Self Regulated Learning SRL A Guide For The Perplexed

High Ability Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20
Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): A guide for the

perplexed
Moshe Zeidner & Heidrun Stoeger
To cite this article: Moshe Zeidner & Heidrun Stoeger (2019) Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): A
guide for the perplexed, High Ability Studies, 30:1-2, 9-51, DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369
Published online: 14 Mar 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1739
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chas20
HIGH ABILITY STUDIES
2019, VOL. 30, NOS. 1–2, 9–51
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369
Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): A guide for the perplexed

Moshe Zeidnera and Heidrun Stoegerb
a
Department of Counseling and Human Development, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Israel; bFull
Professor, Chair for School Research, School Development, and Evaluation, University of
Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This introductory paper to the special issue of High Ability Self-regulated learning
Studies aims to provide a “guide for the perplexed” relating (SRL); metacognition;
to self-regulated learning (SRL) theory, research, and appli- motivation; gifted students
cations. We begin by defining SRL and its key cyclical stages
and criterial attributes. We move on to discuss a number of
motivational and meta-motivational constructs supporting
SRL. We then briefly present a number of issues related to
teaching and promoting SRL. Finally, we review research
shedding light on SRL in gifted, high ability, and high
achieving students.
This special issue of High Ability Studies focuses on recent advances in

theory, research, and practice on self-regulated learning (SRL) and its role
in the education and intellectual flourishing of gifted, high-ability, and
talented students. SRL encompasses cognitive, metacognitive, motivational,
emotional, and behavioral facets of learning, thus serving as a broad
conceptual framework for shaping student learning and academic motiva-
tion (Panadero, 2017). SRL is currently perceived by researchers as invol-
ving a number of integrated micro-processes. These include: goal setting;
strategic planning; use of effective strategies to organize, code, and store
information; monitoring and metacognition; action and volitional control;
managing time effectively; self-motivational beliefs (e.g. self-efficacy, goal-
orientation, interest, and attributions); self-evaluation and self-reflection;
experiencing pride and satisfaction with one’s efforts; and establishing
a congenial learning environment.
In today’s information society, individuals are required to learn in
a self-regulated manner, both during and after formal schooling – in
fact, throughout their entire lifetime. Due to the amazingly rapid pace
of technological progress and innovation, the rate of information
growth in modern society has increased dramatically over the past
CONTACT Moshe Zeidner Zeidner@edu.haifa.ac.il Department of Counseling and Human

Development, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Israel
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2019 European Council for High Ability
10 M. ZEIDNER AND H. STOEGER
years. Consequently, reaching expertise in a specific domain of inquiry

now requires considerably more knowledge and hence more intensive
learning processes than in the past. In addition, possessing appropriate
SRL skills is crucial for individuals operating in “digital society”, with
an ever-increasing importance of “online” learning (Artino, 2008;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007; Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Furthermore,
given the increasing number of career paths individuals pursue within
their working lives occupational success requires individuals to con-
stantly update their knowledge, retool, and acquire new information
and skills.
These pivotal societal developments have led to an increasing interest in
psycho-educational research focusing on improving autonomous learning.
This has in turn yielded a wide body of research aimed at understanding
and fostering SRL. In fact, as will be further discussed in this introductory
article, research suggests that self-regulated learners show more adaptive
learning behavior, report more positive motivational characteristics and
also perform better on cognitive and learning tasks (McInerney, Cheng,
Mok, & Lam, 2012).
Goals and structure

Some of the journal’s readers, who are interested largely in high-ability and
gifted research, may not be entirely conversant or up-to-date with current
research on SRL. Hence, as an “advance organizer” (Ausubel, 1968), this
introductory article presents a broad overview of SRL theory, research, and
practice. Borrowing from the title of one of the important philosophical
works of Maimonides, the Medieval Jewish polymath, we aim to provide
a “guide for the perplexed” relating to SRL theory, research, and applica-
tions. We begin by defining SRL and its key cyclical stages. We move on to
discuss a number of meta-motivational constructs supporting SRL. We
then briefly present a number of issues related to teaching and promoting
SRL. Finally, we review research shedding light on SRL in gifted, high-
ability, and high-achieving students.
What is SRL?
SRL describes the self-directive learning processes through which learners
proactively transform mental competencies into academic performance
through self-generated goals and strategies (Zimmerman, Schunk, &
DiBenedetto, 2015). As aptly defined by Pintrich, SRL is “an active, con-
structive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then
attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and
behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features
in the environment” (Pintrich 2000, p. 453). Self-regulated students are
HIGH ABILITY STUDIES 11
generally characterized as efficiently managing their own learning through

goal setting, monitoring, strategy use, and self-evaluating their achieve-
ment (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000).
Researchers now view SRL as more than merely a personal attribute or set
of skills inherent to expertise within a particular domain of knowledge.
Instead, SRL is conceptualized as a construct incorporating the self-
awareness, knowledge, and behaviors required to successfully meet learning
goals (Zimmerman, 2002). Because SRL addresses the mechanisms that con-
trol students’ execution of actions during task engagement, it is more prox-
imate to actual academic performance than broad personality traits, thus
possibly mediating the effects of personality on academic performance (e.g.
Eilam, Zeidner, & Aaron, 2009). Furthermore, SRL is no longer construed as
a “unitary” construct that students either utilize or do not utilize. Instead,
modern scholars conceptualize it as a diverse and varied set of strategies, some
of which students may utilize depending on their interpretations of the
situation and their level of motivation in negotiating a particular task
(Kaplan, 2008).
Self-regulated cognitions, motivations, emotions, and behaviors inter-
act with learning context and academic environment, resulting in intel-
lectual learning, academic attainment, and success (Ben-Eliyahu &
Zeidner, in press). A body of research has demonstrated how students’
utilization of different self-regulation strategies unfolds dynamically
throughout their situated engagement in the task. The social-cultural
role of “student” in a particular context provides individuals with psy-
chological frames within which they construct their individual interpre-
tation and meaning of occupying that role – their unique student role
identity (Kaplan & Garner, 2017).
Effective use of SRL strategies evolves from the complex integration of
predispositions (e.g. ability), knowledge of strategies, general beliefs about
the world and about oneself, motivation for the domain, characteristics of
the social context, and of the particular task, and momentary experiences
during the engagement in the task (Boekaerts & Cascallar, 2006; Winne &
Perry, 2000; Zimmerman, 2008).
Conceptualizing SRL
This section briefly discusses conceptualizations of SRL and walks the
reader through various phases of the SRL process.
Models of SRL
Over the past few decades, researchers have advanced a wide array of SRL
models (e.g. Corno, 2001; Efklides, 2011; Pintrich, 2004; Winne, 2011;
Zimmerman, 2013). Whereas some scholars have conceptualized self-

regulation by way of grouping SRL constructs into different regulatory path-
ways (e.g. cognitive, affective, motivational, behavioral), most theorists have
adopted phase models of self-regulation, grouping constructs together based
on when they occur during goal pursuit (Diefendorff & Lord, 2008). In this
article, we indorse the phase-model approach in explicating the SRL process.
Whereas there are some inherent differences among prevalent theoretical
models, a good number of commonalities also emerge across models. Most
models assume that students who successfully self-regulate their learning are
actively engaged in the process of knowledge acquisition and in activities
that enable them to strategically adapt their behavior, personal processes,
and the learning environment to support goal attainment. The conceptual
SRL models also concur that students’ effectiveness in the process of SRL
varies, based on a variety of factors (e.g. academic context, personal effort,
performance outcomes). Unlike other learning models, self-regulation the-
ories seek to explain students’ differences in motivation and achievement
based on a common set of processes (Zimmerman & Martinez Pons, 1990).
Last, but certainly not least, most current models view self-regulation as
a cyclical process because personal, behavioral, and environmental factors
typically change during each of the phases of learning (Schunk, 2014). Self-
observation and monitoring at each stage of the process provide information
to the learner that can change the setting of subsequent goals, strategies, or
performance efforts. The students’ adaptive use of the self-regulatory skills
set across changing personal and environmental factors is the “proof in the
pudding” that these skills have been adequately learned and assimilated.
Zimmerman’s (1998, 2000) three-phase self-regulation model nicely captures
the key facets of SRL (see Figure 1).
We note that there is a tension between structural and process-related
accounts of SRL. On one hand, as noted above, SRL is defined in the
literature as a broad and diverse set of different strategies, suggesting
a skills set held in long-term procedural memory, with activation of the
strategy dependent on situational factors. On the other hand, most of the
models propagated in the literature, as presented below, adopt a more
process-based perspective.
Key stages in the SRL process
Phase models of SRL generally share a similar set of regulatory processes

enacted in distinct phases of learning, namely, before, during, and after
(see Table 1). These processual models have been applied to learning
situations across the continuum – from standard face-to-face instruction
to primarily online learning (Greene, Robertson, & Croker Costa, 2011).
Whereas more precise conceptions of the SRL process vary depending on
Figure 1. Dynamic process of SRL.
Table 1. Commonalities in phases in prevalent models.

Models
Zimmerman (2000) Pintrich (2004) Winne (2011)
Planning Forethought Planning and goal setting Task definition (Phase 1)
(Phase 1) (Phase 1); Goal setting and planning (Phase 2)
Performance Performance Monitoring (Phase 2) Enacting tactics and strategies
(Phase 2) Control of the self, task, context (Phase 3)
(Phase 3)
Reflection Self-reflection Reflections and reactions (Phase 4) Metacognitively adapting strategies
(Phase 3) (Phase 4)
the theoretical perspective of the researcher, most phase models of SRL

include one or more of the following phases or stages of SRL, schematically
depicted in Figure 2.
Forethought and strategic planning

The forethought and strategic planning phase of SRL precedes actual task
performance and subsumes processes that set the stage for the learner’s future
learning activities (Schunk, 2014). In order to regulate their own learning
processes, learners must first become aware of task demands. Accordingly,
students presented with a learning task need to analyze and clearly understand
the learning task and its cognitive and behavioral requirements.
Concomitantly, they are required to evaluate their entrance behaviors or
current level of knowledge and learning with respect to the given task, and
Task & self-assessment
Goal-setting
Forethought phase
Strategic planning
Strategy implementation
Strategy adjustment
Strategy monitoring Performance or
volitional-control
Outcome assessment phase
Self-reflection phase
Figure 2. Seven-step cyclical model and corresponding phases of Zimmerman’s (2000) model
(adapted from Ziegler & Stoeger, 2005).
to compute any discrepancies between their present state of knowledge and

that required by the learning task, discovering what is required for them to
bridge the gap and negotiate the task. After the task requirements are analyzed
and understood, the learner needs to specify learning goals as well as plan and
devise a specific strategy how to reach these self-chosen goals (Butler, 1998;
Zimmerman, 2000). The learner then forms cognitive representations of
behavioral intentions and learning goals, while linking these behavioral inten-
tions to action plans (Boekaerts, 1996).
The specific action plans and strategies chosen to attain the goals are
typically based on familiar or previously used strategies as well as prior
feedback from significant others (e.g. teachers, parents, classmates).
Students also activate a number of motivational constructs (e.g. percep-
tions of task value, beliefs, and self-perceptions) in order to energize and
affect the activation of learning strategies. Based on current goals, stan-
dards, enactments, and recordings of prior performances and outcomes,
students judge their personal effectiveness and competency regarding the
task at hand (Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 1998).
Performance control
The performance control phase involves self-regulatory processes that
occur during actual learning and task engagement. In this stage, students
actually execute the specific strategies chosen during the former planning
stage, while monitoring progress toward their learning goals. For example,
performance control on a geography assignment involves such activities as
taking notes on new geographical information, memorizing important
geographical concepts and facts, managing time effectively, and seeking

teacher or peer assistance, when required.
Learners become aware of their progress in achieving learning goals
through metacognitive processes of monitoring their learning progress
(Mace, Belfiore, & Shea, 1989). Self-monitoring refers to the controlled and
deliberate observation of one’s progress and performance outcomes on
a given task in view of set goals and chosen strategies (Mace, Belfiore, &
Hutchinson, 2001). Students self-monitor the implementation of learning
strategies and tactics chosen in the previous stage in order to maintain the
task focus, engagement, and motivation needed to complete the task. Self-
monitoring is essential for SRL because it produces corrective cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral-reactive effects, such as goal adjustment or strategy
improvement following unfavorable results. Unless students carefully and
continuously monitor their strategic performance, they may lapse into famil-
iar, routine, or less effective methods. A feedback loop exists between the
monitoring and change of the learning process (Corno & Mandinach, 1983;
Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 1998), involving the shaping and the
selection and adaptation of strategies for managing motivation and affect.
Researchers have identified two important criteria for self-monitoring of
behavior during learning – proximity and regularity (Schunk, 2014).
Proximity refers to behavior that is monitored in close time to its occur-
rence, rather than long afterwards. According to the proximity principle, it
is better to write down how much time we prepared for an upcoming test
at the completion of the study session, rather than to wait until the end of
the day (or the day after) to record the time on task. The second criterion,
regularity, refers to the monitoring of the behavior on a continual basis –
instead of infrequently or intermittently. When monitoring studying beha-
viors, it is advised to keep a record in real time, if feasible, or to keep
a daily record of progress – rather than recording studying behaviors
one day a week or once a week. In addition, research by Schunk (1983b)
suggests that monitoring of a learning task can lead to higher self-efficacy
and persistence compared to no monitoring.
Self-reflection
Following performance control, students reflect on their learning efforts,
and determine the effectiveness of the strategic processes they employed
and their learning outcomes. Students evaluate their performance, reflect-
ing on the suitability of strategies employed, and evaluation of the out-
comes according to set goals (Greene et al., 2015). An important facet of
self-reflection is self-judgment, referring to the self-comparison of
a student’s performance level with his or her learning goals. Self-
judgments depend on properties of the goal, the type of self-evaluative
standards employed, as well as the importance of goal attainment, and

attributions.
As discussed by Schunk (2014), self-evaluative standards can be absolute or
normative. For example, students, who plan to complete four math problems
within an hour, gauge their progress against this absolute standard. By
contrast, normative standards are based on the performance of others, with
students comparing themselves with the performance of peers. Comparably,
Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, and Burns (2000) differentiate between (a) a criteria-
oriented reference norm, similar to Schunk’s (2014) absolute standard, (b)
a social reference norm, similar to Schunk’s (2014) normative standard, and
(c) an individual reference norm, where a student compares her own pro-
gress or achievement in a specific domain with her progress or achievement
in the past. In addition, Schöne, Dickhäuser, Spinath, and Stiensmeier-Pelster
(2004) demonstrated that whereas the individual reference norm relates
prominently to learning-goal orientation, the social reference norm relates
particularly to performance-goal orientation.
Standards both inform the student as well as motivate them to persist and
improve performance. If using a social reference norm, the optimal reference
norm are peers and similar others, rather than students much higher or lower
in domain-specific knowledge and skills. Students are apt to believe that if
others can succeed, they will too (Schunk, 1987). Furthermore, perceived
progress is relative to one’s goals (Schunk, 2014). Accordingly, students with
different learning and performance goals can evaluate the same level of
performance quite differently; some students are content with passing
a course, whereas others will be displeased with an A – because they want
an A or A + . In addition, during the self-evaluation phase, students typically
make attributions of their success or failure on the task. The specific causal
attributions learners make regarding their success and failure on the learning
task results in affective reactions to the results, such as elation and pride
following success or shame or sadness following failure (Weiner, 2005).
A major advantage of metacognitive reflection is allowing students to
identify deficient learning strategies and modify or develop a strategy that
is suitable for mastering their learning goals. Thus, during this phase,
students decide which long-term changes they need to make in their
motivation, beliefs, and strategies for the future (Winne, 2011). Students
also evaluate a number of cognitive and metacognitive elements, such as
attitudes and values related to the task, strategy beliefs, goal orientation,
reported effort after the task, and capacity beliefs.
Measurement of SRL
In the passages below, we present a number of different approaches to the
operationalization and measurement of SRL. The researcher’s choice of
a specific SRL measurement procedure is based on a variety of factors, such

as the specific goals of the research; the theoretical orientation of the
researcher and the specific operationalization of the SRL construct and
its key components; and the preferred measurement model and technique
of the researcher conducting the study. Therefore, given the wide array of
SRL models and approaches, it is not surprising that different measure-
ment procedures have been proffered in the literature. Furthermore,
a number of inconsistent findings in the literature relating to the relation-
ships between SRL and student achievement as well as research on the
effectiveness of SRL interventions may be due, in part, to different con-
ceptualizations of SRL, along with different measurement procedures.
Therefore, in evaluating a given study on student SRL, it is essential to
consider and evaluate the measurement model and scale used in the study
under consideration.
Akin to the state-trait distinction found in personality research (see
Zeidner, this issue); SRL may be conceptualized either as an aptitude or as
an event. Accordingly, researchers in the SRL domain have employed two
different types of measurement tools: instruments that measure SRL as an
aptitude versus instruments that measure SRL as an event (Winne & Perry,
2000). As will be further discussed below, these two forms are not clearly
distinguishable in practice.
Aptitude-based assessment of SRL

Below we briefly describe three common forms of assessment based pre-
dominately on the aptitude conceptualization of SRL, which views SRL as
a relatively enduring mental attribute of the student that predicts future
student behavior and performance.
In self-report questionnaires, respondents generalize their learning strate-
gies across different situations. Two representative and frequently used instru-
ments of this ilk are the Learning and Strategies Study Inventory (LASSI;
Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987) and the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
Structured interviews, although varying in the degree to which they are
structured, ask learners to describe their usual learning behaviors in specific
learning situations or circumstances. Students describe their typical behavior
in a plausible future situation in light of their memories of past learning
situations. A typical example of a structured interview is the SRL Interview
Schedule (SRLIS) by Zimmerman (1986, 1988), which explores more than
a dozen theory-derived aspects of SRL (e.g. self-evaluating; organizing and
transforming; goal-setting and planning; seeking information; keeping
records and monitoring; environmental structuring; self-consequating;
rehearsing and memorizing; seeking peer, teacher, or adult assistance; and
reviewing tests, notes, and texts). Students are presented with different learn-
ing contexts (e.g. classroom tasks, test preparation, homework, studying at
home, test taking, when poorly motivated to complete homework). Then, for
each situation, students are asked to name all the methods they would use to
help them fulfill the task requirement.
One example of an interview question used by Zimmerman and Martinez-
Pons (1990) was: “Assume your teacher is discussing with your class the
history of the civil rights movement. Your teacher says that you will be tested
on the topic the next day. Do you have a method that you would use to help
you learn and remember the information being discussed? What if you have
trouble understanding or remembering the information discussed in class?”
Students’ responses to these open-ended questions are transcribed verbatim
and then classified by learning strategies.1
Teacher judgements and ratings of student SRL have also been employed
to measure SRL as an aptitude (as well as an event at times). Although the
reliability of teachers’ ratings of SRL as an aptitude has long been ques-
tioned (Hoge & Butcher, 1984), when implemented properly, teacher
ratings have proven reliable (Winne & Perry, 2000). To ensure good
measurement quality, it is important that teachers limit themselves to
assessing a small number of distinctive and clearly defined observable
behaviors. It has also proven helpful to ask teachers to compare students
to a familiar, stable norm group (e.g. with all students in the class of the
target student or with all previously taught students). The metrics used also
plays a role; the more precise and understandable the metrics are for
teachers, the more appropriate the assessments will be. One measurement
instrument that meets these criteria is the Student SRL Outcomes Teacher
Scale authored by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988).
Measuring SRL as an event

The second form of measurement conceptualizes SRL as an event, i.e.
a transient state in a large, longer process that unfolds overtime. We
now briefly present three types of event-based measures.
In think-aloud measures, learners report their thoughts and cognitive
processes during learning. Surveys indicate that both the structure of the
implementation of think-aloud measures and the quality of assessment vary
greatly (Pressley & Afflerback, 1995). Think-aloud measures can involve
both relatively unstructured ad-hoc questions about the unfolding learning
process as well as more formal, conditional scripts that dynamically adjust
which questions a researcher asks depending on how a student has
responded or behaved. Implemented properly, these methods can contribute
to a better understanding of the learning process (Ericsson & Simon, 1993).
Trace methodologies measure SRL via the observable indicators of cog-

nition that learners show as they work on a task (Winne, 1982). Such
traces include students’ underlined main ideas or marginalia (e.g. marginal
notes referring to other text passages). In some cases, such indicators allow
researchers to deduce SRL behaviors (e.g. metacognitive monitoring). For
example, a students’ marginal note referring to another text passage might
suggest that the learner’s goal is to “off-load” an otherwise challenging
demand on memory by reminding themselves to compare the two passages
at a later point in the learning process (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Trace
methodologies differ from one another in their level of structure and
intrusiveness (for an overview, see Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993). The
agreement among independent observers varies accordingly. Different
aspects of a trace-methodology assessment will be differentially weighted
in light of researchers’ investigative concerns.
Observing SRL performance is a relatively new approach to measuring
SRL in student populations. One advantage of the approach is that learners
are observed “in context” during their learning process. In keeping with
contemporary, socio-cognitive views of SRL, actual learning behavior is
recorded, thus allowing researchers to investigate links between actual
learning behaviors and task conditions. The latter approach is particularly
suitable for younger children, as they often have considerable difficulty in
providing pertinent information about their own learning behaviors.
Effective SRL observation requires adherence to established methodologi-
cal standards when developing the observation system, during its imple-
mentation, and in the assessment and statistical processing of
observational data. Turner (1995) and Perry (1998) offer excellent detailed
descriptions and examples of this approach.
Comparing aptitude-based and event-based measurements of SRL

The two categories of SRL measurement instruments (i.e. measuring SRL as
an aptitude or an event) differ from one another in how closely they reflect the
actual learning process as well as the cognitive demands they make on the
learners and the observers. Furthermore, the extent to which each approach
provides reliable insights into the actual use of SRL strategies depends on
various factors, including student age, grade, and learning context.
Overall, various studies indicate that there is little correspondence
between the self-reported use of learning strategies as an aptitude and
the actual use of learning strategies recorded within the framework of
action-oriented methods or via the measurement of SRL as an event (e.g.
Artelt, 2000a, 2000b; Patrick & Middleton, 2002). Instruments assessing
SRL as an aptitude seem to capture learning preferences rather than actual
learning behaviors.
Correspondingly, relationships between SRL and student achievement

also vary considerably with the assessment approach employed. As a rule,
the learning strategies recorded via questionnaire procedures show only
minor correlations with various learning-success criteria, whereas in many
cases, higher correlations are observed in action-oriented approaches to
measuring SRL (Artelt, 2000a, 2000b).
SRL and student achievement

A large number of studies have documented the contribution of the motiva-
tional and cognitive components of SRL to student academic success
(Malpass, O’Neil, & Hocevar, 1999; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Schunk, 1995;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Self-regulated students have been observed to
efficiently manage their own learning through goal setting, monitoring, strat-
egy use, and self-evaluation, thus contributing to academic success (Boekaerts
et al., 2000). Research has also shown that when compared to their lower-
achieving counterparts, high-achieving students report setting more specific
learning goals, employing an arsenal of different strategies to achieve these
goals, and self-monitoring and adapting their efforts more systematically
based on learning outcomes.
However, some research on the causal relation between SRL and
achievement raises a number of doubts with respect to the contribution
of SRL to student scholastic attainment (Yoon, 2009; Zusho, Pintrich, &
Coppoa, 2003). A meta-analysis by Sitzmann and Ely (2011) examined
the effects of SRL on learning outcomes. The results were nuanced.
After statistically controlling for cognitive ability and pre-training
knowledge, a number of motivational variables were reported to be
related to SRL: goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy had mean-
ingful effects on learning outcomes, accounting for 17% of the variance
in leaning outcomes. By contrast, self-regulatory processes (e.g. plan-
ning, monitoring, and emotional control) did not show significant
relationships with learning outcomes. Yoon (2009) suggested that direct
and indirect effects of motivational and cognitive components of SRL
on performance in various academic subjects and skill areas might vary
depending on the age and ability levels of students. In addition, as
suggested by Artelt (2000), the relation between SRL and learning out-
comes might be influenced by the way SRL is measured. For the most
part, SRL researchers have relied on self-reports – which, as we have
demonstrated, are not entirely reflective of actual SRL skills students
employ in learning contexts.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategies

This section presents theory and research bearing on cognitive and meta-
cognitive strategies, two interrelated constructs that are intrinsic to the SRL
process. Although metacognition is commonly thought to differ from
other cognitive learning strategies, researchers frequently fail to differenti-
ate the two processes (see Zeidner, this issue).
Cognitive learning strategies
Cognitive strategies refer to cognitive representations of plans oriented

toward successful task performance (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). These
strategies encompass a wide array of activities learners use to encode,
store, memorize, process, and retrieve information. Examples of cognitive
strategies include selecting, encoding, and organizing information; rehear-
ing material to be learned; elaborating on and finding meaning in new
material; and relating learned material to information in memory.
Students employ a wide array of cognitive strategies in negotiating learning
tasks, including selective attention, decoding, rehearsal, elaboration, structur-
ing, generating questions, activation and application of rules, repairing mis-
applied rules or replacing unavailable rules, and sharpening the skill at hand
(Boekaerts, 1996). Effective employment of cognitive strategies in the learning
process gives learners better control over information processing of the
learned material (Winne, 2014), assisting in each of the phases of information
processing (e.g. attending to and encoding information, transferring informa-
tion from the different sensory registers to working memory, activating
related knowledge in long-term memory, recall, and retrieval).
Metacognitive strategies
Metacognition refers to knowledge of cognitive states and abilities, and the
affective and motivational characteristics of thinking. Metacognitive learn-
ing strategies (e.g. goal setting, strategy monitoring, and strategy adjust-
ment) are presumed to be an important feature and characteristic of the
SRL process. Originally described by Flavell (1979), metacognition is
a higher order cognitive process that relates to the knowledge and infor-
mation about how cognitions work, and hence to the ability to regulate
them. Metacognition is essentially “thinking about thinking” and is an
important determinant of academic performance, problem-solving, and
student learning (Como & Mandinach, 1983).
Metacognition, as a state, varies in intensity and fluctuates overtime
depending on the learning situation. It consists of being aware of one’s
thoughts, planning (formulating a goal, then determining the method or
procedure to successfully attain that goal), self-checking (i.e. monitoring

one’s work), and the use of task-relevant cognitive strategies (O’Neil &
Abedi, 1996). Having knowledge of their own cognitions means learners
can better understand their own memories and how they work, while
regulating cognition describes how well learners can regulate their own
memory and learning (Sperling, Howard, Staley, & DuBois, 2004, p. 118).
Within the literature on self-regulation, metacognition has been widely
researched as one’s knowledge and ability to recognize, analyze, utilize, and
adjust cognitions willfully. Indeed, research on the development of exper-
tise in various areas (sports, performance arts, chess, and writing) shows
that student methods of learning and practice may be as important as or
even more so than personal talent (Ericsson & Charness, 1994).
It is commonly held that sophisticated metacognitive skills are an
important prerequisite for successful academic performance. Thus, it is
believed that efficient learners not only possess knowledge about goal-
specific strategies, monitoring, and strategy modification, but also know
when success is due to appropriate strategy use, and conversely, recognize
that some failures could have been avoided if strategies that are more
appropriate had been employed (Pressley, Borkowski, & O’Sullivan, 1984).
The effectiveness of SRL strategies in the classroom is contingent upon
a number of personal and contextual factors, including the willingness of
students to use learning strategies when completing school-based tasks and
assignments. Thus, students will continue to use these strategies as long as
they find them useful in setting appropriate goals and implementing strategic
processes.
Affective and motivational facets

Current thinking views emotional and motivational factors as being strongly
linked to self-regulation processes (Pintrich, 2004), mutually influencing one
another in the cyclical SRL process. We begin by discussing the affective
facet of SRL, followed by a discussion of the motivational facet.
Affective facet
It is readily apparent that a wide array of emotional variables may affect

learning and performance (Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, & Lüdtke, 2007).
Emotional aspects of learning are increasingly integrated into models of
SRL. Meta-emotions (also referred to as meta-affect) refer to knowledge
and information about how behaviors and emotions work and how they
can be actively monitored and adjusted (Ben-Eliyahu & Linnenbrink-
Garcia, 2015). Indeed, a number of influential conceptualizations of self-
regulation (e.g. Boekaerts, 1995; Efklides, 2011) have incorporated affective
factors in the self-regulatory process, thus highlighting the importance of

constructive emotional self-regulation.
According to Boekaert’s (2000) two-process model, for instance, stu-
dents can focus on their learning and on the application of their knowledge
and skills in a specific domain, provided there are no emotional barriers in
their way, in other words, when a learning task or problem situation does
not elicit strong negative feelings or failure expectations. However, if
a student does experience snags, fissures, or barriers in the learning
process, the learner will then experience the situation as threatening for
her or his well-being. This, in turn, will often result in the development of
a coping intention rather than a learning intention: students are focused on
restoring their well-being rather on their learning. This process, it is
contended, may lead to the development of underachievement in many
gifted and talented students (Peters, 2012).
Efklides (2011; this issue) also incorporated affect as an integral component
of learning in her metacognitive affective model of SRL (MASRL).
Accordingly, affect is treated as a key factor interacting in concert with
motivation, metacognitive experiences, and metacognitive knowledge to
shape student learning. In some cases, metacognition and affect coexist:
metacognitive experiences include awareness of the affective experience. At
other times, knowledge of emotions and knowledge of cognition are inter-
twined and determine both cognition and self-regulation of affect and effort.
Efklides’s model distinguishes between two levels. The person level
includes relatively stable characteristics of cognitive, metacognitive, moti-
vational, affective, and volitional aspects. The task level is where “metacog-
nition and affect take the form of subjective experiences; that is, the person
is experientially aware of the ongoing thinking, feelings, emotions, or
physiological states” (Efklides, 2011, p. 7). Affect is given a central role in
this model at both the person level and as part of the interaction of the
learner with the learning task (i.e. Person x Task).
Motivational facets
Research by Wolters (1999) suggests that various strategies designed to

maintain task motivation (e.g. expending effort, persisting, making the task
engaging and self-rewarding) are associated with self-regulatory strategy
use during learning. In fact, motivation appears to pervade all phases of
SRL, including forethought and strategic planning (e.g. perceived self-
efficacy, outcome expectations, interest, subjective value, goal orientations),
performance control (e.g. attention focusing, self-monitoring, etc.), and
self-reflection (e.g. self-evaluation of goal progress, causal attribution).
Boekaert’s (1996) dual-process model of self-regulation underscores the use
of a number of motivational strategies during the performance-control phase of
the SRL process. These include attempting to maintain an action plan in the face
of obstacles in negotiating the task and competing action tendencies; disenga-
ging action plans or behavioral intentions and choosing alternative plans; and
the use of coping strategies to alter stress and reduce negative emotions.
We now turn to a review of research related to four key motivational
processes discussed in the literature in conjunction with SRL: self-efficacy,
goal orientation, causal attributions, and students’ perceived interest and
subjective value of the learning task.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is commonly viewed as being an intrinsic factor in SRL and
strongly related to academic performance (Cassidy, 2015). In academic
settings, self-efficacy beliefs refer to students’ beliefs in their capabilities to
master academic demands by organizing and executing courses of action
necessary for successful academic performance (Bandura, 1977). Students
who believe they will be successful are more likely to be motivated and to
achieve success. Students with low self-efficacy, on the other hand, may let
disruptive thoughts interfere with their effort and performance (Boekaerts,
1995; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Pintrich, 2003). Learners’ self-efficacy beliefs
are developed mainly through prior experiences. The beliefs can be
influenced by vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological
reactions (Bandura, 1986; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Pajares & Valiante, 2002).
Students’ self-efficacy beliefs help determine what students will do with
the knowledge and skills they possess (Pajares, 2008). Consequently, aca-
demic performances are highly influenced and predicted by students’
perceptions of what they believe they can accomplish. Self-efficacy beliefs
act as determinants of behavior by influencing the choices that individuals
make, the effort they expend, the perseverance they exert in the face of
difficulties, and the thought patterns and emotional reactions they experi-
ence. It is for these reasons that high self-efficacy is likely to promote
stronger academic performances (Pajares & Valiante, 2002).
Pajares (2008) argued that students’ selection and use of strategies
depends directly on their perceptions of their academic efficacy and reci-
procally on feedback through the following cybernetic loop: If monitoring
indicates deficiency in performance, learners’ self-efficacy will be affected,
and this, in turn, will affect their subsequent motivation and choice of
strategies. Students’ SRL is currently perceived not as an absolute state of
functioning, but rather varies based on the academic context, personal
efforts to self-regulate, and outcomes of behavioral performance.
Research shows that self-efficacy for SRL bears a significant and positive
relation to academic achievement and grades (Caprara et al., 2008). Perceived
self-efficacy may affect student achievement both directly and indirectly.
Specifically, self-efficacy directly influences academic performance by enhan-

cing efficient use of acquired skill and engagement. Self-efficacy affects per-
formance indirectly by heightening learners’ goal setting, management of
work time, persistence, and flexibility in testing problem-solving strategies.
An integrative review shows that efficacy beliefs contribute meaningfully
to scholastic performance in both children and adults (Multon, Brown, &
Lent, 1991). In keeping with this finding, a meta-analysis of 109 studies
relating psychosocial factors to college achievement found that academic
self-efficacy was among the most predictive factors of academic success,
correlating around .50 with GPA (Robbins, Lauver, Le-Huy, Langley, &
Carlstrom, 2004). Furthermore, the level of student achievement proved to
be an important moderator variable in the relationship between students’
self-efficacy beliefs and performance. Students’ self-efficacy was more
highly related to academic outcomes for low than for high achievers
(Zimmerman, 2000).
Goal orientations
Goal orientations refer to the reasons students have for achievement-related

tasks. The motivational literature has differentiated between two main goal
orientations: (a) mastery-goal orientations, where students focus on the
intrinsic value of learning and developing expertise, and (b) performance-
goal orientations, where students focus on demonstrating their ability and
besting others (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1999; Urdan, 1997).
Researchers commonly use the trichotomies framework (Elliot, 1999;
Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) for classifying achievement goals. According
to this conceptual framework, students focus on developing and learning
(mastery-goal orientation), on demonstrating their ability and outperform-
ing others (performance-approach goal orientation), or on attempting to
avoid looking stupid or incompetent and avoiding failure (performance-
avoidance goal orientation).
Research has shown that self-regulated learners tend to have mastery-
oriented learning goals, with which they focus on learning processes, under-
standing, and mastery of tasks (Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988). Mastery-
oriented students want to learn even when performance is poor; therefore, they
persist when challenged and adjust their effort after failure (Heyman & Dweck,
1992). Students who are oriented toward mastery learning goals persist longer
when faced with difficulty and treat the obstacle as an opportunity to try various
strategies (Dweck, 1986).
With respect to performance goals, students focusing on maximizing perfor-
mance believe that poor performance indicates low academic ability (Dweck,
1986). Therefore, many students with this view avert the risk of appearing
intellectually incompetent by avoiding challenge. Schunk (1996) reported that
performance goals are less likely to lead to high-achievement outcomes than

mastery goals. Although, as a rule, mainly performance-avoidance goals lead to
maladaptive achievement behavior, performance goals do not necessarily result
in maladaptive outcomes (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich,
1996). A performance goal that focuses on competing with others to demon-
strate high performance may boost students’ motivation to use SRL strategies
(Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). Furthermore, it is possible that some students are
motivated both to appear competent and to master the material.
A body of literature supports the claim that mastery-goal orientations are
related to various adaptive outcomes, including self-efficacy, performance,
interest, engagement, persistence, and positive affect (Hulleman, Schrager,
Bodmann, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Schunk, 1990). Furthermore, a number of
studies have indicated a positive relationship between mastery-goal orienta-
tion and the use of SRL (Ee, Moore, & Atputhasamy, 2003; Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1990; Yoon, 2009).
Attributions
Causal attributions, within an academic context, refer to the causal explana-

tions students provide for learning outcomes, experiences, or events, in an
attempt to understand their performance and outcomes (Garcia & Pintrich,
1994). The attributional model proposed by Weiner and his co-workers
(Weiner et al., 1987) specifies four major causal factors defined jointly by
the dimensions of locus of causality and stability: ability, effort, task difficulty,
and luck. Ability (or aptitude) and long-term effort and motivation are viewed
as internal determinants of performance, whereas task difficulty and luck are
construed as external determinants of performance.
Weiner (1985) has classified common attributions as either (a) of
internal or external locus, (b) constant or changeable overtime and
across different situations, and (c) controllable or uncontrollable by
oneself. For example, ability attributions have an internal locus, are
stable, and yet relatively uncontrollable, whereas effort attributions
have an internal locus and are both changeable and controllable.
Furthermore, luck and short-term efforts are classified as unstable,
whereas aptitude and task difficulties are classified as relatively stable
within a given academic situation.
Research suggests that different types of attributions are related to
different affective, cognitive, and motivational effects (Weiner, 2005).
Thus, an attribution of lack of effort (internal/unstable) to a failure out-
come is shown to be related to a less negative affective response, increased
future levels of persistence, and higher expectations. By contrast, an attri-
bution of failure to low ability (internal/stable) is related to depressed
affect, lower expectancies, and lower future levels of persistence.
Research by Covington and Omelich (1979) suggests that attribution of

failure to low ability can demolish a student’s self-merit. Some students
even go so far as to self-handicap and attribute failure to lack of motivation
or evaluative stress. Thus, rather than face a serious blow to their self-
merit – by procrastinating or reporting high test anxiety before an exam,
for example – these students can attribute poor subsequent performance to
factors other than lack of ability.
As a rule, students take more pride in their accomplishments when they
attribute them to personal reasons such as ability and effort than to external
causes (Schunk, 2014; Weiner, 1985). By contrast, students would be
expected to be more self-critical if they believe they have failed due to
personal reasons rather than to external circumstances beyond their control.
Thus, students who believe they are not making good progress toward their
goals may attribute their performance to low ability, which negatively affects
expectancies and subsequent behaviors. However, students who attribute
poor progress to lack of effort or inadequate learning strategies may believe
they will perform better if they work harder or adopt a different strategy.
Attributional feedback can enhance SRL (Schunk, 2008). If a student is
informed that she can achieve better results through increased effort and
harder work, this may motivate her to do so, because the feedback conveys
that she is capable. Providing effort feedback for prior success supports
students’ perception of their progress, sustains their motivation, and
increases their efficacy for further learning (Schunk & Cox, 1986).
Interest and subjective value
Subjective value of a learning task refers to the extent to which students

value the specific task or learning activity (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). A body of research suggests that students tend to regulate
their performance for the specific learning goals they value. Thus, if
a student fails to value the assignment or care little about the task, she
or he may not expend the required resources to maximize her or his efforts
or to assess and improve her or his performance (Schunk, 2014).
Evaluation of the activity or content as interesting or engaging plays
a determining role in student engagement, persistence, choice, and
achievement. Furthermore, research supports the idea that interest in the
subject matter is an essential factor in SRL strategy use (Wigfield et al.,
2008). Multiple studies have found that students with high interest in
domain-specific learning materials in various topics (e.g. history, art,
music, science, math) make significantly greater use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies such as planning, self-monitoring, and focusing
(Mason, 2004; McWhaw & Abrami, 2001). In addition, high levels of
personal interest directed toward a specific topic are positively correlated

with the use of SRL strategies (McWhaw & Abrami, 2001).
Motivation, SRL, and learning

A number of motivational and affective factors that support student
achievement have been found to be associated with SRL. For example,
students motivated to attain a specific learning goal tend to engage in self-
regulatory activities they believe will help them achieve their self-
concordant goals (e.g. monitoring their learning process, organizing, ela-
borating, and rehearsing learning materials, adjusting learning strategies).
SRL, in turn, promotes learning, with the perception of greater competence
sustaining both motivation and SRL to attain new goals (Schunk & Ertmer,
2000). Indeed, many a student who has sufficient knowledge of SRL and its
sub-processes may not employ self-regulatory strategies in her or his
learning unless her or his knowledge is related to important and valued
learning outcomes and the student is sufficiently motivated to employ SRL
strategies.
Teaching SRL skills in the classroom

Students develop the capacity to become efficient self-regulated leaners in an
appropriate educational (e.g. classroom) or social (e.g. home) environment
(Schunk & Zimmerman, 1996). In the past, teachers in traditional classrooms
(Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996) seldom provided self-regulatory
training. However, over the past few decades, teachers’ use of self-regulatory
models to help students plan, guide, and monitor their learning has become
more acceptable and widespread in the school system. It is readily apparent
that SRL strategies can be taught successfully from the elementary school level
to higher education provided they are integrated within a larger framework of
self-regulatory training (Zimmerman, 1989).
The role of teachers aiming to develop students who self-regulate their
learning is substantially different from their role in the traditional classrooms.
In traditional classrooms, the teacher emphasizes subject matter, general
content goals, and monitors the progress and the pace of learning for the
entire class. By contrast, teachers seeking to develop self-regulated learners in
the modern classroom need to shift the responsibility for the learning process
to the individual student in the classroom. The advantage of shifting the
control of classroom learning from teacher to student is considerable, because
one’s progress in mastering methods of leaning is a prerequisite for improved
learning outcomes (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). By providing specific
personalized instruction and feedback instead of merely presenting general
information, teachers become more like tutors or coaches.
SRL strategy instruction

Over the past few decades, both behavioral and social-cognitive theories
have been successfully applied to help students learn self-regulated beha-
viors (Schunk, 2014). Teachers in the modern classroom and during
homeroom activities now regularly introduce key facets of the SRL process.
Students regularly receive explicit training by teachers in goal setting,
strategy use, self-monitoring, and systemic practice in classroom settings.
Students are taught how to analyze tasks, set effective goals, choose the
most appropriate strategy to achieve learning goals, self-instruct, self-
judge, and reinforce their attainments. Furthermore, teachers can mediate
SRL strategies by demonstrating the use and effectiveness of various SRL
techniques. The teacher may teach self-regulatory techniques through
a variety of ways, including instructing the student to do the following:
● Assess the requirements of the task at hand;

● Self-assess their current knowledge with respect to task requirements;
● Detect any discrepancies between task requirements and student
knowledge;
● Decide how to reduce any detected discrepancies;
● Set specific goals for themselves with respect to the task;
● Decide on effective strategies to achieve self-set goals;
● Implement strategies while monitoring their progress;
● Self-appraise their performance vis-à-vis set goals;
● Self-reinforce positive outcomes;
● Attempt to attribute performance to internal, changeable, and con-
trollable factors;
● Decide what needs to be done to improve future performance;
● Choose additional strategies in light of monitoring outcomes.
Research (e.g. Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) suggests that SRL can
be improved when instructional methods and environmental conditions sup-
port the use of a set of strategies directed toward the optimization of personal
functioning, academic behavioral performance, and the learning environment.
SRL may be facilitated via environmental conditions that provide students
with opportunities to make choices, exercise volitional control, participate in
assessments, engage in complex tasks, and seek help (De Corte, Verschaffel, &
Van de Ven, 2001; Perry, Hutchinson, & Thauberger, 2007).
Environmental conditions such as the organization of materials and
clear expectations from teachers or mentors support the development
and use of SRL strategies in teaching various skills. Teachers who use
explicit instruction and modeling of SRL strategies have more students
who can use self-regulation strategies to study for longer periods and can
respond to higher order thinking questions.
A number of goal properties, particularly proximity, adequate difficulty

level, and specificity, are especially effective for negotiating long-term tasks
(Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991). Accordingly, students can learn how to break up
long-term, complex assignments (e.g. penning a term paper in American
history) into short-term, manageable tasks. Learners then can more readily
accomplish the subtasks; by completing each subtask, students develop their
self-efficacy by eventually producing an organized and generally high-quality
term paper. Students who judge their learning process as inadequate may ask
for teacher assistance so that teachers can instruct these students in a more
efficient strategy that the students can then use to more effectively promote
their learning.
Strategy instruction, as with other aspects of learning, tends to be most
effective when the instructional methods are meaningful to students and
the students perceive the methods as valuable to use in their own learning.
Pressley and colleagues (Pressley, Harris, & Marks, 1992) recommend
following a number of steps, detailed below, in strategy instruction:
● Having teachers serve as models. With teachers as models, students

learn self-regulatory strategies and how to modify them.
● Stressing the value of strategy use. This is essential for encouraging
greater strategy use among students. Teachers can enhance perceived
task value with feedback showing how strategy use improves
performance.
● Introducing only a few strategies at a time. This avoids overloading
students and facilitates the coalescing of strategies into a larger scheme
that shows students how they are interrelated.
● Providing distributed practice on diverse tasks. The major advantage in
doing so is the facilitation of transfer and maintenance of learning.
● Personalizing feedback and teaching. Teachers need to tailor feedback
to individual student needs, with teachers and students collaborating
to work out a shared understanding of optimal strategies to achieve
students’ learning goals.
● Determining opportunities for transfer. This can be best accomplished
through discussions, prompts to students, and providing opportunities
to practice adapting strategies to new tasks.
● Sustaining student motivation. Students will not self-regulate unless
motivated to do so. Students will feel especially empowered by the
positive consequences that accompany strategy learning.
● Encouraging habitual reflection and planning. This provides opportu-
nities for students to think through problems and create an environ-
ment that values reflection more than simply completing an
assignment or arriving at correct answers.
Rather than forcing these strategies on students, by instructing students

on the effective use of self-regulatory skills, students will hopefully realize
their benefits and use them in optimizing their learning. Furthermore,
when transfer is considered a goal, it is imperative that students under-
stand the conditions under which the specific strategy they have used is
effective. The best instructional programs for SRL strategy use are those
that are integrated with academic content and implemented in classrooms
that support students’ SRL (Perry, 1998; Winne & Hadwin, 2008).
Feedback linking early success with ability (“You really ace math
quizzes”) should enhance learning efficacy. Many times, however, effort
feedback for early successes is more positive in the end, because when
students face failure for the first time they have to expend effort to succeed.
As students develop skills, ability feedback better enhances their self-
efficacy (Schunk, 1983a).
Effectiveness of strategy instruction

A wide body of research has assessed the effectiveness of various strategy
instructional procedures (Corno, 2008). In their review of interventions
aiming at the improvement of student learning, Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
(1996) concluded that most SRL interventions were effective. They also
found evidence for the near transfer of learning, that is, the transfer of
learning to tasks that are closely related to the original learning task. In
addition, in an evaluation of a training program for self-regulation, Sontag
and Stoeger (2015) found that highly intelligent as well as high-achieving
learners attain better results in textual work after having been instructed in
self-regulation than a control group of students with comparable intelli-
gence and achievement, who were not instructed in self-regulation.
SRL in gifted and high-ability students

We now turn to a review of thinking and empirical research focusing on
gifted and high-ability students. The review is selective and does not
address a number of intriguing issues, such as interactions between ability
and gender or ethnic group in affecting SRL, which is beyond the scope of
this introduction.
A serious problem we faced in penning this review stems from the lack of
uniformity in the definitions and operationalization of giftedness in the
research literature. There is currently a clear trend away from mono-causal
giftedness conceptions, (which equate giftedness with high IQ), toward multi-
dimensional and systemic conceptions in theories of giftedness, talent, and
high abilities (Stoeger, Balestrini, & Ziegler, 2017; Subotnik, Olszewski-
Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011). Nevertheless, most empirical studies still continue
to operationalize giftedness mono-causally, via IQ or exceptional academic

performance (Carman, 2013; Worrel, 2009; Ziegler, 2008; Ziegler & Raul,
2000). In addition, the contexts in which studies we reviewed were carried out
vary widely; some studies looked at mixed-ability classes, whereas others
examined special classes for the gifted. It is highly plausible that self-
regulation plays out differently in the two contexts.
A similar picture emerges in studies of SRL and giftedness. Stoeger and
Sontag (2012) conducted a 25-study literature review looking at differences
between gifted and typical students regarding different aspects of SRL (i.e.
regulation of cognitive and metacognitive strategies as well as external and
internal resource use). They found that giftedness was operationalized in
10 cases solely via high IQ, in nine cases solely via high performance, and
in six cases via a combination of high IQ and high performance.
Self-regulated learning processes
SRL has received increased attention in the field of gifted education over
the past few decades. The claim has been made (Zimmerman & Martinez-
Pons, 1990) that high-ability and high-achieving students use certain SRL
strategies more frequently that optimize (a) personal regulation (e.g. orga-
nizing and transforming information), (b) behavioral functioning (e.g.
providing their own rewards and punishments based on performance),
and (c) the immediate environment (e.g. reviewing notes, seeking peer or
teacher assistance). High-ability students have been perceived as having an
inherent preference for using SRL strategies. Because self-regulated lear-
ners are perceived to be metacognitively and behaviorally active partici-
pants in their own learning (Zimmerman, 1986), they are also typically
high achievers (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
The review of the literature by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990)
supports a number of common assumptions regarding the superior SRL
strategies of gifted students. Thus, gifted students are said to spontaneously
utilize self-regulatory learning strategies more frequently in comparison
with non-identified students. When trained to use SRL strategies, gifted
students are also believed to use them more effectively and to be able to
transfer these strategies to novel tasks. Furthermore, gifted students are
seen as independent and self-directed learners, preferring learning through
self-management and self-monitoring. In doing so, they effectively control
their pace of study and are aware of and capable of emending their errors.
Other gifted students’ qualities believed to be related to self-regulation are
an internal frame of reference, persistence overtime, and high motivation.
These presumed self-regulatory behaviors in gifted students have led
a number of researchers to suggest that the definition of giftedness ought
to be broadened to include SRL strategies (Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998).
Before gifted or high-ability students actually employ and implement

effective SRL strategies, a number of enabling conditions need to exist. First,
these students need to experience cognitions, motivations, and emotions
about the situation and about themselves that cohere with the use of these
strategies to pursue their goals. More specifically, gifted students need to have
knowledge – both declarative and procedural – of SRL strategies in their
arsenal. They also need to interpret the learning situation and the cognitive
task as calling for SRL strategies, endorsing the purposes, intentions, and goals
that are congruent with the use of these learning strategies. Moreover, they
need to view themselves as possessing those attributes that support the use of
these strategies. This renders the processes that underlie the utilization of self-
regulation strategies highly personal and dynamic. As suggested by Gerald
Matthews (personal communication, 22 January 2019), perhaps we can flip
the relationship by identifying extremely high scorers on SRL scales – the
superstars of self-regulation – and investigate how they differ from their peers
in ability and other factors.
Empirical research
A body of empirical research supports many of the aforementioned claims
about better SRL in gifted students compared to their non-identified counter-
parts. The claims are supported by Stoeger and Sontag’s (2012) review of
studies that compared knowledge of SRL strategies among gifted versus non-
identified elementary school students. Based on their review, the authors
concluded that gifted students have greater knowledge of cognitive learning
strategies than non-identified students do.
Comparably, in a highly referenced, earlier study, Zimmerman and Martinez-
Pons (1990) provided empirical evidence showing that gifted students use more
SRL strategies than their non-identified counterparts do. When examining use
of each strategy, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) reported that there
were no strategies in this study that “regular” students used significantly more
often than gifted students. In addition, four of the 14 strategies assessed in this
study differentiated gifted students from their “regular” counterparts. These
were: organizing and transforming, self-consequating, seeking peer assistance,
and reviewing notes. The authors note that these strategies represent the triadic
spectrum for regulating learning: (a) personal processes (organizing and trans-
forming), (b) one’s behavior (self-consequating), and (c) one’s environment
(reviewing notes and seeking peer assistance). However, because differences
between achievement groups were found only on certain strategies, this sug-
gested to the authors that even gifted students could benefit from self-regulatory
strategy training to help them achieve their higher potential.
A study by Ablard and Lipschultz (1998) investigated the use of SRL
strategies in 222 high-achieving seventh graders, who were asked to
describe their use of SRL strategies and to rate their achievement goals
(mastery and performance). High-achieving students reported frequent use

of the following SRL strategies: organizing and transforming information,
reviewing notes, and seeking assistance from adults. These high-achieving
students also reported relatively frequent use of self-evaluating, goal setting
and planning, keeping records, monitoring, and reviewing textual material.
The findings suggest that high-achieving students use the full spectrum of
SRL strategies rather than one particular type. The wide range of high
achieving students’ use of SRL strategies also suggests that SRL strategies
may not really be necessary for high achievement.
Furthermore, research focusing on the acquisition and use of learning
strategies has generally reported that the gifted use more advanced and
a greater number of strategies coupled with a higher level of strategy use
than do “regular” students (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1985). One wonders
whether the gifted use SRL strategies more than their non-identified
counterparts do simply because they tend to be more interested and
engaged with the material. Future research could benefit from checking
whether there is any special link between cognitive ability and strategy,
holding interest, engagement, and other potentially confounding motiva-
tional factors statistically constant.
However, a number of empirical studies failed to find significant differ-
ences between gifted and non-identified students with respect to their
competence in accurately applying metacognitive self-evaluation strategies
(Schneider & Bjorklund, 1992). Furthermore, Sontag, Stoeger, and Harder
(2012) found that gifted students prefer using impulsive learning rather
than self-regulated approaches. It may well be that because gifted students
typically do well in school over the years without the deliberate use of SRL
strategies or self-regulating their learning; they may often fail to recognize
the usefulness of such strategies. It is now readily apparent that although
high ability is associated with a greater likelihood of using self-regulatory
learning strategies, some gifted students fail to competently employ SRL
strategies in their learning.
SRL and gifted student achievement

Current theory does not allow us to precisely predict how ability moder-
ates associations between learning strategies and attainment. On the one
hand, SRL may amplify the association, that is, that the gifted get more
bang from self-regulated strategy use. Conversely, one may argue that if
a student is gifted enough, strategy use may begin to bring diminishing
returns. What does the research teach us?
As may be expected, the relation between SRL and gifted student achieve-
ment appears to be more complex than originally believed. To begin with,
Artelt’s (2000) work suggests that what students report they do in their SRL is
quite different from what they actually do. Furthermore, a number of studies
challenge the commonly held assumption that use of SRL positively influences
the academic performance of gifted students. For example, Yoon’s research
among 166 scientifically gifted middle-school students revealed that self-
regulatory strategy use was not a significant predictor of scientific inquiry
skills. Likewise, Zusho et al. (2003) found that high achieving college students’
self-efficacy significantly predicted their chemistry achievement, whereas their
use of self-regulatory strategies did not.
Role of individual differences

Research suggests that gifted and high-ability students vary widely in their use
of SRL strategies (Ablard & Lipschitz, 1998). Although some gifted and high-
ability students may report taking advantage of all or most of the SRL strategies
measured, some gifted and high-ability students may use few, if any, SRL
strategies in their learning. It is plausible that when high-ability students
experience insufficient academic challenge early on, they may develop the
maladaptive beliefs that intelligence is innate and fixed, and that it manifests
itself in superior performance that involves little effort or use of SRL strategies
(Snyder, Malin, Dent, & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014). Alternatively, gifted
students may develop and deploy learning and related problem-solving stra-
tegies without being consciously aware they are using them.
Thus, a review of the SRL literature in elementary school students
(Stoeger, Fleischman, & Obergriesser, 2015) suggests that gifted and high-
ability learner often do well in school without using SRL strategies at all.
Some high-ability students may fail to recognize the potential usefulness of
these strategies and may be less inclined to use them. Yet, it is important to
point out that gifted students who self-regulate their learning tend to
achieve at higher levels and are more motivated and engaged in their
studies than their counterparts who do not use SRL strategies
(Obergriesser & Stoeger, 2016; Stoeger et al., 2015).
Gender is also important for understanding differences in SRL.
Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) found that among high-achieving
middle school and high school students, girls reported greater overall use
of SRL strategies than boys did. More specifically, however, girls reported
greater use of record keeping and monitoring, structuring the environ-
ment, and goal setting and planning. According to Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1990), the first two strategies involve optimizing the
immediate environment, whereas the third strategy involves optimizing
personal regulation. No significant gender differences were reported for
SRL strategies involving behavioral functioning. It appears that gender
differences in SRL are dependent on the type of self-regulation strategy
under consideration.
Metacognitive strategies
A number of scholars have reasoned that intellectually gifted students
should demonstrate better-developed and superior metacognitive skills
than an average cohort of students (Cheng, 1993). Indeed, metacognitive
skills are sometimes claimed to be an important component of giftedness.
In his triarchic theory of intelligence, Sternberg (1986) specifies the impor-
tance of “meta-components” for intelligence. Included among these meta-
components are setting goals, selection of efficient strategies for achieving
goals, allocation of attentional resources, and solution monitoring.
Curiously, these are some of the very same abilities ascribed to the
metacognitive component of SRL. Accordingly, it may be the case that
metacognitive processes of setting goals, devising appropriate strategies,
and evaluating and monitoring progress and successes are closely related to
the g factor of intelligence (Jensen, 1998), which, by definition, tends to be
higher in academically gifted than non-identified children.
Flavell (1979) posited a bidirectional causal hypothesis linking metacog-
nition and use of cognitive strategies. Accordingly, children’s metacogni-
tive knowledge enables them to better cope with novel, challenging tasks
by developing task-appropriate strategies. Experience on these tasks, in
turn, improves their meta-knowledge, which leads to better performance
on other tasks. Gifted children are claimed to be better able to utilize
experiences in learning and problem-solving situations to increase their
metacognitive base; or they actively seek out more potentially enriching
situations than do their average peers.
We note that although SRL seems to be more or less defined in the
literature to be adaptive and beneficial, self-regulation can also be mala-
daptive. Thus, Wells and Matthews (1994) have identified maladaptive
metacognitions as a factor in emotional disorder. In the present context,
that subset of gifted children that are threatened by being different or set
apart from the other kids might be prone to maladaptive self-regulation.
Post-task self-reflection seems like a prime location for maladaptive self-
regulative processes such as rumination and worry to emerge.
Empirical research
Although the data are not entirely consistent, the lion’s share of studies
suggest that high-ability students report more frequent and more effective
use of SRL strategies relative to students identified as having lower ability
levels (DiFrancesca, Nietfeld, & Cao, 2016; Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012;
Ruban & Reis, 2006). It has also been reported that high-ability students
possess more metacognitive knowledge, including declarative knowledge,
than typical students (Carr, Alexander, & Schwanenflugel, 1996). These
findings seem to suggest that high-ability students have more knowledge of
learning strategies, display SRL strategies more consistently, value aca-

demic achievement more, set higher achievement goals, and have higher
efficacy for self-regulation. Therefore, these high-ability students self-
regulate their learning more than do lower-ability students.
A number of studies confirm that gifted students have greater metacog-
nitive abilities than the general cohort does (Alexander, Carr, &
Schwanenflugel, 1995; Cheng, 1993). Other findings also suggest that gifted
students are more likely to have conscious control over the solution
process (Shore & Carey, 1984) and provide alternative solutions more
often (Dover, 1983).
Motivational processes
The importance of motivation in the education of the gifted is well

recognized. Thus, motivation serves as one of the three components in
Renzulli’s (2016) three-ring model of giftedness and is one of the six
resources in Sternberg and Lubart’s (1993) multivariate theory of creative
giftedness. In the passages below, we briefly present a number of motiva-
tional constructs strongly affiliated with SRL in academic contexts.
Self-efficacy
High levels of perceived academic self-efficacy and competence have long
been claimed to set gifted students apart from other students (Hoge &
Renzulli, 1993). Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) posited that gifted
students exhibit not only high intellectual ability but also two character-
istics closely associated with self-efficacy: persistence of motive and effort
as well as confidence in their abilities. For this reason, it is expected that
intellectually gifted students display greater academic self-efficacy than
regular students on cognitive tasks do.
Research on the self-efficacy of gifted students, although quite sparse,
has generally reported higher self-efficacy among gifted students
(Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1993; Ewers & Wood, 1993;
Pajares, 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Pajares (1996) and
Pajares and Graham (1999) revealed that the effect of self-efficacy on
mathematics performance was stronger for a gifted sample than for “reg-
ular” education students (Pajares, 1996a). Furthermore, gifted students
have been reported to surpass their general cohort counterparts in predic-
tion accuracy or calibration (Ewers & Wood, 1993).
Malpass et al. (1999) showed that the only variable directly influencing
the mathematics achievement of mathematically gifted high school stu-
dents was self-efficacy, whereas mastery-goal orientation and self-
regulation were not statistically significant predictors for these students’
mathematics achievement. Pajares (1996) reported that the effect of self-
efficacy on mathematics performance was stronger for a gifted sample than

for regular education students. Comparably, Yoon’s (2009) review suggests
that for high-ability students, self-efficacy is a stronger predictor of per-
formance than cognitive and regulatory strategy use. By contrast, for
regular education, student’s cognitive and regulatory strategy use is directly
related to cognitive performance – especially at the elementary school level.
Furthermore, some evidence supports the assumption that self-
efficacy is related to self-regulatory skills. Malpasss et al. (1999) reported
that both mathematical and verbal self-efficacy were related significantly
to self-regulatory strategies such as reviewing notes and transforming
and organizing materials. Comparably, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons
(1990) found a relationship between verbal and mathematical efficacy
and the use of SRL strategies. Overall, the empirical evidence supports
the claim that self-efficacy benefits gifted students more than their non-
gifted peers.
Goal orientation
One possible reason posited for variation in SRL among high-achieving
and gifted students involves differences in achievement goals (Ablard &
Lipschultz, 1998). The type of goals adopted or reasons for achieving affect
students’ ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to academic
situations (Ames, 1992a, 1992b). These factors, in turn, influence the
degree to which students use SRL strategies.
Empirical research on ability-group differences in goal orientation is
mixed. Schunk and Swartz (1993) found that elementary school gifted
students score high on both learning-goal and performance-goal mea-
sures. By contrast, Ziegler, Heller, and Broome (1996) found no differ-
ence between gifted and non-identified students on goal-orientation
measures. As noted by Dai and Feldhusen (1996), findings concerning
goal or incentive orientations of high-ability or gifted students are vari-
able, depending on what instruments or experimental conditions are
involved.
Attributions
Research on causal attributions in gifted students is rather sparse.
A number of studies suggest that gifted and high-achieving students tend
to have greater confidence in their personal control and regulation over
learning outcomes than their peers from the general cohort, believing that
school successes and failures are dependent on their own effort rather than
on luck (Chan, 1996; Kurtz & Weinert, 1989).
It may be the case that low ability or unsuccessful academic effort biases
low-achieving students toward an ability attribution, with salient norma-
tive evaluation and competitive classroom climate exacerbating this
tendency (Nicholls, 1984). Attribution research has also found significant

differences between high-ability boys and girls. For example, gifted girls
seem more likely to attribute successes to effort and strategy, whereas
gifted boys tend to attribute success to ability (Cramer & Oshima, 1992;
Li & Adamson, 1995).
The dilemma of teaching SRL skills to gifted students

A major dilemma facing teachers in gifted education is whether or not their
gifted and high ability students actually need to be instructed in SRL skills, and
if so, should instruction be tailored to their specific needs and talents or
should instruction be no different from instructional strategies designed for
their non-identified counterparts? The possible ways to address these ques-
tions are complex and nuanced, and the SRL or gifted literature is not very
helpful in directing teachers how to handle this dilemma.
On one hand, one can argue that SRL instruction and interventions for
gifted learners should not be ostensibly different from those instructional
strategies designed for use among typical learners. It would seem impor-
tant to enhance and strengthen useful skills and help students not using
them to their benefit realize how they would benefit from employing SRL
strategies in their learning. On the other hand, perhaps there is no need to
teach gifted students SRL strategies because, as discussed in this article,
they frequently succeed in school without deliberately using them in their
academic learning. In fact, some research suggests that many gifted stu-
dents fail to recognize the usefulness of SRL strategies because they tend to
do well overtime – especially in mixed-ability classrooms – without self-
regulating their learning (Stoeger, Steinbach, Obergriesser, & Matthes,
2014). Thus, perhaps gifted students do not require special instruction in
the use of SRL skills. In addition, metacognitive skills have been said to be
a signature strength of gifted students, and research suggests that they are
better at using metacognitive strategies than their counterparts.
In order to resolve this dilemma, it is imperative to take the learning
context and specific task at hand into consideration. Specifically, it stands
to reason that SRL becomes important for gifted learners who are working
toward excellence and are being challenged in a particular talent domain.
Accordingly, it makes a difference whether SRL competences are taught to
groups of gifted learners in challenging learning settings or to individual
gifted learners in inclusive or mixed-ability settings. Thus, it is important to
consider the difficulty level of the tasks to be negotiated via the imple-
mentation of SRL strategies taught. In mixed-ability or inclusive class-
rooms, the difficulty levels of classroom tasks are typically oriented
toward the performance levels of “average” students (Weinert, 1997).
When provided with such tasks, gifted students typically achieve at high
levels – without recourse to the use of SRL strategies. To ensure that gifted
learners employ SRL strategies, the task needs to be sufficiently challenging
for gifted learners, so that they might find it helpful to employ SRL
strategies in negotiating the task. Thus, when gifted learners find them-
selves in suitably challenging learning environments, SRL may become just
as important for them as it is for typical learners.
However, it stands to reason that the pace of SRL training, the selection
of the SRL facets taught, and the type of feedback given during training
may differ for “regular” and gifted students. Furthermore, research sug-
gests that if the relevant principles are observed, successful SRL interven-
tions designed for mixed-ability classrooms (e.g. Stoeger, Sontag, &
Ziegler, 2014) can also prove beneficial for gifted students (for an overview,
see Stoeger et al., 2015).
We conclude by noting that studies indicate that learners need to invest
about 10,000 h of deliberate practice to achieve excellence (Ericsson,
Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993). This rule of thumb holds relatively
independently of learners’ levels of talent and the talent domains. During
this process, educational agents play a prominent role in the course of
expertise acquisition (Stoeger & Gruber, 2011). Nevertheless, such exten-
sive learning processes cannot be optimally designed without SRL.
Therefore, according to this approach, teachers for the gifted should
make sure that gifted learners in their classroom begin training their SRL
competencies when engaged in cognitive tasks – as early as possible.
In conclusion
With national demands to raise academic standards and performance for
students at all grade levels, educators and researchers are looking for ways
to maximize performance, while considering individual differences. One
avenue to raise academic standards and student performance has been
focused on SRL as a skill that can facilitate achievement (Paris & Newman,
1990; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989).
Our broad overview has shown the SRL construct to be a broad and
multi-faceted constructive process, encompassing cognitive, metacognitive,
motivational, emotional, and behavioral facets of learning. The development
of SRL in students is claimed to be an investment in student learning and
cognitive growth that holds the promise for considerable future returns
(Zimmerman et al., 1996). As students grasp and refine their capacity to self-
regulate their learning, they are expected to grow in their understanding of
the subject-matter content, in their learning efficiency, motivation, and the
perceived self-efficacy for accomplishing learning tasks.
The material reviewed in this paper reflects recent advances in concep-
tualization, methods, individual differences, and areas of application. For
those who came of age professionally during the late 1970s and afterward,
the concept of SRL is a natural and organic part of the landscape of
psychology and education. However, this was not always the case. The
vast majority of work in this field has occurred over the past 35 years or so.
Trying to synthesize scholarship in this sprouting domain has been quite
a substantial task. Despite these limitations, we hope that this overview has
been helpful to the general audience and readership of High Ability Studies,
providing a solid foundation of knowledge in the development of a broad
understanding of SRL theory, research, and applications.
Note
1. It is noted, however, that some structured interviews assess SRL more as an event
than an aptitude. The “SRL as an event” approach (Winne & Perry, 2000) is
apparent when, for example, learners are prompted to describe their behavior
directly after a learning task (i.e. a stimulated-recall method) or when think-aloud
protocols are used during studying (see below).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Professor Gerald Matthews of the University of Central
Florida for his perspicacious and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving stu-
dents: Relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 94–101.
Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition
in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1–37.
Ames, C. (1992a). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In
D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp.
327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://
ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
psyh&AN=1992-97628-014&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Artelt, C. (2000). Wie prädiktiv sind retrospektive Selbstberichte über den Gebrauch von
Lernstrategien für strategisches Lernen? [How predictive are self-reported learning
strategies for their actual use?]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie/German
Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 72–84.
Artelt, C. (2000a). Wie prädikativ sind retroperspektive Selbstberichte über den Gebrauch
von Lernstrategien für strategisches Lernen? [How predictive are retrospective self-
reports on the use of learning strategies for strategic learning?]. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogische Psychologie, 14(2/3), 72–84.
Artelt, C. (2000b). Strategisches Lernen [Strategic learning]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Artino, A. R. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality:
Predicting satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24,
260–270.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://search.ebsco
host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1968-35017-000&site=ehost-live
&scope=site
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1985-98423-
000&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Ben-Eliahu, A., & Zeidner, M. (in press). Personality in educational psychology. In P. Corr
& G. Matthews (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personality (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2015). Integrating the regulation of affect,
behavior, and cognition into self-regulated learning paradigms among secondary and
post-secondary students. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 15–42.
Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and
metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist, 30, 195–200.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation.
European Psychologist, 1(2), 100–112.
Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of
theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18, 199–210.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
417–450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different
are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1–40.
Bouffard-Bouchard, F., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1993). Self-regulation on a
concept-formulation task among average and gifted students. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 56, 115–134.
Butler, D. L. (1998). A strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated
learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Developing self-regulated learning:
From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 160–183). New York, NY: Guilford
Publications, Inc.
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Veccio, G. M., Barbaranelli, C., &
Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for
self-regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of
Carman, C. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of
giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 52–70.
Carr, M., Alexander, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1996). Where gifted children do and do not
excel on metacognitive tasks. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 18(3),
212–217.
Cassidy, S. (2015). Resilience building in students: The role of academic self-efficacy.

Frontiers in Psychology, 6. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2016-23590-001&site=
ehost-live&scope=site
Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually
gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 184–194.
Cheng, P. (1993). Metacognition and giftedness: The status of the relationship. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 37, 105–112.
Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman &
D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives (2nd ed.). pp. 191–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corno, L. (2008). Work habits and self-regulated learning: Helping students to find a “will”
from a “way.”. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated
learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 197–222). New York, NY: Taylor and
Francis.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom
learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–108.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). It’s best to be able and virtuous too: Student
and teacher evaluative responses to successful effort. Journal of Educational Psychology,
71, 688–700.
Cramer, J., & Oshima, T. C. (1992). Do gifted females attribute their math performance
differently than other students? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 18–35.
Dai, D. Y., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Goal orientations of gifted students. Gifted and
Talented International, 11, 84–88.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Van de Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension
strategies in upper primary school children: A design experiment. British Journal of
Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Goal-striving and self-regulation processes. In
R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future
(Vol. 27, pp. 151–196). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved
from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2008-09941-005&site=ehost-live&scope=site
DiFrancesca, D., Nietfeld, J. L., & Cao, L. (2016). A comparison of high and low achieving
students on self-regulated learning variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 45,
228–236.
Dover, A. (1983). Computers and the gifted: Past, present, and future. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 27, 81–85.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., &
Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence
(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA:
W. H. Freeman.
Ee, J., Moore, P. J., & Atputhasamy, L. (2003). High-achieving students: Their motivational
goals, self-regulation and achievement and relationships to their teachers’ goals and
strategy-based instruction. High Ability Studies, 14, 23–39.
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in
self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25.
Eilam, B., Zeidner, M., & Aaron, I. (2009). Student conscientiousness, self-regulated
learning, and science achievement: An explorative field study. Psychology in the
Schools, 46, 420–432.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 461–475.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition.
American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. London,
England: The MIT Press.
Ewers, C. A., & Wood, N. L. (1993). Sex and ability differences in children’s math self-
efficacy and prediction accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 259–267.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom:
The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational
applications. (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., & Lüdtke, O. (2007). Between- and
within-domain relations of students’ academic emotions. Journal of Educational
Greene, J. A., Robertson, J., & Croker Costa, L. J. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning
using think aloud methods. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 313–328). New York, NY: Routledge.
Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., Caprino, A. M., Deekens, V. M., McVea, M., Yu, S., &
Jackson, W. P. (2015). Fostering high-school students’ self-regulated learning online
and across academic domains. The High School Journal, 99(1), 88–106.
Hattie, J. A., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on
student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their
relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231–247.
Hoge, R. D., & Butcher, R. (1984). Analysis of teacher judgments of pupil achievement
levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 777–781.
Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and
self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 449–465.
Howard-Rose, D., & Winne, P. H. (1993). Measuring component and sets of cognitive
processes in self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 591–604.
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A
meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same
constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136,
422–449.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/
login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1998-
07257-000&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, R. H. (1991). Goals and self-regulation: Applications of theory to
work settings. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 287–326). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning:
What’s the purpose? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 477–484.
Kaplan, A., & Garner, J. K. (2017). A complex dynamic systems perspective on identity and
its development: The dynamic systems model of role identity. Developmental
Psychology, 53, 2036–2051.
Kurtz, B. E., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Metacognition, memory performance, and causal attribu-
tions in gifted and average children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 45–61.
Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1995). Motivational patterns related to gifted students’
learning of mathematics, science and English: An examination of gender differences.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284–297.
Mace, F. C., Belfiore, P. J., & Shea, M. C. (1989). Operant theory and research on self-
regulation. In B.J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Ed.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement (pp. 27–50). New York, NY: Springer.
Mace, F. C., Belfiore, P. J., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2001). Operant theory and research on
self-regulation. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). pp. 39–65). Mawah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Malpasss, J. R., O’Neil, J. F., Jr., & Hocevar, D. (1999). Self-regulation, goal orientation,
self-efficacy, worry, and high stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high
school students. Roeper Review, 21, 281–288.
Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal ques-
tioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296.
McInerney, D. M., Cheng, R. W., Mok, M. M. C., & Lam, A. K. H. (2012). Academic
self-concept and learning strategies: Direction of effect on student academic
achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 249–269.
McWhaw, K., & Abrami, P. C. (2001). Student goal orientation and interest: Effects on
students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
26, 311–329.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
38, 30–38.
Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). An expert performance approach to the study of
individual differences in self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college students.
Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 597–609.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experi-
ence, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive
inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89,
234–245.
Obergriesser, S., & Stoeger, H. (2016). The influence of emotions and learning preferences
on learning strategy use before transition into high-achiever track secondary school.
High Ability Studies, 27, 5–38.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted

students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344.
Pajares, F. (2008). Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. In
D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory,
research, and applications (pp. 111–139). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
24, 124–139.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2002). Students’ self-efficacy in their self-regulated learning
strategies: A developmental perspective. Psychologia: an International Journal of
Psychology in the Orient, 45, 211–221.
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for
research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2017-20435-
001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Paris, S., & Newman, R. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning.
Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when
self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37,
27–39.
Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it.
Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2007). Mentoring student teachers to
design and implement literacy tasks that support self-regulated reading and writing.
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23, 27–50.
Peters, S. J. (2012). Underachievers: From whose perspective? A commentary on
“Differentiating low performance of the gifted learner: Achieving, underachieving, and
selective consuming students.”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 176–179.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In
M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
451–502). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated
learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use
of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Tech. Rep. No. 91-
B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Education.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of construc-
tively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & O’Sullivan, J. T. (1984). Memory strategy instruction is
made of this: Metamemory and durable strategy use. Educational Psychologist, 19,
94–107.
Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are
constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–31.
Renzulli, J. S. (2016). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible
programs for the gifted and talented. In S. M. Reis (Ed.), Reflections on gifted education:
Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues (pp. 193–210). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2016-00316-007&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2000). Motivation and self-regulated learn-
ing. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development: Developing
motivation and motivating development (pp. 81–108). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2001-10168-004&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le- Huy, D. D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.
Ruban, L., & Reis, S. M. (2006). Patterns of self-regulation: Patterns of self-regulatory
strategy use among low-achieving and high-achieving university students. Roeper
Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 28, 148–156.
Schneider, W., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1992). Expertise, aptitude, and strategic remembering.
Child Development, 63, 461–473.
Schöne, C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2004). Zielorientierung
und Bezugsnormorientierung: Zum Zusammenhang zweier Konzepte [Goal orientation
and reference-norm orientation: Two related constructs?]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische
Psychologie/German Journal of Educational Psychology, 18(2), 93–99.
Schunk, D. H. (1983a). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848–856.
Schunk, D. H. (1983b). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children’s self-efficacy and
achievement. Journal of Experiential Education, 51, 89–93.
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational
Research, 57, 149–174.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-
efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 281–303).
New York, NY: Plenum.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359–382.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Modeling and self-efficacy influences on
children’s development of self- regulation. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.),
Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 154–180).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy
enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50048-2
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Attributions as motivations of self-regulated learning. In
D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 245–266). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Schunk, D. H. (2014). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Essex, Great
Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with
learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201–209.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Writing strategy instruction with gifted students:
Effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review, 15, 225–230.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and perfor-
mance: Issues and educational implications. New York, NY: Guilford.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-
regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23, 7–25.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1985). Spontaneous verbal elaborations in gifted and
non-gifted youths. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 1–10.
Shore, B. M., & Carey, S. M. (1984). Verbal ability and spatial task. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 59(1), 255–259.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related
training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go.
Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421–442. (Supplemental).
Snyder, K. E., Malin, J. L., Dent, A. L., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). The message
matters: The role of implicit beliefs about giftedness and failure experiences in academic
self-handicapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 230–241.
Sontag, C., & Stoeger, H. (2015). Can highly intelligent and high-achieving students benefit
from training in self-regulated learning in a regular classroom context? Learning and
Individual Differences, 41, 43–53.
Sontag, C., Stoeger, H., & Harder, B. (2012). The relationship between intelligence and the
preference for self-regulated learning: A longitudinal study with fourth-graders. Talent
Development and Excellence, 4, 1–22.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and
self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117–139.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 223–243). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Investing in creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4,
229–232.
Stoeger, H., & Gruber, H. (2011). Lernvoraussetzungen von Schülern [Learning prerequi-
sites for pupils]. In E. Kiel & K. Zierer (Eds.), Basiswissen Unterrichtsgestaltung. Vol. 2.
Unterrichtsgestaltung als Gegenstand der Wissenschaft (pp. 265–283). Baltmannsweiler,
Germany: Schneider Verlag.
Stoeger, H., & Sontag, C. (2012). How gifted students learn: A literature review. In
A. Ziegler, C. Fischer, H. Stoeger, & M. Reutlinger (Eds.), Gifted education as
a lifelong challenge: Essays in honour of Franz J. Mönks (pp. 315–336). Münster,
Germany: LIT.
Stoeger, H., Balestrini, D. P., & Ziegler, A. (2017). International perspectives and trends in
research on giftedness and talent development. In S. Pfeiffer, M. Foley-Nicpon, &
E. Shaunessy-Dedrick (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 25–39).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Stoeger, H., Fleischmann, S., & Obergriesser, S. (2015). Self-regulated learning (SRL) and
the gifted learner in primary school: The theoretical basis and empirical findings on
a research program dedicated to ensuring that all students learn to regulate their own
learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 257–267.
Stoeger, H., Sontag, C., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Impact of a teacher-led intervention on
preference for self-regulated learning, finding main ideas in expository texts, and read-
ing comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 799–814.
Stoeger, H., Steinbach, J., Obergriesser, S., & Matthes, B. (2014). What is more important
for fourth-grade primary school students for transforming their potential into achieve-
ment: The individual or the environmental box in multidimensional conceptions of
giftedness? High Ability Studies, 25, 5–21.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and
gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychological Science, 12, 3–54.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation

for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.
Urdan, T. C. (1997). Examining the relations among early adolescent students’ goals and
friends’ orientation toward effort and achievement in school. Contemporary Educational
Wang, M.-T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment,
engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(3), 633–662.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1987). Perceiving
the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley,
R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior
(pp. 95–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://
ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
psyh&AN=1987-97459-006&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social psychology
of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=psyh&AN=2005-08058-005&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Weinert, F. (1997). Notwendige Methodenvielfalt: Unterschiedliche Lernfähigkeit der
Schüler erfordern variable Unterrichtsmethoden des Lehrers. Friedrich Jahresheft, XV,
50–52.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A., & Palmer, D. (1987). LASSI: Learning and study strategies
inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hove,
England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., &
Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading com-
prehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 432–445.
Winne, P. H. (1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories
about instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11, 13–28.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50045-7
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. R. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated
learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated
learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.
Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In
B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved
Winne, P. H. (2014). Issues in researching self-regulated learning as patterns of events.

Metacognition and Learning, 9, 229–237.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. Metacognition
in Educational Theory and Practice, 93, 27–30.
Wolters, C. A. (1999). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motiva-
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.224
Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation
and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual
Differences, 8, 211–238.
Worrell, F. C. (2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need to know
about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 242–244.
Yoon, C.-H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific
inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
53, 203–216.
Ziegler, A. (2008). Hochbegabung [Giftedness]. Munich, Germany: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.
Ziegler, A., Heller, K. A., & Broome, P. (1996). Motivational preconditions for girls gifted
and highly gifted in physics. High Ability Studies, 7, 129–143.
Ziegler, A., & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: Empirical studies on giftedness. High
Ability Studies, 11, 113–136.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Which are the Key
Subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-regulating cycles of academic regulation: An
analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.),
Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reactive practice (pp. 1–19). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In
M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 85–110). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/
login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2001-
05965-004&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical back-
ground, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Education
Research Journal, 45, 166–183.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive
career path. Educational Psychologist, 48, 135–147.
Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2015). A personal agency view of
self-regulated learning. In F. Guay, H. Marsh, D. M. Mclnerney, & R. G. Craven (Eds.),
Self-Concept, motivation and identity: Underpinning success with research and practice
(pp. 83–114). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing
course achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners:
Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological
Association.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated

learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. E. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer.
Zimmermann, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model
of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and
cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science
Education, 25, 1081–1094.

Self Regulated Learning SRL A Guide For The Perplexed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self Regulated Learning SRL A Guide For The Perplexed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Ability Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): A guide for the

Moshe Zeidner & Heidrun Stoeger

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369

Published online: 14 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1739

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

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

Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): A guide for the perplexed

This special issue of High Ability Studies focuses on recent advances in

CONTACT Moshe Zeidner Zeidner@edu.haifa.ac.il Department of Counseling and Human

years. Consequently, reaching expertise in a speciﬁc domain of inquiry

Goals and structure

generally characterized as eﬃciently managing their own learning through

Zimmerman, 2013). Whereas some scholars have conceptualized self-

Key stages in the SRL process

Phase models of SRL generally share a similar set of regulatory processes

Figure 1. Dynamic process of SRL.

Table 1. Commonalities in phases in prevalent models.

the theoretical perspective of the researcher, most phase models of SRL

Forethought and strategic planning

Task & self-assessment

to compute any discrepancies between their present state of knowledge and

geographical concepts and facts, managing time eﬀectively, and seeking

standards employed, as well as the importance of goal attainment, and

a speciﬁc SRL measurement procedure is based on a variety of factors, such

Aptitude-based assessment of SRL

Measuring SRL as an event

Trace methodologies measure SRL via the observable indicators of cog-

Comparing aptitude-based and event-based measurements of SRL

Correspondingly, relationships between SRL and student achievement

SRL and student achievement

Cognitive and metacognitive strategies

Cognitive learning strategies

Cognitive strategies refer to cognitive representations of plans oriented

procedure to successfully attain that goal), self-checking (i.e. monitoring

Aﬀective and motivational facets

It is readily apparent that a wide array of emotional variables may aﬀect

factors in the self-regulatory process, thus highlighting the importance of

Research by Wolters (1999) suggests that various strategies designed to

Specifically, self-efficacy directly influences academic performance by enhan-

Goal orientations refer to the reasons students have for achievement-related

performance goals are less likely to lead to high-achievement outcomes than

Causal attributions, within an academic context, refer to the causal explana-

Research by Covington and Omelich (1979) suggests that attribution of

Interest and subjective value

Subjective value of a learning task refers to the extent to which students

personal interest directed toward a speciﬁc topic are positively correlated

Motivation, SRL, and learning

Teaching SRL skills in the classroom

SRL strategy instruction

● Assess the requirements of the task at hand;

A number of goal properties, particularly proximity, adequate diﬃculty

● Having teachers serve as models. With teachers as models, students

Rather than forcing these strategies on students, by instructing students

Eﬀectiveness of strategy instruction

SRL in gifted and high-ability students

to operationalize giftedness mono-causally, via IQ or exceptional academic

Self-regulated learning processes