Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 195-200. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3004_4

The author presents a response to an earlier article by Winne, in which he attempted to identify existing gaps in the self-regulated learning (SRL) theory. Winne’s article began with a literature review that demonstrated that intervention programs that teach students self-regulatory skills have lasting benefits. The author takes no issue with Winne’s suggestion that, “half of the time that adolescents and adults spend in pursuit of knowledge is spent alone, without scaffolding by teachers or peers.” Additionally, the author states that few researchers would argue with Winne’s assumption that learning effectively by oneself will remain an important goal of education, but is concerned whether the participants utilized for his study is the best chosen to demonstrate the development of SRL. Boekaerts’ aim in this commentary article is to focus on the affect and on the self-management aspect of SRL in order to suggest that affective variables are crucial for understanding how SRL takes shape and develops or fails to develop. Her commentary is organized into three broad statements surrounding SRL:

1. SRL means allocating resources to two aspects of learning goals: learning per se and self-regulation

a. When learners participated in SRL too early, their performance decreased b. Boekarts believes that Winne’s portrayal of SRL as domain independent is

incomplete c. When learning is socially situated and students have to learn skills that

they find personally relevant, they seem to be able to abstract the rules by themselves and simultaneously observe their own actions

d. Winne’s neglect of affect seems to imply that monitoring one’s learning and controlling emotions that arise during the learning process are separate entities that may or may not come together in future research on SRL

e. Boekarts believes that an “exclusive interest in the cognitive processes geared toward learning goals, and the fact that only a glimpse is offered of affective variables (self-referenced cognitions and affect) provides a framework that is too simple and static for studying SRL” (Boekarts, 1995, p. 197)

f. Qualitative effort - quality of strategy use (e.g. devoting a lot of attention to specific aspects of a task)

g. Quantitative effort - Time allocation (e.g. cramming before an exam) h. Summary: Boekarts is convinced that SRL can no longer be studied as if

it were domain independent and it would be more profitable to describe and explain the full range of cognitive and affective processes that make up SRL

2. SRL means finding a balance between parallel goals a. The unique ways in which students experience everyday curricular

activities in class and outside should be addressed in order to understand the extent to which they self-regulate their learning, given their perception of self in relation to different learning contexts

b. Boekarts suggests that when learners are prompted to engage too early in SRL by their teacher and their performance is inhibited because of it, they may experience negative emotions that distort their well being

c. These negative emotions may in turn be reflected in the pleasure and confidence they express in the learning activity at that moment in time and in their effort expenditure

d. The ongoing and upcoming actions will be affected favorably or unfavorably by the learners’ appraisal of various elements of the learning situation, including the feedback they get on their SRL and the affect they experience

e. Extended model of the adaptable learning process i. Analytical decomposition of adaptable learning into different types

of self-regulatory skills 1. Metacognitive skills 2. Metamotivational skills

a. Motivation control - students’ capacities to activate favorable scenarios, leading to a positive experiential state and a learning intention

b. Action control - students’ capacities to enact that learning intention and protect it from competing action tendencies

3. Self-management skills - help learners to interpret increased levels of arousal when working in a domain and handle emotions and stress swiftly

4. Learners need metacognitive and metamotivational self-regulation in order to regulate their learning and take responsibility for the acquisition and maintenance of new skills

ii. Parallel-processing modes 1. Mastery mode, geared toward a mastery or learning goal 2. Coping mode, mainly focused with keeping well-being

within reasonable bounds 3. Individuals inherently regulate in terms of these two

parallel goals

4. On one hand, they want to extend their knowledge and skill so that they can expand their personal resources, on the other hand they wish to maintain their available resources, and thus prevent loss and distortions of well-being (p. 198)

iii. Two mechanisms of interference 1. Cognitive mechanism - intrusive thoughts impede the

selection, combination and coordination of cognitive strategies necessary for task-specific information processes

2. Emotional/motivational mechanism - describes how attention and processing capacity is redirected from a learning or performance goal to a goal that has currently gained priority in the individual’s goal structure, such as restoration of well-being

f. Students who have learned to regulate their emotions after failure (disengagement) are better at creating favorable internal conditions that promote and sustain learning (action control)

3. SRL forms incrementally as a student engages with instructional experiences a. Important issue in Winne’s article - the development of a theory of SRL

and the relevation and implementation of what constitutes quality teaching in a school setting

Findings:

● SRL is domain-specific, that is, students who have learned to self-regulate their learning in one content domain will have to learn to self-regulate in another domain

● Teachers must carefully and explicitly plan SRL episodes within the context of a curricular unit

● Students and teachers must acknowledge two things: ○ Learning goals have a double trajectory and there is an optimal point for

regulating one’s learning within a content domain ○ They should be aware that time and effort should also be allocated to the

development of metamotivation and self-management skills in relation to a content domain

● Students and teachers must think of SRL episodes as links within interacting chains in which improved short-term, domain-specific competence becomes the first link in these interacting chain reactions

● Subsequent SRL episodes, domain-specific competence triggers cycles of beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and skills related to that domain

Hadwin, A. & Oshige., M (2011). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113, 240-264.

Background/Context: Models of self-regulated learning (SRL) have increasingly acknowledged aspects of social context influence in its process; however, great diversity exists in the theoretical positioning of “social” in these models. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: The purpose of this review article is to introduce and contrast social aspects across three perspectives: self-regulated learning, coregulated learning, and socially shared regulation of learning. Research Design: The kind of research design taken in this review paper is an analytic essay. The article contrasts self-regulated, coregulated, and socially shared regulation of learning in terms of theory, operational definition, and research approaches. Data Collection and Analysis: Chapters and articles were collected through search engines (e.g., EBSCOhost, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ERIC). Findings/Results: Three different perspectives are summarized: self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation of learning. Conclusions/Recommendations: In this article, we contrasted three different perspectives of social in each model, as well as research based on each model. In doing so, the article introduces a language for describing various bodies of work that strive to consider roles of individual and social context in the regulation of learning. We hope to provide a frame for considering multimethodological approaches to study SRL in the future research. Contemporary models of learning recognize that learners are not passive recipients of knowledge. Rather than seeing learners as “empty vessels” waiting to be filled with knowledge, theorists and teachers acknowledge them as active participants in the learning process (Brown & Campione, 1996; Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1999; Phillips, 1995). As a result, learners are viewed as constructors of knowledge rather than recipients of information. (Constructivist) The degree to which students are credited with agency to direct their own knowledge building, integrate prior knowledge, and learn to act on or influence both the knowledge and the learning environment is central to teasing apart multiple uses of the term constructivism. Historically, models have portrayed self-regulated learning (SRL) as an individual, cognitive-constructive activity (e.g., Winne, 1997; Zimmerman, 1989) that integrates learning skill and will (McCombs & Marzano, 1990). Such models emphasize individual agency and individual differences associated with SRL, including self-efficacy, metacognition, goal-setting, and achievement (Schunk, 1990, 1994; Zimmerman, 1990). In addition, the notion that social context or environment is an important part of student’s SRL is evidenced in Zimmerman’s

(1989) sociocognitive model of self-regulation: SRL involves personal perceptions and efficacy, as well as environmental conditions such as support from teachers and feedback on previous problems. Corno and Mandinach (2004) suggested that contemporary perspectives of learning and SRL reveal:

● (a) increased interest in explaining the role of social and contextual influences on SRL ● (b) shifts to models that place social context in the sociocultural center of SRL.

Specifically, this paper contrasts

● (a) the role of social influence ● (b) the emerging language for describing self-regulated learning (self-regulation,

coregulation, or socially shared regulation) ● (c) empirical methods for researching social aspects of SRL at various points along a

social continuum. Self-regulated learning refers to strategic and metacognitive behavior, motivation, and cognition aimed toward a goal

● Sociocognitive models of SRL emphasize modeling and prompting as key instructional tools for promoting SRL.

● In other words, learners are active agents who strive to take control of their learning while being influenced by self and social factors (e.g., Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997).

● Self-regulated learning is socially influenced, beginning with observational learning (modeling, verbal description, social guidance, and feedback) and later by self-imitation and self-regulation. In other words, students learn through a process of modeling whereby they pattern thoughts, strategies, and behaviors to reflect those displayed by one or more models (Schunk, 1998).

● Situation/domain specific Coregulation refers to a transitional process in a learner’s acquisition of self-regulated learning, within which learners and others share a common problem-solving plane, and SRL is gradually appropriated by the individual learner through interactions.

● Typically, coregulation involves a student and an other (usually a more capable other, such as a more advanced student, peer tutor, and so on) sharing in the regulation of the student’s learning. We use the term capable other quite loosely to acknowledge that it refers to a role rather than a particular person.

● During coregulatory activity, all participants assume expert and novice roles through varying aspects of the shared activity.

● In contrast to a sociocognitive perspective of SRL that emphasizes self-regulation developing within the individual assisted by external modeling and feedback, coregulation emphasizes social emergence and sharing of who actually does the regulation through a zone of proximal development.

● Cognitive demands of completing the task are eased by sharing the demands of metacognitively monitoring, evaluating, and regulating the task processes.

● Research examined teacher–student dialogue to identify mechanisms used in coregulatory interactions and found that

○ (1) teachers coregulate learning by requesting information, restating or paraphrasing students, requesting judgments of learning, modeling thinking, and providing prompts for thinking and reflecting

○ (2) students coregulate learning through discourse acts such as requesting information, requesting judgments of learning, summarizing, modeling thinking, and requesting restatements.

● From this perspective, the mark of student SRL is when the activity and practice appear in learners’ own performance and when those activities are internalized and automatized.

● During coregulation, student and teacher regulate together, sharing thinking and decision-making and developing a shared or intersubjective task space where each can bring expertise and control to the task. And finally, during student-direct regulation of learning, the student independently engages behaviors, actions, and thinking associated with self-regulated learning.

● As illustrated in the range of studies described, research about coregulation focuses on interactions and transitions of power as the unit of analysis, rather than individual cognition, behavior, motivation, or metacognition.

Socially shared-regulation refers to the processes by which multiple others regulate their collective activity.

● From this perspective, goals and standards are co-constructed, and the desired product is socially shared cognition. We focus on social as synergy among individuals.

● In essence, socially shared regulation is collective regulation in which the regulatory processes and products are shared.

● From social constructionist perspectives of learning, two distinct categories emerge:

○ (a) individual regulation targeted to the social good ○ (b) collective regulation in which groups develop shared awareness of

goals, progress, and tasks toward co-constructed regulatory processes, thereby regulating together as a collective processes.

● Studies about socially shared regulation examine individual regulatory processes as part of socially constructed knowledge. The research often occurs in technology-based learning environments where social exchange and co-construction can be more easily traced (e.g., Hurme & Järvelä, 2005; Järvelä, Lehtinen, & Salonen, 2000; Leinonen, Järvelä, & Lipponen, 2003; Iiskala, Vauras, & Lehtinen, 2004; Salovaara & Järvelä, 2003; Vauras, Iiskala, Kajamies, Kinnunen, & Lehtinen, 2003).

The purpose of this article has been to introduce a variety of ways that social aspects of self-regulated learning have informed theory and research. By contrasting perspectives of social, we have introduced a language for describing very different bodies of work that strive to consider roles of individual and social contexts in the regulation of learning. Table 1 summarizes each of three main perspectives described in this article: self-regulated learning, coregulated learning, and shared regulation of learning.

McCaslin, M. (January 01, 2009). Co-Regulation of Student Motivation and Emergent Identity. Educational Psychologist, 44, 2, 137-146.

I propose that the interplay of student motivation and identity development can be usefully understood within a co-regulation (CR) model.Co-regulation refers to the rela-tionships among cultural, social, and personal sources of influence that together challenge, shape, and guide (“co-regulate”) identity (McCaslin, 2004). The purpose of this article is to outline a co-regulation model of identity that is based on the emergent interaction perspective derived from Vygotskian theory. The article is organized into three sections.

1. The first section addresses basic definitions and assumptions associated with CR a. (a) the enhancement of adaptive learning b. (b) the role of motivation in identity.

2. The second section expands on the first and explores the CR model in more detail. 3. The third section illustrates the potential of the CR model to understand how elementary

school students make school personally meaningful and how these personal understandings of the purpose of school and their place within it can inform student motivation and identity in nontrivial ways.

CR is one attempt to capture the dynamics of emergent in-teraction. Emergent interaction is the process through which an individual comes to mediate and internalize social and cultural influences (Wertsch & Stone, 1985). CR of the ZPD involves participation— activity and engagement—in a mutual relationship wherein each participant has two roles, both the expert and the novice (Y owell & Smylie, 1999) In co-regulated learning, each participant is enriched; participation is the essential construct. One goal of CR is social and cultural enrichment; another is the development of self-regulation or “adaptive learning” that is manifested within social and cultural opportunities and constraints (McCaslin, 2004; McCaslin & Burross, 2002; McCaslin & Good, 1996; McCaslin & Murdock, 1991). Adaptive learning is about acting on yourself and your situ-ation to better meet demands, needs, and goals. Three features predicted to promote adaptive learning:

● First, adaptive learning is enhanced by the CR of respon-sive and contingent environments that demonstrate and val-idate the link between actions and outcomes

● Second, adaptive learning is en-hanced by challenging opportunities that teach students how to reach for the not-yet-attainable, risk failure, and develop self-confidence.

● Third, adaptive learning is enhanced by supportive rela-tionships that can mentor and demonstrate the meaning of responsibility and commitment within an “arena of comfort” (Simmons & Blyth, 1987).

In the CR perspective, choice, when possible, can be motivating and inform identity; however, choice is only one venue for mo-tivational dynamics. Ultimately, however, in the CR perspective student motivational dynamics that inform identity are typically (and more equitably) considered within the constructs of struggle and negotiation.

● Struggle in the CR perspective embraces both situational affordances and personal dispositions. For example, some situations garner relatively predictable interpretation and response (e.g., attribution-emotion-behavior linkages, Weiner, 2005; conflict taxonomy, Lewin, as cited in Gold, 1999), whereas other situations are mediated by personal dispositions.

● Negotiation in the CR perspective suggests the role of problem solving and compromise. Not all conflicts and goal pursuits afford optimal solutions.

● Opportunity is a fundamental component of motivational dynamics. Opportunities are the source of potential activities an individual might engage.

Figure 1 illustrates my current thinking about a CR model of emergent identity that builds on earlier conceptions (Mc-Caslin, 2004; McCaslin & Good, 1996). The model asserts that identity is at the heart of multiple and simultaneous personal, cultural, and social influences that together press and co-regulate—challenge, shape, and guide—emergent identity.

Each source of influence of the CR model—personal, cul-tural, and social—is well represented in the social and be-havioral sciences and each feature can be described as a primary source of influence in a traditional manner (see Mc-Caslin, 2006). Each source of influence also can be described in terms of relationships. The CR model asserts that the primary im-portance of each source of influence is its relation to other sources of influence.

● Personal influences are about individual readiness and po-tential. Personal resources include individual biology and dispositions—as they “are” to the individual, as they are “expected” by the culture, and as they are “validated” by others.

● Cultural influences establish what is considered probable for the evolution of personal, social, and cultural institutions. Culture sets the norms and challenges that influence socio-cultural structures (e.g., schools).

● Social influences are those situations, opportunities and relationships that are practicable, that can and do influ-ence how people cope with and adapt to everyday situations and activity. Opportunities and relationships can differ in the extent to which they embrace culturally valued prepa-ration (e.g., education) and prevention (e.g., reduce risky behaviors) goals in the daily promotion—co-regulation—of youths’ adaptive learning.

In this article, the author presented her current thinking surrounding the CR of student motivation and emergent identity. She argued that emergent identity is a continuous process of participation and validation that is co-regulated by personal, cultural, and social influences and the relationships among them. She believes that a CR perspective can further our understanding of student motivation and emergent identity. The CR model also can be used to generate research on those processes. She suggests two potential research areas.

● First, CR is based on the idea that humans have a biologically linked, basic need for participation, n(participation), and that emergent interaction is the process through which individuals come to mediate and internalize (or resist) social and cultural influences.

● Second, the very notions of struggle and negotiation sug-gest the utility of research on strategic goal disengagement and the design of a taxonomy of goal substitution that can help co-regulate student disappointment and optimism. Co-regulate disappointment because hassles can turn into hur-dles. Students especially can be undone by unanticipated obstacles and failures that take them off-guard, and they can respond in ways that make getting back on track—any track—all the more illusive (McCaslin & Murdock, 1991).

McCaslin, M., & Burross, H. L. (2011). Research on individual differences within a sociocultural perspective: Coregulation and adaptive learning. Teachers College Record, 113(6).

Background/Context: Research is presented on teacher-centered instruction and individual differences among students within a sociocultural perspective—specifically, within a coregulation model. Purpose of Study: To determine the utility of a coregulation model for understanding teacher and student adaptation to the press of cultural and social demands for student achievement. Research Design: Multiple methods were used and quantitative procedures applied to data obtained in Grades 3–5 classrooms (N = 47) in schools (N = 5) that primarily served students living in poverty and were engaged in comprehensive school reform. Data sources include observation of classroom practices (N = 108; mean = 2 observations per classroom) to identify differences in instructional opportunity within teacher-centered instruction; students’ (N = 439) reported self-monitoring of their classroom activity to ascertain individual differences among them in their adaptation to classroom demands; and student performance on classroom-like tasks (story writing; individual student unit of analysis) and standardized tests (SAT9 language, math, and reading subtests; grade-level unit of analysis) to illuminate the dynamics of opportunity, activity, and adaptation in student achievement. Conclusions/Recommendations: Results support the potential of a coregulation model to understand and enhance teacher-centered instruction of students who differ in adaptation to classroom demands and achievement expectations in nontrivial ways. The practicable instructional opportunities that most aligned with cultural demands for improving student performance on mandated tests was a basic form of direct instruction. Direct instruction appears to cast a wide safety net, including students who are and are not yet ready to profit from this mode of instruction as expressed by mandated test performance. Students not yet ready for culturally mandated performances are nonetheless acquiring desirable and personally meaningful adaptations to learning challenges that are coregulated by direct instruction opportunities. Unfortunately, these students remain largely invisible to sociocultural policy makers who portray them as uninvested in, if not resistant to, school learning. It is reasonable to ask how long students will continue to participate in and adapt to classroom demands without cultural validation of that participation and recognition of the learners these students are and wish to become. It is time for deliberate examination of cultural beliefs and regulations that equate student performance on mandated tests with meaningful learning, a prepared future citizenry, and the effectiveness of the public school.

Two major goals: ● The first is to broaden research foci and constructs within sociocultural perspectives to

illustrate the inclusive power of this approach. For example, we hope to persuade readers that all classrooms are “learning communities,” not only those identified as “learner centered” or “small-group centered.”

● Second goal makes a case for multiple methods, including quantitative procedures, within a sociocultural approach to understanding classroom dynamics. The study we present includes standardized classroom observations, student self-reports, and achievement measures (mixed-methods design)

Grades 3-5 were studied. Thus, theoretically, from a developmental task perspective, this is an ideal window for the study of student motivation and learning. Our particular interest here is in the types of instructional opportunities available to students, and if and how they engaged them. We define instructional opportunity as the cognitive demands of classroom lessons, teacher question-asking behavior, and additional teacher guidance of student learning. Cognitive demands codes were organized into four categories:

● can’t rate ● basic facts and skills ● basic facts and skills “mixed” with close elaboration and related thinking ● thinking/reasoning per se.

Results/Discussion:

● Observation data suggest that students behave similarly (i.e., mostly on task and productive) in diverse instructional opportunities. However, students appear to seek more instructional support when their teachers engage in the more abstract Structured Problem-Solving approach to instruction.

● Instructional opportunities appear to differentially promote (or hinder) student performance on the SAT9 subtests. Direct Instruction best negotiates the press of these students’ potential (e.g., readiness, participation) and sociocultural demands for increasing their performance on mandated tests such as the SAT9.

In the model of coregulated learning, individual differences among students that are expressed in classrooms are a function of the relationships and multiple presses among cultural, social, and personal sources of influence

● personal sources are framed as one’s potential ● social sources are practicable opportunities and relationships that can and do influence

daily experiences ● cultural sources are norms and challenges that inform probable outcomes

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, Self-Regulation, and Self-Regulated Learning:

Research Recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 463-467. This article suggests that a large amount of research exists on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning, however, the author claims that there is still much research to be done. Within this article, the author presents recommendations for future research which include providing clear definitions of processes, identifying relevant theories, ensuring that assessments clearly reflect processes, linking processes with academic outcomes, conducting more educational developmental research, and tying processes firmly with instructional methods. In summary, the author hopes that these suggestions will enhance our understanding of metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning and will lead to solid implications for educational policy and practice. Cognitive theories shifted the focus of human functioning away from environmental variables and onto learners—specifically, how they encoded, processed, stored, and retrieved information. Three influential types of cognitive control processes are metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Recommendations for future research on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning:

● Provide clear definitions ○ A major issue facing researchers is to provide clear definitions of metacognition,

self-regulation, and self-regulated learning (Dinsmore et al. 2008). As investigators have conducted research and written about these processes, they have not used standard definitions.

○ How we define processes influences the measures we use to assess them and how we interpret our research results. It is little wonder that research results often are inconsistent when investigators have used different definitions and measures.

○ In a field where definitions quickly can become muddled, it is unwise to assume that readers will know the meanings and boundaries of terms.

● Identify relevant theories ○ As Winters et al. (2008) note, the lack of clear guiding conceptual frameworks in

research studies creates confusion in terminology and leads researchers to use terms interchangeably

○ Research that is not well linked with theory will be disconnected to other research and will not offer clear implications for educational policy and practice.

● Ensure that assessment clearly reflect processes ○ researchers ensure that their assessments of metacognition, self-regulation, and

self-regulated learning clearly reflect the processes as they have defined them. It should be made clear to readers how the assessments are operational translations of the processes, but often, this is not the case (Dinsmore et al. 2008).

○ It is incumbent upon researchers to clearly explain how their measures are reliable and valid indicators of the variables they are attempting to study.

● Link processes with academic outcomes ○ The research reviewed in this special issue shows that in many studies, measures

of metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning were not linked with measures of academic performances. This situation causes at least two problems.

■ For one, when meta-cognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning are assessed with self-report measures— as they often are (Winters et al. 2008)—people may be unrealistic in their self-assessments of what they actually do.

■ Second, in many studies, measures of metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning are not linked with measures of students’ learning or achievement. It is tempting to assume that if students who use more self-regulatory strategies demonstrate higher achievement than students who use fewer strategies, then the self-regulation produced the difference in achievement. But these data are correlational, not causal.

● Conduct more educational developmental research ○ The capacity for metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning

improves with development (Alexander et al. 1995; Kopp 1982). Fox and Riconscente (2008) discuss the role of developmental influences in the writings of Piaget and Vygotsky. What we need is more developmental research on these processes that has direct relevance to education.

○ More generally, Dinsmore et al. (2008) and Loyens et al. (2008) highlight the need for educational research on effective teaching strategies for metacognitive and self-regulatory strategies given students’ developmental levels.

● Tie processes more firmly with instructional methods ○ The articles in this special issue make it clear that metacognitive and

self-regulatory processes need to be linked clearly with methods designed to develop them.

○ Additional reviews are needed to de-termine the benefits of various instructional approaches on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning.

Although educational research on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning has made remarkable progress in the past 40 years, the articles in this special issue point out that we still have questions to address.

Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-Regulation of Learning within Computer-based Learning Environments: A Critical Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429-444.

Computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) present important opportunities for fostering learning; however, studies have shown that students have difficulty when learning with these environments. Research has identified that students’ self-regulatory learning (SRL) processes may mediate the hypothesized positive relations between CBLEs and academic performance. The authors present a review of 33 empirical studies of self-regulation of learning and computer-based learning environments. Within this paper, three research questions are addressed:

1. How do learner and task characteristics relate to students’ SRL with CBLEs? 2. Can various learning supports or conditions enhance the quality of students’ SRL

as they learn with CBLEs? 3. What conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues exist for this growing

area of research? Conclusions surrounding this review suggest that specific SRL processes are more often associated with academic success than others and that SRL skills can be supported. The authors also identified issues that researchers should address in future research, including a more comprehensive measurement of facets of SRL and the quality of SRL processes, the seeming disconnect between SRL processes and learning outcomes, and the distinction between self- and other-regulation. relatively little focus has been placed on understanding how successful students take advantage of these environments, and research in this area is critical to ensuring that their potential is realized (Mandinach and Cline 2000). A number of researchers suggest that one potential mediator between the potential of CBLEs and academic performance is the quality of students’ self-regulatory learning (SRL) processes (Azevedo 2005b; Lajoie and Azevedo 2006), and research addressing this relation has flourished in the past 10 years. With this study, we fill the need for a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art empirical research investigating the characteristics and conditions that are related to students’ SRL with CBLEs. For this review, we identified 33 empirical studies of CBLEs that explicitly investigated SRL as a key construct of interest. While CBLEs can readily provide multiple representations of information and opportunities to manipulate them, it is often up to learners to determine which representations are most helpful,

based on their self-knowledge and beliefs, motivational factors, prior knowledge, task definitions, goals, and strategic know-ledge. Both Pintrich (2000) and Zimmerman (2001) have identified common assumptions among the many SRL models in the literature.

● First, most models assume that learners are active in constructing their own meanings and goals from the various influences in their surrounding environment and their own internal cognitive systems.

● The second assumption is that individuals are capable of monitoring and controlling the cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and contextual aspects of learning.

● The third assumption is that this regulation can be constrained or facilitated by intraindividual factors such as biology and development, as well as extra individual influences such as context.

● Fourth, SRL models highlight the capability of individuals to set goals for their learning, and it is against these goals that learning is monitored, with control of learning processes influenced by the results of this evaluation.

● Finally, these models position self-regulated learning as a mediator between personal and contextual influences and actual learning performance.

Similarities among SRL models:

● For example, Pintrich identified four areas or foci of regulatory activity: cognition (e.g., goal-setting, employing and monitoring of cognitive strategies); motivation (e.g., self-efficacy beliefs, value of the task, interest); behavior (e.g., help-seeking, maintenance and monitoring of effort, time use); and context (e.g., evaluation and monitoring of changing task conditions).

● Zimmerman and Winne and Hadwin also identify these foci, with Zimmerman more focused upon social cognitive factors, and Winne and Hadwin more focused on the cognitive architecture of self-regulation

Conclusions/Findings:

● First, the majority of studies failed to measure SRL in all its diversity. ● Second, future research should find ways to supplement or replace self-report measures

for SRL. ● Third, there was a lack of focus on the quality of SRL processes used, and future research

should strive to address this. ● Fourth, not all studies linked SRL process use with learning outcomes. This is despite the

fact that SRL theories arose to explain differences in learning outcomes, and all models of SRL posit a relationship between learning outcomes and SRL processes

● Fifth, many of the studies provided support for different aspects of SRL, either through various tools, through access to tutors or feedback, through prompts, and through peers. Yet, all discussed the processes students used within these contexts as self-regulated learning. If these supports are intended to foster SRL, they should be removed, or faded once independent use is reached.

● Finally, there is a need to identify whether the efficacy of particular SRL processes varies according to the type of CBLE used (e.g., multimedia, hypermedia, simulation, ITS; Chen 1995).

Wolters, C. A. (2011). Regulation of motivation: Contextual and social aspects. Teachers College Record, 113(6).

Background: Models of self-regulated learning have been used extensively as a way of understanding how students understand, monitor, and manage their own academic functioning. The regulation of motivation is a facet of self-regulated learning that describes students’ efforts to control their own motivation or motivational processing. The regulation of motivation includes students’ knowledge, monitoring, and active management of their motivation or motivational processing. Purpose: The purpose of this article is threefold. One, a conceptual understanding of regulation of motivation highlighting three core facets is presented. These aspects are knowledge of motivation, monitoring of motivation, and use of strategies to regulate motivation. Two, prior empirical work documenting the regulation of motivation across contexts is reviewed. This work indicates that students at different developmental levels use motivational regulation strategies and that their use varies as a function of the academic task or context. Three, social influences on the development of regulation of motivation that include modeling, scaffolding, direct instruction, and sociocultural processes are discussed. Research Design: This article is an analytic essay in which selected prior research is reviewed only briefly. Contemporary models of motivation explain students’ willingness to engage in and work hard at academic tasks using a diverse set of beliefs, attitudes, values, and other related cognitive constructs (Pintrich & Schunk, 2005). These models include varied perspectives such as interests, self-efficacy, achievement goal orientations, attributions, self-concept, and self-determination theory. Put most simply, students with greater motivation or more adaptive motivational beliefs are presumed to engage in academic tasks more readily and put greater and more persistent effort into completing those tasks. Motivation also is used to explain why students with similar levels of ability, skill, or intelligence display different levels of performance. Academic contexts are littered with obstacles that interfere with students’ motivation. Students may be asked to complete cognitively challenging tasks, learn material that has little personal relevance, or repeatedly practice basic and decontextualized skills. Even students who begin academic tasks eager to work and be successful may suffer declines in motivation as opportunities to pursue more interesting, enjoyable, or important alternatives arise. Ultimately, no student is motivated to work hard and complete academic tasks at all times

Generally, self-regulated learners have been viewed as autonomous, reflective, and efficient learners who have both the skills or cognitive and metacognitive abilities, and the will or motivation necessary to understand, direct, and control their own learning (Pintrich, 1999; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). These students are thought to initiate, monitor, and direct their own learning experiences across various phases of learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). They are thought as having four interdependent characteristics:

1. Said to have a large supply of cognitive learning strategies 2. Second, they are metacognitively sophisticated in that they have a great deal of

knowledge about their own cognitive processing, about the learning process in general, and about when particular learning strategies will be effective (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990; Butler & Winne, 1995; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman, 1986).

3. They are proficient at monitoring and, if necessary, modifying their use of the various cognitive strategies needed to complete different learning tasks (Butler & Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989).

4. Self-regulated learners are characterized as highly motivated students who are eager to provide effort and to persist at academic tasks even when they are not externally compelled to do so (Pintrich, 1999, 2000).

The purpose of this article is to review and extend the understanding of regulation of motivation within academic contexts. Consider how social processes help to determine the growth and performance of the three facets of regulation of motivation described earlier, including students’ meta-level knowledge regarding motivation, their awareness or monitoring of motivation, and their use strategies for regulating motivation. For this discussion, I focus on just four interdependent forms of social influence: modeling, scaffolding, direct instruction, and sociocultural processes. Regulation of motivation is a core dimension of what it means to be a self-regulated learner. It is closely related to, but conceptually distinct from, other aspects of self-regulation such as motivation, and regulation of cognition (or metacognition). As with metacognitive regulation, the regulation of motivation is a function of students’ knowledge, beliefs, or understanding about motivation and motivational processing (Wolters, 2003). As well, it depends on students’ ability to monitor and enact strategies intended to sustain, increase, or modify one’s own motivation. Conclusions/Recommendations: Further empirical study is needed. Three particular areas for future research stand out.

● One, prior research (including my own) has done more to document students’ reported use of motivational regulation strategies than to investigate students’

understanding and monitoring of motivation. The relative scarcity of research from this latter area needs to be addressed.

● Two, research is needed to further investigate how students’ motivational regulation is a function of academic contexts. Inasmuch as motivation itself is assumed to be heavily influenced by context, so too is the regulation of motivation likely to be determined by contextual and social influences.

● Finally, research that specifically focuses on examining the instructional and social processes through which students develop motivational regulation is needed. Earlier and ongoing work that examines self-regulated learning more broadly is valuable, but is limited in the insight it can provide about the regulation of motivation more exclusively.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339. This article presents a social cognitive account on self-regulated learning which is comprised of a triadic analysis of person, behavior, and environment.The theoretical account presented here is presented in an analytic essay with research support. Conclusions are presented in the form of usefulness for improving student learning and academic achievement. Self-regulated definition:

● In general, students can be described as self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively,' motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process (Zimmerman, 1986, 1989).

● To qualify specifically as self-regulated in my account, students* learning must involve the use of specified strategies to achieve academic goals on the basis of self-efficacy perceptions. This definition assumes the importance of three elements:

○ students self-regulated learning strategies ○ self-efficacy perceptions of performance skill ○ commitment to academic goals

Self-regulated learning strategies are actions and processes directed at acquiring information or skill that involve agency, purpose, and instrumentality perceptions by learners. They include such methods as organizing and trans-forming information, self-consequating, seeking information, and rehearsing or using memory aids (Zimmerman & Marti-nez-Pons, 1986). Self-efficacy refers to perceptions about one's capabilities to organize and implement actions necessary to attain designated performance of skill for specific tasks (Ban-dura, 1986). Academic

goals such as grades, social esteem, or postgraduation employment opportunities can vary exten-sively in nature and in time of attainment. Triadic reciprocality - The proposed view of student self-regulated learning assumes reciprocal causation among three influence processes. In accordance with Bandura's (1977b, 1986) description, a distinction is made among personal, environmental, and behavioral determinants of self-regulated learning.

Personal influences. Student's self-efficacy perceptions de-pend in part on each of four other types of personal influence: students' knowledge, metacognitive processes, goals, and af-fect. A distinction is drawn between declarative and self-regulative knowledge of students. Behavioral influences. Three classes of student responding are of particular relevance to analyses of self-regulated learn-ing: self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction. Al-though it is assumed that each of these classes of responding is influenced by various covert personal (self-) processes, as well as by environmental processes, each class subsumes actions that are observable, trainable, and interactive. For these reasons, self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reac-tion are treated in my model as behavioral influences on self-regulated learning.

Environmental influences. Social cognitive theorists have devoted particular attention to the impact of social and en-active experience on human functioning. This emphasis is extended to self-regulated learning in my formulation. Ban-dura (1986) assumed that learning from observing one's own behavior and from enactive outcomes is the most influential method for changing a learner's perceptions of efficacy and improving retention of knowledge. Bandura (1986) ascribed much importance to a learner's use of self-regulation strategies. In his view, strategy applica-tions provide a learner with valuable self-efficacy knowledge. The effectiveness of each of the 14 self-regulated learning strategies described in Table 1 can be explained on the basis of the proposed triadic model. The purpose of each strategy is to improve students 1self-regulation of their (a) personal functioning, (b) academic behavioral performance, and (c) learning environment. Conclusions: Among the advantages of a social cognitive approach to self-regulated academic learning, three are particularly important to educational psychologists:

● (a) It distinguishes the effects of personal (self-) regulatory influences from overt behavioral ones and can explain the relative advantage of each

● (b) it links students* self-regulatory processes to specific social learning or behaviorally enactive experiences and can explain their reciprocal impact

● (c) it identifies two key processes through which self-regulated learning is achieved, self-efficacy perceptions and strategy use, and can explain their relation to student motivation and achievement in school. To the degree that a social cognitive approach renders students' self-regulated learning processes observable and trainable through specific experience, it should prove helpful in guiding academic analyses and interventions.