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

net/publication/263190838

Dynamic Self-Regulation: The Driving Force Behind

Academic Achievement

Article in Innovative Higher Education · September 2000

DOI: 10.1023/A:1007532302043

CITATIONS READS
45 834

2 authors, including:

Jennifer A Livingston
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
93 PUBLICATIONS 4,471 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WORLDS Study (Funded by NIJ) View project

Teen Relationships and Health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer A Livingston on 15 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, Fall 2000

Dynamic Self-Regulation: The Driving

Force Behind Academic Achievement
Susan R. Schapiro and Jennifer A. Livingston

ABSTRACT: Research has shown that the most successful students are those who have
a propensity to control their own effort to learn. They take personal responsibility for
regulating the way in which they approach their studies. Traditionally, it was believed
that such self-regulation occurred only through the practice of active, deliberate learn-
ing strategies. This study explores an expanded conception of self-regulated learning,
one that includes not only the active, strategic control but an internally driven or dy-
namic disposition to learn as well. Its findings suggest that the natural dynamic com-
ponent, reflecting qualities such as curiosity, enthusiasm, willingness to take risks, and
persistence, actually underlies and drives the strategic behavior. Whether these dynamic
qualities can be taught, just as active self-regulation, remains a question. In this study
where dynamic qualities were valued highly and the environment was supportive and
expressive of a culture of learning, initial findings demonstrated that a sizable por-
tion of students who were low dynamic at pre course changed to high dynamic by post
course.

Active learning and executive control dominate the language of many

practical self-regulation studies. The expressions also permeate the
“how-to” materials in the learning to learn and thinking about think-
ing textbooks. Aimed toward defining direct intervention in an active
learning process, these terms and expressions imply an ideal in which
students take control of their learning and deliberately use critical
strategies and skills to work and think effectively. The researchers and
practitioners who promote this ideal operate on the assumption that
students who understand what they need to do to think and learn effec-
tively can intentionally regulate themselves to employ specific strate-
gies and skills and, thereby, become better learners (e.g., Borkowski,
Carr, & Pressley, 1987; Halpern, 1996).
Current research, however, posits an internally driven disposition
to learn, suggesting that cognitive procedures which focus only on ac-
tive, self-conscious self-regulation for learning are not sufficient (Iran-
Nejad & Chissom, 1992; McCombs, 1988; McCombs & Marzano, 1990;

Susan R. Schapiro, Clinical Associate Professor, The Graduate School of Education, and
Director, Methods of Inquiry Program, received her B.A. from Mills College, Oakland, CA,
Master of Arts and Ph.D. from University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.
She is particularly interested in critical thinking and its relationship to moral reasoning.
Jennifer A. Livingston received her Master of Arts degree and her Ph.D. in Educational
Psychology from University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.

23 °
C 2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

24 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Pressley, 1995). Strategic thinking and regulation involve more than

just knowledge of strategies and the ability to execute them properly
(McCombs & Marzano, 1990; VanZile-Tamsen, 1996; Winne, 1995;
Zimmerman, 1995). They require considerable attention, effort, and
perseverance (Wolters, 1998). Social, personal, and occupational con-
cerns strain self-regulated learners, demanding that they filter out com-
peting factors before they can put forth an appropriate effort to learn.
This strenuous filtering process calls upon something beyond ability
and/or strategic control. It requires a dynamic form of self-regulation
(Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992).

Active and Dynamic Self-regulation

Iran-Nejad (1990) and Iran-Nejad and Chissom (1992) studied the re-
lationship among active self-regulation, internal dynamic self-regula-
tion, and academic achievement. They demonstrated that active and
dynamic self-regulation represent two fundamentally different sources
of control, each of which needs to be considered in the study of successful
learners. The first, active self-regulation, involves focused, deliberate
control over the cognitive processes. It calls upon appropriate use of
clearly defined strategies, such as rehearsal to enhance memory or out-
lining to organize material. This approach, based upon self-awareness
and exacting volition, parallels traditional definitions of self-regulation
as contained in the expressions active learning and executive control.
Iran-Nejad refers to the second source of control as dynamic self-
regulation. More spontaneous, dynamic self-regulation involves an in-
ternal disposition that drives interest, curiosity, risk-taking, enthusi-
asm, and persistence as means for stimulating learning. Dynamically
self-regulated students feel free to elaborate and find new connections
between the specifics they are learning and broader applications. They
readily use what they learn in new contexts. These dynamic quali-
ties advance a student’s disposition to learn. While the precise bio-
functional (Iran-Nejad, 1990) operation of dynamic self-regulation is
less well understood than active self-regulation with its well-defined
strategies, Iran-Nejad demonstrated that dynamic self-regulation ac-
counts for significantly more variance in academic achievement than
does active self-regulation (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992).
To appreciate the differences in active and dynamic self-regulation,
it may help to compare related research and theory tied to motivation.
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991) have asserted that goal
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

Dynamic Self-Regulation 25

orientation influences self-regulated learning and strategy use. Specif-

ically, an extrinsic goal orientation associates with meeting externally
imposed standards for learning and using shallow processing strate-
gies (e.g., rehearsal). In contrast, intrinsic goal orientation associates
with deeper cognitive processing and learning for reasons of curiosity,
interest, or desire to understand (Garcia & Pintrich, 1992).
Pintrich et al.’s concept of intrinsic learning goal orientation (Pintrich
et al., 1991) is consistent with Iran-Nejad’s notion of dynamic regula-
tion (Iran-Nejad, 1990) although the former is concerned with the end of
the process while the latter deals with the process itself. In examining
the relationship between the two constructs, Livingston and VanZile-
Tamsen (1998) found active self-regulation correlated with both intrin-
sic and extrinsic learning goal orientations, a reasonable finding in that
active control involves focused, deliberate execution of strategies inde-
pendent of the reasons why an individual chooses to implement them. In
contrast, dynamic self-regulation had a significant positive correlation
with intrinsic learning goal orientation alone. With extrinsic learning
goal orientation, it had a significant negative correlation. The role, then,
of dynamic self-regulation may either be to reinforce intrinsic learning
ends or, perhaps, as a means to clarify and articulate the goal criteria.
In any event, dynamic self-regulation remains paired with the deeper
cognitive processing.
Except in Iran-Nejad’s work, most research examining active strat-
egy use has not considered dynamic self-regulation as a separate en-
tity. Iran-Nejad and Chissom’s assertion that dynamic control accounts
for more variance in academic achievement than active control (Iran-
Nejad & Chissom, 1992) is troubling given current emphasis on the
need to provide students with interventions solely designed to foster
active control over learning, implying that active use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies alone assures a positive effect on learning and
achievement.
The question that then emerges is to what extent the dynamic self-
regulation process holds the primary key to success. Should findings
confirm the elemental role of dynamic self-regulation, the next question
must be whether such an internal, control-free dynamic disposition can
be influenced or taught. If research supports the holding that dynamic
self-regulation does indeed drive academic achievement, then evidence
of its teachability would carry significant implications.
To answer the first question, regarding the relative dominance of
dynamic self-regulation in academic achievement, this study extends
the implications of Iran-Nejad and Chissom’s original work (Iran-Nejad
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

26 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

& Chissom, 1992) by exploring an additional hypothesis which should

follow in light of the initial positive findings and, in turn, further es-
tablish the primary importance of dynamic self-regulation. If dynamic
self-regulation contributes to academic achievement above and beyond
active self-regulation as Iran-Nejad claims, we would hypothesize that
students who are high-dynamic will have higher grade point averages
(GPAs) than students who are low-dynamic, regardless of their level of
active regulation.
To test this hypothesis, Iran-Nejad and Chissom’s (1992) Dynamic
and Active Learning Inventory (DALI) was administered pre and post
course to university undergraduates enrolled in a course designed to
teach active learning strategies and critical thinking in a setting where
behavior implicit in dynamic self-regulation was valued. As this hypoth-
esis was confirmed, it led to the second purpose of the study which was to
determine whether dynamic self-regulation can be influenced or taught,
thereby improving students’ potential for academic achievement.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 342 full-time matriculated day students, en-

rolled in the Methods of Inquiry class during one of four consecutive
semesters (Fall 1995 through Spring 1997) at a northeastern univer-
sity. All participants completed both pre and post course inventories.
There were approximately equal numbers of males and females in
the sample. The racial distribution of the sample was approximately
45% White, and 32% Black with smaller proportions of Asian, His-
panic, and of mixed race students. The majority of students were ei-
ther freshmen (37%) or sophomores (35%). Mean GPA of the sample
(excluding freshmen) prior to taking the course was 2.05. Mean GPA
upon course completion, excluding Methods of Inquiry grade, was
2.32.

Methods of Inquiry Course

Methods of Inquiry, an academic elective course, offers undergradu-

ates (primarily freshmen and sophomores) concrete ways to approach
their studies by helping them become actively involved in their own
learning processes. The course emphasizes the ways students are able
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

Dynamic Self-Regulation 27

to take control of their learning. As students come to appreciate how

one learns and the role key strategies play in the process, they learn,
in turn, to facilitate their understanding and critical thought.
Students review and discuss the following topics in the course. (1)
How to develop an appropriate mindset for learning: dynamic inter-
est, positive motivation, mindfulness, and an understanding of the way
one learns, all influence the learning experience. An appreciation of the
role memory plays and the way it works to construct meaning makes
effective mastery of difficult material easier. (2) How to think critically
within a discipline: assuming that every discipline asks its unique ques-
tions and has its own methodology for answering them, students learn
to search for those questions. They study the “elements of thought”
(Paul, 1992) in order to have sound analytical tools. (3) How to monitor
comprehension and provide personal feedback: students need to under-
stand what they know and don’t know. They need reliable references
to confirm their knowledge base and help them avoid the dangerous
“illusion of knowing,” an easy confusion between that which is known
and that which is only familiar. To fill the need, Methods of Inquiry
provides students with ways to receive feedback at all stages of inquiry.
As students continue in the course, they learn both to set immediate
and long term goals and to analyze the tasks that must be completed to
achieve the goals. They not only work with their approach to learning;
they carefully attend to the substantive matters raised in their other
classes as well.
The program requires students to attend two fifty-minute lecture
classes and one private meeting with a monitor per week. Class sections
are typically large, averaging approximately 90 students each. During
each class period, the instructor explains a strategy, its theoretical basis
and utility, and then suggests procedures or specific techniques (e.g.
taking notes, mapping concepts, and argumentation) for carrying it out.
Students must then apply the demonstrated strategies to their work in
other classes. This required practice promotes transfer of the strategies
and self-regulated learning experiences.
In order to assure personal modeling and feedback, each student is
assigned a peer monitor. Peer monitors are typically undergraduate stu-
dents who have previously completed and received an A in the course
and who maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average. When students
meet individually with their monitors each week for thirty minutes, or
more if necessary, they share and assess their applications of Methods
of Inquiry strategies and skills. Monitors, in turn, provide stated crite-
ria for students to use as they assess their varied curricular efforts. A
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

28 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

graduate teaching assistant assigned to each class oversees and coaches

the peer monitors.
The course develops strategic thinking and learning for application
throughout the university academic curriculum. Aiming to help stu-
dents develop as active, independent learners and critical thinkers,
eclectic course lectures draw on knowledge from areas including ed-
ucation, psychology, and philosophy. Although the course is discipline-
free in that students are taught general principles of learning, critical
thinking strategies, and skills, it is assumed that successful transfer of
insights to work within specific disciplines underlies all course bene-
fits. In the end, students in Methods of Inquiry strive to take control of
their academic and personal lives in a way that reflects understanding,
careful thought, and sound judgment.

Procedure

The Revised Experimental Version of the Dynamic and Active Learn-

ing Inventory (DALI-R) (Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992) was adminis-
tered at the beginning and end of each semester. The DALI-R is a
32-item Likert scale with separate subscales for active learning and
dynamic learning. The active subscale is comprised of 11 items and the
dynamic scale is comprised of 21 items. Sample active items include “I
make a list of possible exam questions and memorize the answers to
them” and “I make an outline of the main ideas I am studying.” Dynamic
items were designed to assess internally driven approaches to learning
such as, “I get so involved in learning that studying feels almost like
watching a suspenseful movie” and “When I study, what keeps me going
is curiosity and interest.” Students were instructed to rate each item as
it applies to them, using a scale from 1 “never” to 7 “always.”
Methods of Inquiry students were asked to complete the DALI-R in
class. They were informed that this was part of an ongoing study ex-
amining the ways that people learn. Prior to completing the inventory,
students first signed an agreement to be part of the study. They were as-
sured that there were no right or wrong answers, that their responses
would not affect their status in the course, and that the information
would be kept confidential. The instructor, teaching assistant, and mon-
itors left the classroom while students completed the inventory. Pre
course administration occurred during the first week of the semester
and the post course administration took place during the last week of
the semester. A small number of students who were absent during class
completed the DALI-R outside of class.
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

Dynamic Self-Regulation 29

Results

Internal reliability of the scales was measured using Cronbach’s al-

pha. At pre course assessment Cronbach’s alpha was .81 for the active
subscale and .77 for the dynamic subscale. At the post course assess-
ment Cronbach’s alpha was .83 for the active subscale and .78 for the
dynamic subscale. These findings indicate reliable scales.

Contributions of Active and Dynamic Self-Regulation

High and low active and dynamic categories were based on median
splits of post course active and dynamic scores. At post course, the
median active score was 4.45 (M = 4.40, SD = 0.95), and the median
dynamic score was 4.14 (M = 4.13, SD = 0.74). Students who scored
above the median for a given scale were categorized as being high ac-
tive or high dynamic. Those who scored at or below the median were
categorized as being low active or low dynamic. This resulted in a total
of four groups. For ease of presentation these groups are represented
as quadrants in Table I: high-active, high-dynamic (Q1); high-active,
low-dynamic (Q2); low-active, high-dynamic (Q3); and low-active, low-
dynamic (Q4). See Table I for distribution.
We were interested in examining the effects of active and dynamic
self-regulation on student achievement, measured as GPA. Because
several factors may influence GPA, we ran correlations to determine po-
tential covariates. Of gender, ethnicity, curriculum, and year in school
(first year vs. advanced students), only year in school was significantly
correlated with GPA (r = .19, p < .01), with advanced students having
higher average GPAs than first year students. Consequently, a 2 × 2
Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for year in school, was
used to compare the effects of active (high/low) and dynamic (high/low)
control on post course grade point averages, excluding the Methods of

Table I
Mean GPAs for the Four Quadrants
High dynamic Low dynamic Total

High active 2.67 (n = 109) [Q1] 2.44 (n = 46) [Q2] 2.60 (n = 155)
Low active 2.79 (n = 53) [Q3] 2.40 (n = 125) [Q4] 2.52 (n = 178)
Total 2.71∗ (162) 2.41∗ (n = 171)
∗p < .001
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

30 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Inquiry grade. Use of the post course grade and post course active and
dynamic scores put all students on an even playing field, all having
been exposed to the same course set of interventions.
The mean GPAs for students in each of these quadrants are reported
in Table I. Consistent with our hypothesis, the lowest mean GPAs
are found in the two low-dynamic quadrants (Q2 and Q4) while rel-
atively high mean GPAs are found in the high-dynamic quadrants (Q1
and Q3). There was a significant main effect for dynamic regulation
F(1,332) = 11.17, p < .01. The interaction between active and dynamic
regulation was not significant (F < 1); nor was there a main effect for
active regulation (F < 1). These results support our hypothesis favoring
the impact of dynamic self-regulation over active control in academic
achievement. They indicate, when controlling for year in school, high-
dynamic students have a higher GPA while their level of active control
does not uniquely contribute to their GPA.

Changes in Active and Dynamic Learning Characteristics

The second purpose of this study was to determine whether student

active and dynamic self-regulation could be influenced through instruc-
tion. Although the course originally was designed to emphasize active
self-regulation, emphasis on the role of dynamic self-regulation as a key
to academic achievement has received considerable attention in the last
few years. We talk about the role of the dynamic function in an effort to
sensitize students to their personal dynamic potential. We express our
clear endorsement of student questions and student expressed desires
to follow the material into uncharted territory.
Two approaches to examine the changes in active and dynamic regu-
lation followed the course interventions which provided a value-driven
environment, explicit instruction, modeling, peer interaction, and feed-
back. First, we sought to determine whether high and low GPA stu-
dents were influenced by the class intervention in terms of noticeable
changes in active and dynamic self-regulation. Next, we studied the ex-
tent to which active and dynamic control changed over the course of the
semester. To accomplish this, we examined changes in quadrant status
from pre to post course.
To study the changes in active and dynamic self-regulation for dif-
ferent achievement groups, students were categorized as being high
or low GPA, based on a median split of post course GPA, excluding
Methods of Inquiry grade (Mdn = 2.66). Paired t-tests were used to de-
termine whether there were significant changes in active and dynamic
regulation from pre to post course. Mean GPA for the high-GPA group
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

Dynamic Self-Regulation 31

Table II
Means and Standard Deviations for High and Low GPA
Students on Pre and Post Course DALI-R Subscales
Beginning Ending Beginning Ending
Group active active dynamic dynamic

High GPA (n = 165) 4.04 (.92) 4.56 (1.01) 3.96 (.72) 4.29 (.77)
Low GPA (n = 174) 3.83 (.95) 4.30 (.86) 3.64 (.69) 3.98 (.65)
Total (N = 342) 3.93 (0.94) 4.42 (0.95) 3.79 (0.73) 4.13 (0.74)

Note. GPA category is based on post-course grades, excluding Methods of Inquiry

grade. Changes in pre and post course active and dynamic scores were significant at
>.001 for all groups.

was 3.17(SD = 0.03) and 1.99(SD = 0.53) for the low-GPA group.
Active and dynamic DALI-R scores for each achievement group are
shown in Table II. t-Tests revealed significant improvements in ac-
tive and dynamic control for both high and low GPA students. The
changes in dynamic for both high and low GPA students were t(164) =
−6.00, p < .001, and t(173) = −7.25, p < .001, respectively. Similarly,
both high and low GPA students showed significant improvements in
active control t(164) = −6.34, p < .001, and t(173) = −6.84, p < .001.
These data suggest that both active and dynamic control can be im-
proved, regardless of achievement level.
To further explore the nature of changes in active and dynamic over
the course of the semester, shifts in quadrant status from pre to post
course were examined. Pre course active and dynamic quadrant status
provided the basis for comparison.
As Fig. 1 indicates, 80% of the students who started the semester as
high-active, high-dynamic remained so at the end of the course. Of the
20% who switched quadrants only 10% (11 students) went to a low dy-
namic quadrant. This finding suggests that dynamic self-regulation is
relatively stable for students who are high in dynamic control to begin
with. Similarly, of the students who started as high-dynamic, low-active
56% became high-active, high-dynamic, and 27% stayed the same, re-
sulting in a total of 83% who remained high-dynamic. Maintaining this
high-dynamic characteristic is critical to academic success as the pre-
vious analyses have indicated.
The story of the low-active, low-dynamic students provides an inter-
esting contrast. Of these students, only 33% maintained their original
low quadrant status while 48% moved into a high-dynamic quadrant
and 19% improved on active alone. The finding that low-active, low-
dynamic students can improve active and/or dynamic self-regulation
is encouraging as students who are low in both active and dynamic
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

32 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Figure 1
Active and Dynamic Distribution of Methods of Inquiry
Students Pre and Post Course

characteristics tend to have the lowest GPAs. As a comparable finding,

about 50% of the high-active, low-dynamic students moved into a high-
dynamic quadrant while 35% remained the same and 15% became low-
active, low-dynamic. In all, approximately 49% of the students who
started out as low-dynamic fell into a high-dynamic category at the end
of the course.

Discussion

The findings of this study are exciting in that they underline the work
of researchers interested in self-regulation who have come to recognize
that teaching of active control strategies alone is not sufficient for pro-
moting self-regulated learning (e.g., Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1995).
As the data carve out a critical role for the dynamic process in deter-
mining academic achievement as measured here by GPA, they replicate
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

Dynamic Self-Regulation 33

and advance the work of Iran-Nejad and Chissom (1992), offering, in

addition, significant implications for instructional interventions.
Teachers and faculty developers can find evidence here to define their
roles as going well beyond instruction in substance and strategy alone.
As these data underscore the existence of varied processes governing
academic self-regulation, they open the door to classroom environments
that are conducive to dynamic self-regulation. Specifically, educators
have an opportunity to build support for students who are willing to
take academic risks. What is more, they can see further benefits emerg-
ing from the environment in which critical thinking is highly valued.
Giving students sufficient time to demonstrate their persistence, valu-
ing student enthusiasm for unconventional ideas and interpretations,
and reinforcement of students’ natural curiosity—all become essential
elements of a classroom geared to reinforce the all-important dynamic
self-regulation.
Based on preliminary research, Tishman and Andrade (1995) held
that disposition for learning can be developed through such instruc-
tional interventions. They concluded that, in order to foster this de-
velopment, the instructional approach needs to include the following
components: (a) explicit instruction, (b) modeling, (c) peer interaction,
and (d) feedback. These components provide the knowledge and skills
basic to learning (active control); they also create a culture of learning
in the classroom (expressive, perhaps, of dynamic self-regulation), thus
fostering motivation to learn. Evidence suggests that the components
identified by Tishman and Andrade (1995) increase efficient active
strategy use (cf., Weinstein et al., 1981).
Whether or not they influence dynamic self-regulation can be ad-
dressed inductively by this study. If a course such as Methods of In-
quiry, designed to foster self-regulated learning and critical thinking
in a supportive, guided learning environment also demonstrates im-
proved academic achievement, it follows from the initial findings that
improvement in dynamic self-regulation must have been an outcome
as well. What is more, the extent of academic achievement should cor-
relate with the dynamic improvement. Such a finding would carry se-
rious implications for the importance of affirming those particular ed-
ucational interventions which contribute to development of dynamic
self-regulation, the key to achievement. The finding in this study re-
flects exactly these outcomes. The high dynamic characteristics fostered
higher academic achievement. Clearly high dynamic self-regulation
drove success, and students in the Methods of Inquiry class reflected
their increased high dynamic scores with higher GPAs. Although Iran-
Nejad posits a natural, non-focal quality to dynamic self-regulation
P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

34 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

(passim), these findings suggest that growth in the area of dynamic

self-regulation not only is possible, but is probable with appropriate
classroom instruction and reinforcement.
While acknowledging the significant contribution of dynamic self-
regulation as an important first step, the merits of interventions de-
signed to foster active control remain compelling. Improvement in both
areas concurrently supports a presumption of interaction and comple-
ment between active and dynamic self-regulation. While the dynamic
may drive the student’s desire to learn, active strategies or techniques
provide the student with tools to initiate learning and master the ma-
terial, regardless of the field.
As a case study covering four semesters and over 300 students, this
project affirms the importance of dynamic self-regulation in attaining
academic achievement. In addition, a retention analysis disclosed that
the four year graduation rate of Methods of Inquiry students who suc-
cessfully completed the course exceeded by eleven percent (11%) the
four year graduation rate of the non-Methods of Inquiry students in the
same cohort (1991 freshmen). (Office of Institutional Analysis, 1997)
This difference existed even though the Methods of Inquiry students
had significantly lower SAT scores (both verbal and quantitative) than
the others upon entering the university. These additional data suggest,
then, that the intervention brings not only immediate academic success,
but an important, lasting effect on student achievement as well.
Several possibilities for future study emerge. First, educational re-
searchers need to explore further the nature of dynamic self-regulation.
More insight into the factors that comprise, influence, and stimulate dy-
namic process is needed. Furthermore, classroom teachers could help as
they contribute to an understanding of the relationship between active
and dynamic self-regulation in learning and the way the dynamic may
be encouraged or fostered through instruction. It may be that dynamic
responses which appear to Iran-Nejad as totally biofunctional are, at
least in part, a cultural phenomenon where enthusiasm, drive and cu-
riosity are highly valued. If so, creating a culture of holistic learning
in the classroom may provide the best means for nurturing the all-
important dynamic qualities.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ashgar Iran-Nejad, Thomas Shuell,

and anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this
paper. We would also like to thank David Whitcomb for his contributions
 P1: FDR
Innovative Higher Education HS099-03 July 1, 2000 17:40 Style file version March 31, 1999

Dynamic Self-Regulation 35

in the early stages of this paper and Susan Gerber and Necia Black for
consultation on the data analysis.

References

Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., & Pressley, M. (1987). “Spontaneous” strategy use: Perspectives
from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61–75.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1992). Critical thinking and its relationship to motivation,
learning strategies, and classroom experience. Paper presented at the Centennial
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 024 644)
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes. Review
of Educational Research, 60, 537–602.
Iran-Nejad, A., & Chissom, B. S. (1992). Contributions of active and dynamic self-
regulation to learning. Innovative Higher Education, 17, 125–136.
Livingston, J. A., & Van Zile-Tamsen, C. M. (1998, August). Correlates of Active and
Dynamic Self-Regulation. Poster presented at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
McCombs, B. L. (1988). Motivational skills training: Combining metacognitive, cognitive,
and affective learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander
(Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evalua-
tion (pp. 141–169). San Diego: Academic Press.
McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The
self as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51–69.
Office of Institutional Analyses. (1997). Methods of Inquiry retention study: An analysis
of the 1991–1992 cohort. Unpublished research report, State University of New York
at Buffalo.
Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing
world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the
use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI:
National Center for Research to Improve Post Secondary Teaching and Learning.
(ERIC Document Reporduction Service No. ED 338 122)
Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term,
and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30, 201–212.
Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. (1995). Thinking dispositions: A review of current theories,
practices, and issues. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.
Van Zile-Tamsen, C. M. (1996). Metacognitive self-regulation and the daily activities of
college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Weinstein, C. E., Cubberly, W. E., Wicker, F. W., Underwood, V. L., Roney, L. K., & Duty,
D. C. (1981). Training versus instruction in the acquisition of cognitive learning
strategies. Contemporary Cognitive Psychology, 6, 159–166.
Winne, P. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,
30, 173–187.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motiva-
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.
Zimmerman, B. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cog-
nitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30, 217–221.

View publication stats