge and skills learned in training to the job?
Informal learning. All the studies in the meta-analysis fo- We propose that self-regulation of transfer after trainees return
cused on formal learning, that is, a planned and systematic effort to the job is essential for ensuring meaningful change in work-
to teach knowledge and skills. However, the majority of learning related knowledge and skills. Self-regulation of transfer refers to
in the workplace is informal, via looking up information online, striving to apply knowledge and skills learned in training to the job
experimentation (i.e., trial and error), and discussions with col- via control over affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes.
leagues (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011). It is likely that self-regulation Motivational outcomes of training may be key factors for initiating
has a stronger effect on learning in informal than formal settings. self-regulation of transfer. During training, motivation and self-
Although learning opportunities are explicitly defined in formal efficacy are essential for initiating a wide range of self-regulatory
settings, in informal settings employees must engage in self- activities (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). This should also
regulation to identify or create learning opportunities (Enos, Keh- hold true for self-regulation of transfer: Employees will not set
rhahn, & Bell, 2003). Additionally, the self-regulatory processes transfer goals if their motivation and self-efficacy are low. Just as
with the strongest effects on learning may differ across these goals catalyze self-regulation in training, when returning to the
contexts (Boekaerts & Minnaert, 1999). For example, trainees may work environment, employees must set specific transfer goals and
receive less externally generated feedback when engaged in infor- devise plans for how to achieve them. Specifically, trainees must
mal than formal learning where feedback on exams and assign- develop plans to unlearn their old work routines and replace them
ments is built into the curriculum. Thus, in informal learning with the routines taught in training (Frese & Zapf, 1994). This
environments, monitoring may be the sole source of feedback on argument suggests that the majority of self-regulation of transfer
trainees’ knowledge, suggesting that the accuracy of monitoring processes have analogous self-regulated learning components. Re-
has an essential role in determining the effectiveness of informal search examining self-regulation of transfer would aid the field’s
learning. Moreover, in informal settings employees must indepen- understanding of the role of self-regulation in the modern work
dently identify knowledge gaps, determine where they can access environment and help researchers design interventions to increase
relevant and accurate information, monitor the accuracy of infor- the transfer of trained knowledge and skills back to the job.
mation obtained, and control their emotions if relevant information
is difficult to obtain. Conclusions
Given the prevalence of informal learning in the modern work
The past 30 years of research on self-regulated learning have
environment, researchers should begin to examine the effect of
been extremely fruitful. Self-regulation theories provide a tremen-
self-regulation in this context. New measures need to be developed
dous knowledge base for understanding how adults regulate their
or existing measures adapted to capture the nuances of informal
acquisition of new information. They clarify the fundamental
learning. For example, measures should capture the psychological
constructs that constitute self-regulated learning, how these con-
process by which trainees self-assess their training needs and the
structs are interrelated, and how they work in concert to predict
types of planning activities that they engage in to locate accurate
knowledge acquisition. Our review of self-regulation theories
and relevant information. Research should also examine the effects
identified 16 core self-regulated learning constructs. These con-
of self-regulation failure in informal learning. What are the nega-
structs can be classified as regulatory agents, mechanisms, and
tive effects of trainees acquiring inaccurate information and ap-
appraisals based on whether they are instrumental in initiating
plying them on the job? Additionally, are there environmental
self-regulated learning, ensuring goal progress proceeds in an
factors, such as strong mentor relationships, that may minimize the
efficient and organized manner, or determining whether trainees
effect of self-regulated learning failure on job performance?
sustain their goal-striving behavior.
Self-regulation of transfer. Only 12 of the studies included
in the review examined the effect of self-regulation during training
on the maintenance of trained skills posttraining. Furthermore, 6
Recent research suggests that performance ambiguity moderates this
none of the studies examined the effect of self-regulation after relationship, with self-efficacy having a negative effect on performance
trainees left the training environment on training transfer. This is when ambiguity is high and a positive effect when ambiguity is low
a critical gap in researchers’ understanding of the self-regulation (Schmidt & DeShon, 2010).
Together the meta-analytic findings and heuristic framework of of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586 –598. doi:10.1037/0022-
the self-regulated learning domain provide insight as to the current 3514.41.3.586
state of the literature. Meta-analytic findings revealed that the Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and
majority of self-regulatory processes have moderate to strong optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 80, 706 –722. doi:10.1037/0022-
relationships with one another, suggesting that the processes are
3514.80.5.706
highly interrelated. Additionally, examining the intercorrelations
Bauer, K. N., Orvis, K. A., Ely, K., & Sitzmann, T. (2010, April).
between self-regulation constructs suggests that there is measure- Re-examining training motivation: A meta-analytic investigation of dif-
ment overlap in the assessment of some constructs (e.g., metacog- ferential validity. Poster presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the
nition and learning strategies). Furthermore, most of the self- Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
regulatory processes exhibited positive relationships with learning, Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt
goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy having the stron- and Arthur’s (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in meta-analysis
gest effects. Together these four constructs accounted for 17% of of correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 583–589. doi:
the variance in learning after controlling for cognitive ability and 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.583
Begg, C. B. (1994). Publication bias. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),
pretraining knowledge. However, counter to self-regulation theory,

several key regulatory mechanisms—planning, monitoring, help The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399 – 409). New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
seeking, and emotion control— did not have significant effects on
ⴱBell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core
learning. Thus, we presented a more parsimonious framework of
training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and
the self-regulated learning domain, focusing on a subset of self- adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296 –316. doi:10.1037/
regulatory processes that have both limited overlap with other core 0021-9010.93.2.296
processes and meaningful effects on learning. ⴱBell, B. S., & Roberson, Q. M. (2006, August). Diversity training re-
We are hopeful that self-regulation research will continue to search: Current perspectives and future directions. Panel discussion
progress over the next 30 years. To make this goal a reality, conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
researchers must collectively regulate their efforts toward advanc- Atlanta, GA.
ing a parsimonious theory of self-regulated learning and adjust Boekaerts, M., Maes, S., & Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulation across
their focus to accommodate how learning occurs in the modern domains of applied psychology: Is there an emerging consensus? Ap-
work and higher education environments. plied Psychology, 54, 149 –154. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00201.x
Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (1999). Self-regulation with respect to
informal learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31,
References 533–544. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00020-8
Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta- a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boe-
analysis that are also discussed in the text. For a complete list of studies kaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
included in the meta-analysis, go to http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ (pp. 417– 450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-
a0022777.supp 012109890-2/50042-1
ⴱAl-Ansari, E. M. (2005). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: Theory or chapter heading?
cognition in the College of Education students at Kuwait University. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 391– 402. doi:10.1016/S1041-
Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 341–350. doi:10.2224/ 6080(96)90025-4
sbp.2005.33.4.341 ⴱBourgeois, N. T. (2007). Error training: An examination of metacogni-
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: tion, emotion control, and knowledge as mediators of performance
Erlbaum. effects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University,
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Baton Rouge.
Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338 –375. Brodbeck, F. C., Zapf, D. Prümper, J., & Frese, M. (1993). Error handling
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338 in office work with computers: A field study. Journal of Occupational
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer in training: A review and and Organizational Psychology, 66, 303–317.
directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105. doi: ⴱBrown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which em-
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x ployees learn and why? Personnel Psychology, 54, 271–296. doi:
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00093.x
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033- Brown, K. G., & Sitzmann, T. (2011). Training and employee development
295X.84.2.191 for improved performance. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing mem-
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. bers for the organization (pp. 469 –503). Washington, DC: American
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12170-016
self-reactive mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Sympo- Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning:
sium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 69 –164). A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. doi:10.2307/1170684
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A
Freeman. control-theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects Verlag. doi:10.3102/00346543065003245
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99. doi:10.1037/0021- Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual
9010.88.1.87 framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psy-
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self- chological Bulletin, 92, 111–135. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive
SELF-REGULATION 439
and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new
19 –35. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19 model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31,
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral 9 – 41. doi:10.2307/256496
self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), ⴱGist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 41– 84). San Diego, CA: Academic efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and mainte-
Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50032-9 nance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44, 837–
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative 861. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00701.x
theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years Gredler, M. E., & Garavalia, L. S. (2000). Students’ perceptions of their
of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678 –707. doi:10.1037/ self-regulatory and other directed study strategies: A factor analysis.
0021-9010.85.5.678 Psychological Reports, 86, 102–108. doi:10.2466/PR0.86.1.102-108
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions and educational Hacker, W. (1982). Action control. On the task dependent structure of
research. Educational Research, 22, 14 –22. doi:10.3102/ action-controlling mental representations. In W. Hacker, W. Volpert, &
0013189X022002014 M. Cranach (Eds.), Cognitive and motivational aspects of action: Se-
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: lected International Congress papers (pp. 137–149). Berlin, Germany:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Hacker, W. (1985). Activity: A fruitful concept in industrial psychology. In
DiBattista, D., & Gosse, L. (2006). Test anxiety and the Immediate M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal directed behavior: The concept of
Feedback Assessment Technique. Journal of Experimental Education, action in psychology (pp. 262–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
74, 311–327. doi:10.3200/JEXE.74.4.311-328 ⴱHarackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot,
Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Goal-striving and self-regulation A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement
processes. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. G. Pritchard (Eds.), Work goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Edu-
motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 151–196). New York, NY: cational Psychology, 92, 316 –330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316
Routledge. Hayes, S. C. (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies,
Dunlosky, J., Kubat-Silam, A. K., & Hertzog, C. (2003). Training moni- and instructional control. New York, NY: Plenum.
toring skills improves older adults’ self-paced associative learning. Psy- Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,
chology and Aging, 18, 340 –345. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.340 52, 1280 –1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic
Psychologist, 41, 1040 –1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327–334.
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational be- doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.327
havior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
Research Methods, 4, 144 –192. doi:10.1177/109442810142004 recting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and recting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Social Psychology, 72, 218 –232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218 CA: Sage.
ⴱElliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects
study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453– 467.
of Educational Psychology, 91, 549 –563. doi:10.1037/0022- doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.453
0663.91.3.549 Ivancic, K., & Hesketh, B. (2000). Learning from errors in a driving
Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the simulation: Effects on driving skill and self-confidence. Ergonomics, 43,
transfer of learning: How managers develop proficiency. Human Re- 1966 –1984. doi:10.1080/00140130050201427
source Development Quarterly, 14, 369 –387. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1074 Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. (1972). Self-control: A behavioristic excursion
ⴱFisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort into the lion’s den. Behavior Therapy, 3, 389 – 416. doi:10.1016/S0005-
and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 7894(72)80140-0
51, 397– 420. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00731.x Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation and individual differences in learning: An
ⴱFord, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. integration of developmental, differential and cognitive perspectives.
(1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 221–239. doi:10.1016/1041-
practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Ap- 6080(90)90023-A
plied Psychology, 83, 218 –233. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.218 Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities:
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisi-
German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657– 690. doi:10.1037/0021-
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, 9010.74.4.657
2nd ed., pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational
ⴱGarcia, T., McCann, E. J., Turner, J. E., & Roska, L. (1998). Modeling the skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning
mediating role of volition in the learning process. Contemporary Edu- and Individual Differences, 8, 185–209. doi:10.1016/S1041-
cational Psychology, 23, 392– 418. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0982 6080(96)90014-X
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, F. H. (2001). Goals and self-regulation: Applications
in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. of theory to work settings. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.),
In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 7. New directions in
and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127–153). measures and methods (pp. 287–326). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual
ⴱGardner, R. C., Moorcroft, R., & Metford, J. (1989). Second language Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44
learning in an immersion programme: Factors influencing acquisition .020193.000323
and retention. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 287–305. ⴱKeith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management
doi:10.1177/0261927X8985002 training: Emotion control and metacognition as mediators of perfor-
mance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 677– 691. doi: ⴱMcGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors
10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.677 of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of
ⴱKlomegah, R. Y. (2007). Predictors of academic performance of univer- Educational Psychology, 94, 381–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.381
sity students: An application of the goal efficacy model. College Student ⴱMiller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals
Journal, 41, 407– 415. and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and
ⴱKozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2–14. doi:
orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Jour- 10.1006/ceps.1993.1002
nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 900 –916. doi:10.1037/0021- Mischel, W. (1996). From good intentions to willpower. In P. M. Gollwit-
9010.91.4.900 zer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition
ⴱKozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., and motivation to behavior (pp. 197–218). New York, NY: Guilford
& Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation Press.
traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adapt- Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of
ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological
1–31. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2930 Bulletin, 126, 247–259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, ⴱMyers, S. D. (1997). The role of person, outcome, environmental, and
skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods learning variables in training effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dis-
of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328. sertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework
Kraiger, K., & Jerden, E. (2007). A meta-analytic investigation of learner and some new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of
control: Old findings and new directions. In S. M. Fiore & E. Salas learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York, NY: Aca-
(Eds.), Toward a science of distributed learning (pp. 65–90). Washing- demic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
ton, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11582-004 ⴱNietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy
Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation, training on monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95,
self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology, 41, 131–142. doi:10.1080/00220670209596583
97–129. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00688.x ⴱNisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning
ⴱKumrow, D. E. (2007). Evidence-based strategies of graduate students to strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. For-
achieve success in hybrid web-based course. Journal of Nursing Edu- eign Language Annals, 38, 100 –107. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720
cation, 46, 140 –145. .2005.tb02457.x
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1999). The effects of proximal and distal Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences
goals on performance on a moderately complex task. Journal of Orga- on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736 –
nizational Behavior, 20, 421– 429. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099- 749. doi:10.2307/258393
1379(199907)20:4::AID-JOB8963.0.CO;2-# Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on
Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39,
multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741– 497–523. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00950.x
755. doi:10.2307/259060 Orvis, K. A., Horn, D. B., & Belanich, J. (2008). The roles of task difficulty
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. and prior videogame experience on performance and motivation in
(2008). A meta-analysis of the teamwork processes: Tests of a multidi- instructional videogames. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2415–
mensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. 2433. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.016
Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570 Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic
.2008.00114.x examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied
Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Psychology, 92, 128 –150. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128
Good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Phillips, J. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Prevalence and
Social Science, 587, 69 – 81. doi:10.1177/0002716202250791 prediction of positive discrepancy creation: Examining a discrepancy
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational between two self-regulation theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
technique that works! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 498 –511. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.498
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task ⴱPintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. cognition in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & C. Ames (Eds.),
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 6. Motivation enhancing
of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American environments (pp. 117–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learn-
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). ing. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of
Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543–568. self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5. Retrieved from http:// Educational Psychology, 82, 33– 40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/189/271 Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A
Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environ- manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Question-
ment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to volun- naire (MSLQ) (Tech. Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor: University of
tary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, Michigan.
79, 3–14. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.3 ⴱPintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993).
McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2009). Religion, self-control, Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learn-
and self-regulation: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psy- ing Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measure-
chological Bulletin, 135, 69 –93. doi:10.1037/a0014213 ment, 53, 801– 813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
SELF-REGULATION 441
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition (2008). A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of
and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 280 –295. doi:
in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.280
Institute of Mental Measurements. Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The
ⴱPlant, E. A., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning,
time does not predict grade point average across college students: and attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 132–144. doi:10.1037/
Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contem- a0018080
porary Educational Psychology, 30, 96 –116. doi:10.1016/j.ced- Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-
psych.2004.06.001 assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orien- Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169 –191.
tation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192. Sitzmann, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2011, April). The best laid plans: Exam-
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185 ining the conditions under which a planning intervention improves
ⴱPoteet, M. L. (1996). The training transfer process: An examination of the learning and reduces attrition. Paper presented at the 26th Annual
role of individual, motivational, and work environmental factors (Un- Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
published doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Chicago, IL.
Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The compar-
spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological ative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-
Review, 85, 417– 435. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.417 analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623– 664. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: 6570.2006.00049.x
A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269 –286. ⴱSmith, E. M. (1996). The effects of individual differences, discovery
doi:10.1080/00313830120074206 learning, and metacognition on learning and adaptive transfer (Unpub-
ⴱQuiñones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment lished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.
as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226 –238. doi:10.1037/ Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theo-
0021-9010.80.2.226 retical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological
ⴱRamirez, A. E. (2000). Individual, attitudinal, and organizational influ- Bulletin, 133, 65–94. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
ences on training effectiveness: A test of Noe’s model (Unpublished
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic
doctoral dissertation). University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much
Applied Psychology, 87, 96 –111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96
more than g. Personnel Psychology, 44, 321–332. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
ⴱThomas, K. M., & Mathieu, J. E. (1994). Role of causal attributions in
6570.1991.tb00961.x
dynamic self-regulation and goal processes. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of
ogy, 79, 812– 818. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.812
performance ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and
ⴱTowler, A. J., & Dipboye, R. L. (2001). Effects of trainer expressiveness,
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 572–581. doi:10.1037/
organization, and trainee goal orientation on training outcomes. Journal
a0018289
of Applied Psychology, 86, 664 – 673. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.664
ⴱSchmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Learning within a learner control
ⴱTracey, J. B., Hinkin, T. R., Tannenbaum, S., & Mathieu, J. E. (2001).
training environment: The interactive effects of goal orientation and
The influence of individual characteristics and the work environment on
metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology,
varying levels of training outcomes. Human Resource Development
56, 405– 429. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00156.x
Quarterly, 12, 5–23. doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460 – 475. doi:10.1006/ 1⬍5::AID-HRDQ2⬎3.0.CO;2-J
ceps.1994.1033 Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings: A tale
ⴱSchunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during of two paradigms. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. Journal Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 303–341). San Diego, CA: Academic
of Educational Psychology, 91, 251–260. doi:10.1037/0022- Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50039-1
0663.91.2.251 Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and organisation research
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic on self-regulation: From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology,
learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. 54, 155–185. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00202.x
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631– ⴱVancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively
649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890- relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of
2/50048-2 Applied Psychology, 91, 1146 –1153. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146
ⴱSeijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of distal learning, Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of ⴱWarr, P., Allan, C., & Birdi, K. (1999). Predicting three levels of training
Organizational Behavior, 22, 291–307. doi:10.1002/job.70 outcome. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
ⴱSimmering, M. J. (1999). The effects of learner control and individual 351–375. doi:10.1348/096317999166725
differences on learning outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). ⴱWarr, P., & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of
Michigan State University, East Lansing. open learning. Personnel Psychology, 48, 347–375. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: 6570.1995.tb01761.x
Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford Uni- ⴱWarr, P., & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning anxiety and
versity Press. knowledge acquisition. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 311–333.
ⴱSitzmann, T., Bauer, K. N., & Ely, K. (2008, April). Distractions in doi:10.1348/000712600161853
training: Effects on self-regulation and learning. Paper presented at the Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). LASSI: Learning
23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H.
Psychology, San Francisco, CA. ⴱWilhite, S. C. (1990). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of
Sitzmann, T., Brown, K. G., Casper, W. J., Ely, K., & Zimmerman, R. D. memory ability, and study activities as predictors of college course
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 696 –700. doi: the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–
10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.696 313. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educa- Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated aca-
tional Psychologist, 30, 173–187. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3004_2 demic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329 –339. doi:
Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327– Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
353. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90022-9 ment: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17. doi:10.1207/
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. s15326985ep2501_2
In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A
educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmer-
Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome man (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
goals on a simple versus complex task. Group and Organization Man- educational applications (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
agement, 21, 236 –250. doi:10.1177/1059601196212007 Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Association. doi:10.1037/10213-000
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407– 415. doi:10.1037/0022- Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic
3514.56.3.407 regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional methods. In D. H.

Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning. From teach-
moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol- ing to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
ogy, 72, 416 – 425. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.416 Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive
Yeo, G., & Frederiks, E. (in press). Cognitive and affective regulation: perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Scale validation and nomological network analysis. Applied Psychology. Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic
ⴱYeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orien- Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in
tation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247. doi:10.1037/0021- self-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of
9010.89.2.231 Educational Psychology, 89, 29 –36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29
ⴱYeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relation- Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a struc-
ship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and tured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning
levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1088 –1101. strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614 – 628. doi:
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1088 10.2307/1163093
ⴱYeo, G., & Neal, A. (2008). Subjective cognitive effort: A model of Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a
states, traits, and time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 617– 631. strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.617 Psychology, 80, 284 –290. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.284
ⴱYi, M. Y., & Davis, F. D. (2003). Developing and validating an obser- Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of
vational learning model of computer software training and skill acqui- academic learning and motivation. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of
sition. Information Systems Research, 14, 146 –169. doi:10.1287/ academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 105–125). New
isre.14.2.146.16016 York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012554255-5/50005-3
ⴱYoung, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environ-
ment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Edu- Received November 4, 2009
cation, 27, 25– 40. doi:10.1177/0273475304273346 Revision received December 13, 2010
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are Accepted December 20, 2010 䡲

2011 Art SitzmannEly SelfregMetAn04898 001

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

2011 Art SitzmannEly SelfregMetAn04898 001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Bulletin © 2011 American Psychological Association

2011, Vol. 137, No. 3, 421– 442 0033-2909/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022777

A Meta-Analysis of Self-Regulated Learning in Work-Related Training and

Traci Sitzmann Katherine Ely

Keywords: self-regulation, self-regulated learning, training, meta-analysis

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022777.supp

that they target trainees’ ability to concentrate and remain moti-

strategies to employ to achieve the several ways to solve a problem and

goals choose the best one.

Information processing (8 items; Weinstein et I try to find relationships between what

Downing, 2000) myself to pay attention.

urally focus their attention on the training material. Thus, there

Construct k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳

95% CI 80% CrI

k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳ k (N) ␳

1 (224) .04 4 (848) .05 — —

1 (336) .04 15 (4,459) .25 19 (2,503) .68 — —

Goal Learning Time

Populationa — — — ⫺.21 .29 — .26 —

Environmental Help Pretraining Emotion Pretraining

— .05 ⫺.09 ⫺.06 .74 .07 ⫺.07 ⫺.01 ⫺.10

Figure 1. A parsimonious framework of adult self-regulated learning. Metacognitive strategies encompasses

pretraining knowledge. However, counter to self-regulation theory,

3514.56.3.407 regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional methods. In D. H.

You might also like