cryingtargetframework

APPLIEDPSYCHOLOGY:ANINTERNATIONALREVIEW,2005,54(2),199–231InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
PublishedbyBlackwellPublishing,9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ,UKand350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA.
BlackwellPublishing,Ltd.
Oxford,UKAPPSAppliedPsychology:anInternationalReview0269-994XInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005April2005542OriginalArticleSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOMBOEKAERTSandCORNOSelf-RegulationintheClassroom:APerspectiveonAssessmentandInterventionMoniqueBoekaerts*UniversityofLeiden,TheNetherlandsLynCornoTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,USAIln'yapasdedénitionsimpleetunivoqueduconceptd'apprentissageautorégulé.
Desthéoriciensdepsychologiedel'éducationontréduitl'éventaildesaptitudesdesélèvesàs'autorégulerensefocalisantsurleversantscolairedel'éducation,àsavoirl'acquisitiondesconnaissancesetlesobjectifsderéussite.
Toutefois,lemondecomplexedel'étudeenclasseengendreunesituationoùdifférentsbutsentrentenconcurrenceauxyeuxdesélèves.
Lemodèled'autorégulationàdoubleprocessusdeBookaertsmontrequelesdeuxobjectifsquesontl'étudeetlebien-êtreinteragissent.
Nousestimonsquelorsquelesélèvesontaccèsàdesstratégiesautonomesbienaupointsetradu-isantpardebonneshabitudesdetravail,ilsontuneplusgrandeprobabilitédesemotiverpourlesétudesetdesauvegarderleurbien-êtrequandunesourcedestressbloquel'apprentissage.
Thereisnosimpleandstraightforwarddenitionoftheconstructofself-regulatedlearning.
Theoristsineducationalpsychologyhavenarrowedthescopeofstudents'capabilitytoself-regulatethroughafocusontheacademicsideofeducation,namelyonlearningandachievementgoals.
However,themessyworldofclassroomlearningcreatesasituationinwhichdifferentgoalscompeteforstudents'attention.
Boekaerts'dualprocessingself-regulationmodeldescribeshowlearninggoalsinteractwithwell-beinggoals.
Weproposethatwhenstudentshaveaccesstowell-renedvolitionalstrategiesmanifestedasgoodworkhabits,theyaremorelikelytoinvesteffortinlearningandgetoffthewell-beingtrackwhenastressorblockslearning.
ShiftingdenitionsofSRLhaveledtochangingmeasurementprocedures;researchersmovedawayfromdecontextualisedmeasuresofSRLtodomain-specicmeasuresandthenontocontext-sensitivemeasures.
ThevalidityandreliabilityoftherstgenerationofSRassessmenthasbeenlimitedandseveralissuesremain.
Recently,researchershavedesignedassessmentpackagesincludingnewinstrumentsthatbetter*Addressforcorrespondence:MoniqueBoekaerts,CentrefortheStudyofLearningandInstruction,Wassenaarseweg52,P.
O.
B.
9555,2300RBLeiden,TheNetherlands.
Email:Boekaerts@fsw.
leidenuniv.
nl200BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
captureself-regulationasaprocess(includingforexampletracesofmentalevents,situationalmanipulations,andrecordsofstudentworkstrategies).
Acombinationofinstrumentsispreferableoverasingleinstrumentforassessingself-regulationasaprocessandtheeffectsofinterventionstoimprovestu-dents'self-regulatorycapacity.
Atpresent,manysoundSRLinterventionsexistandsomegenerallessonscanbelearnedaboutclassroominterventionresearch.
INTRODUCTIONUnderstandingstudents'capacitytodirecttheirownlearninginschoolandbeyondhasbeenacentraltopicofdiscussionamongpractisingeducators,policy-makers,andeducationalresearchersalike.
Researchersinparticulararguethatthecapacitytoself-regulateiscentraltoourassumptionsaboutlearning,decisionmaking,problemsolving,andresourcemanagementineducation,andtheyhavepromisedassessmentinstrumentsandinterventionprogramstopromoteself-regulation(SR).
Abasicresearchquestionis,"Whatisimpliedbythe'capabilitytoself-regulate'"SomeresearchersconceptualiseSRasageneraldispositionthatstudentsbringintotheclassroom,whereasothersconceiveofSRasapropertyoftheperson-in-situationandattendtodomain-specicself-regulatoryskillsthatdevelopthroughexperiencewithinandacrosssituations.
Thetwoperspectivesarenotincompatible.
Inthisarticle,werstlookcloselyatvariousconceptualisationsofself-regulationthatareprominentintheeducationalpsychologyresearchliteratureandatthetypesofinstrumentsthathavebeenconstructedtomeasurestudents'capabilitytoself-regulate.
Wethendiscussinterventionprogramsdesignedtohelpstudentsregulatetheiraffect,motivation,cogni-tion,andactionintheserviceofgoals.
Thissectionalsoaddressestherelativeinuenceofinterventions,andidentiessomeconstraintsthathavelimitedtheireffectiveness.
SELF-REGULATEDLEARNING:DIRECTINGTHELEARNINGPROCESSOverthepasttwodecades,researchershavestruggledwiththeconceptual-isationandoperationalisationofself-regulatorycapacity,comingtotheconclusionthatthereisnosimpleandstraightforwarddenitionoftheconstructofSR.
Thesystemofself-regulationcomprisesacomplex,super-ordinatesetoffunctions(seeCarver&Scheier,1990)locatedatthejunctionofseveraleldsofpsychologicalresearch,includingresearchoncognition,problemsolving,decisionmaking,metacognition,conceptualchange,moti-vation,andvolition.
Eachoftheseresearchdomainshasitsownparadigmsandtraditions.
Also,eachresearchcommunityfocusesondifferentcontentSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM201InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
andaspectsoftheSRprocess,addressingdifferentcomponentsandlevelsoftheconstruct.
Scanningthemostrecentliteratureineducationalpsycho-logyrevealsseveralevolvingmodelsofclassroomSR(seee.
g.
Boekaerts,1997;Corno,2001;McCaslinandHickey,2001;Pintrich,2000;Schunk&Zimmerman,1998;Winne,1995).
ComparingthemajorSRmodelsineducation,Pintrich(2000)cametotheconclusionthateachmodelemphasisesslightlydifferentaspectsofSR.
Corno,forexample,emphasisesvolitionalaspectsofSR,whereasWinneemphasisesthecognitiveaspectsofSR,andMcCaslinandHickeyemphasisethesocio-culturalaspectsofSR.
Nevertheless,allofthemodelssharesomebasicassumptions.
Alltheoristsassumethatstudentswhoself-regulatetheirlearningareengagedactivelyandconstructivelyinaprocessofmeaninggenerationandthattheyadapttheirthoughts,feelings,andactionsasneededtoaffecttheirlearningandmotivation.
Similarly,modelsassumethatbiological,developmental,contextual,andindividualdifferencecon-straintsmayallinterferewithorsupporteffortsatregulation.
Theoristsareinagreementthatstudentshavethecapabilitytomakeuseofstandardstodirecttheirlearning,tosettheirowngoalsandsub-goals.
Finally,alltheoristsassumethattherearenodirectlinkagesbetweenachievementandpersonalorcontextualcharacteristics;achievementeffectsaremediatedbytheself-regulatoryactivitiesthatstudentsengagetoreachlearningandperformancegoals.
Forthemostpart,theoristsineducationalpsychologynarrowthescopeofstudents'capabilitytoself-regulatethroughafocusontheacademicsideofeducation,namelyonlearningandachievementgoals.
Deliberaterestric-tionofthescopeofSRtotheconstructof"self-regulatedlearning"(orSRL)highlightsboththestrengthsandweaknessesoftheSRmodelsthathavebeendevelopedineducationalpsychology.
Aclearfocusonlearninggoalssuggeststhattheliteratureonlearningprocessesinvariouscontentdomains(i.
e.
howstudentslearntoread,write,andreasonaboutproblems)hastobefoundationalformodeldevelopment.
Equallyfoundationalisthedistinctionbetweencognitiveandmetacognitivefunctionsandsubsequentdomain-specicextensionsofthismode(e.
g.
Hadwin&Winne,1998).
AsFlavell(1979)explained,metacognition(cognitionaboutcognition)referstotwoaspects,namelythestudents'self-awarenessofaknowledgebaseinwhichinformationisstoredabouthow,when,andwheretousevariouscognitivestrategiesandtheirself-awarenessofandaccesstostrategiesthatdirectlearning(e.
g.
monitoringdifcultylevel,afeelingofknowing).
Limitingtherangeofgoalsthatstudentspursueinthecontextofclass-roomstolearningandachievementgoalshasallowedresearcherstoaccrueadetailedunderstandingofthecognitiveandaffectiveprocessesthatunderlieactionsthatstudentsinitiatetoregulatetheirmotivationandlearningintheclassroom.
BydescribingtheSRstrategiesthatlearnersusetoreach202BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
academicgoals,theSRLperspectiveshedslightonhowstudentsformandmaintainlearningintentionsbutdiscloseslittleaboutstudents'actionsandeffortsatregulationwhentheyarenotsomindfullyengagedinlearning.
OnecriticismofSRLmodelsisthatthedeliberatefocusonmindfullearningbiasesknowledgeabouthowstudentswithdivergingworkhabitsandregulationstylesmanagethebiological,developmental,contextual,andindi-vidualdifferenceconstraintsthatthreatentheireffortsatSRL.
Thisfocushasshedlittlelightonstudentswhodonottthepatternofaself-regulatedlearner.
Anotherweaknessisthatthisapproachignoresinteractionsbetweenachievementgoalsandothergoalsthatstudentspursueinclass-roomssuchasbelonging,socialsupport,safety,entertainment,andself-determinationgoals(seeBoekaerts,2005).
SELF-REGULATIONFORDIFFERENTPURPOSESModernideasaboutgoalpursuitcallintoquestionthenotionthatthereisadirect,uninterruptedpathfromgoal-settingtoaccomplishinggoals.
Instead,goalpursuitisviewedasacomplexpaththatsometimesreectsengagement,sometimesdisengagement,andsometimesavoidanceordelay.
TheRubiconmodel(Gollwitzer,1990)describesthispathastwosidesofariverrepresentingcommitment.
Goal-settingprocessesprecedecommit-ment,referringtowhenindividualsconsider"whatandwhy";thatis,theymakedecisionsaboutobjectives,hopes,andwheretoputtheirefforts.
Stu-dentsbeginto"crosstheRubicon"whentheytransformtheirmotivationintoarmintentiontoact.
Ontheothersideoftheriver,goalstrivingbegins.
Focusisthenonthebestwaytoimplementgoals;theintentiontoactisinplace,andnecessaryactionplansandscriptsaresetinmotion.
Gollwitzer'sworkdemonstratedthatoncetheRubiconiscrossed,indi-vidualstendnottorevertbackeasilytoreconsidergoalstheyhaveset.
AsKuhl(1985)describedit,peopleuseprocessesofactioncontrolwhiletheyimplementintentions,bolsteringweakintentionsduringgoalstriving(e.
g.
increasingthevalueofatask,selectivelyattendingtoorencodinginforma-tionthatsupportsthelearningintention,workingdiligentlydespitecompet-ingactiontendencies)(seealsoCorno,2001).
Classroomlearningisnotsolinearasthismodelimplies.
Inschool,stu-dentspursuemultiplegoals,notonlyintendingtolearnbutalsoseekingpositiveexperiences.
Differenttypesofgoalsinteractincomplexwaysandchangeovertime.
Basedonstudiesinmainstreampsychology,Boekaerts(1997;Boekaerts&Niemivierta,2000)proposedamodelofSRinwhichstudentsfacetwoprioritiesinclassroomlearning.
Onepriorityistoachievegrowthgoalsthatincreaseresources(e.
g.
studentsseektodeepentheirknowledgeorincreasetheircognitiveandsocialskills);anotherpriorityistomaintainemotionalwell-beingwithinreasonablebounds(i.
e.
studentstrySELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM203InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
tolooksmartandprotecttheirego,ortheytrytoavoidharmandsecureresources).
Boekaertshypothesisedthatstudentsstrivetobalancethesetwopriorities,straddlingthedividebetweentracksforgrowthgoalsandwell-beinggoals.
Boekaerts(1999a)foundthatfavorableappraisalsoftasksandopportunitiesforlearning(e.
g.
feelingsofrelevance,interest,andefcacy)leadstudentstomasterygoalsandactivities,whereasasenseofdifculty,disinterest,orstressleadsstudentstofocusonwell-being.
Boekaerts'modelofclassroomSRdistinguishestwoparallelprocessesforthepurposefuldirectionofaction.
Top-DownSelf-RegulationThemastery/growthprocessexplainsthepursuitofself-chosenlearninggoalsorgoalsthatincreaseacademicresources.
Masterystrivingsareenergisedfromthetopdownbymotivationsuchaspersonalinterest,values,expectedsatisfaction,andrewards.
TheSRistopdownalsobecausestudents'adoptedlearninggoalssteertheprocess.
Winne(1995)describedthecogni-tions,feelings,andactionsoftop-downSRascharacteristicofself-regulatedlearners:Whentheybegintostudy,self-regulatedlearnerssetgoalsforextendingknowledgeandsustainingmotivation.
Theyareawareofwhattheyknow,whattheybelieve,andwhatthedifferencesbetweenthesekindsofinformationimplyforapproachingtasks.
Theyhaveagraspoftheirmotivation,areawareoftheiraffect,andplanhowtomanagetheinterplaybetweentheseastheyengagewiththetask.
Theyalsodeliberateaboutsmall-graintacticsandoverallstrategies,selectingsomeinsteadofothersbasedonpredictionsabouthoweachisabletosupportprogresstowardchosengoals.
(Winne,1995,p.
173)Later,HadwinandWinne(1998)speciedtherecursivelyappliedformsofmetacognitivemonitoringandfeedbackthatchangeinformationovertime(thusinuencinggoals)asself-regulatedlearnersengageinanassign-ment.
Also,notallstudentsadoptmasterygoalswhentheyrsttackletasks.
Somestudentsresentteachers'attemptstomakethemmonitorandreectontheirlearning,givingpreferencetoestablishedworkhabitsandlearningstylesthatmaybemaladaptive(Boekaerts&Minnaert,2003;Corno,2004).
Othersseekfriendshipsandharmonywithpeers—socialgoals—forexample,preferringclosecollaborationwithpeerstoaworksitu-ationinwhichopinionsarecriticisedandfriendshipsmaybecompromised.
Stillothersbeginworkwithcompetitive,performancegoalsbutbecomeorientedtowardmasteryastheywork.
Cuesfromtheworkenvironmenttriggersuchevidenceofcooperationwithothersandshiftinggoals(Volet&Lawrence,1989;Lawrence&Volet,1991).
204BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
Bottom-UpSelf-RegulationWhenSRistriggeredbycuesfromtheenvironmentitisbottomup.
Insteadofbeginningworkwithgoalsthatarermlyestablished,itisfeedbackfromthetaskandclassroomrewardstructuresthathelptoestablishworkori-entationsandgeneratechangesinworkstyles.
Boekaerts'modelpositsthatstudentsbecomeconcernedwithemotionalwell-beingwhenenvironmentalcuessignalthatallisnotwellandthatresourceshavetoberedirected.
Atsuchapoint,studentsexplorethenatureofthefeltfriction.
Forexample,whentheyfeelbored,isolated,coerced,orinsecuretheymayraisethepri-orityofentertainment,belongingness,self-determination,orsafetygoals,respectively.
Asearchforwell-beingimpliesthatstudentsaremorecon-cernedwithmaintainingorrestoringpositivefeelingsthanwiththepursuitofgrowthgoals.
Whileonthewell-beingtrack,studentsmightbeobservedtodeliberatelywithholdeffortfromthelearningtaskorseemtoworkplayfullywithlessvigilance.
However,bottom-upSRisnotmaladaptivewhenitfunctionstopreparethestudentforlearning.
Theliteratureinschoolpsychologydescribesanarrayofself-managementorcopingstrategiesthatstudentsemploytodealwithschoolandhome-relatedstressors,suchasachievement-relatedproblems,socialneeds,beingbullied,orcoercion.
Differenttypesofcopingstrategieshavebeenobserved,includingseekingsocialsupportandproblemsolving—viewedasadaptive—whichcontrastwithstrategiessuchasphysicalandverbalaggression,withholdingeffort,avoidance,denial,cog-nitiveandbehavioraldistraction,andrigidorpassivebehaviorviewedasmaladaptive(seeforexampleSkinner&Edge,2002).
Notethatfromthestudents'pointofviewallthesestrategiesmaybeadaptive,providedtheysuccessfullyrestorewell-being.
Studentswhoarethefocusofschoolpsychologyinterventionsfrequentlyapproachclassroomtaskswithspecialneeds,includingspeciclearningprob-lems(e.
g.
readingdisabilities,languageimpairment)orcharacteristicsthatthreatenthepursuitoflearninggoals(e.
g.
lowmotivation,highanxiety,dys-functionalbehaviorduetopoorhomeconditions,peerpressure,inadequateteaching).
ItwouldbeincorrecttoequateexceptionalitywithaninabilitytoengageinSR;thestudentstreatedbyschoolpsychologistsself-regulatetheircognition,emotions,andactions;often,however,theirpurposeistocopewiththenegativeaffecttheyexperienceinrelationtostressorsratherthantoaccomplishlearninggoals(consequentlytheirSRisoftenbottomup).
Allstudentsfacestressors,butbycomparisontootherstudents,excep-tionalstudentshavetomanagechronicinternalandexternalstressors;theymaymeetgreaterobstaclesen-routetotheirlearninggoals,andasaresultexperiencemorenegativeaffect.
FrijdaandMesquita(1995)explainedthatstudentsmakeaprimaryappraisalofthesituationasrelevantorirrelevantSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM205InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
towell-being.
Onceactivated,emotionstendtooverridegoalsandactions,evenconsiderationsofappropriatenessorlong-termconsequences.
Thesewarningsignalsinterruptongoingactivities,makingsurethattheeventthatcausedtheinterruptionisevaluatedandone'scopingpotentialisconsideredinrelationtothepotentialthreattowell-being.
UsingVolitionalStrategiestoStayOnorSwitchTracksToprovideanadequateexplanationofstudents'SRprocessesintheclass-room,weneedtoelaborateonthedistinctionmadeinthecopingliteraturebetweenstrategiesthatareproblem-focusedandconsideredadaptiveandthosethatareoverlyfocusedonemotionandconsideredtobemaladaptive(Boekaerts,1999b).
Teachersexpectthatallgoal-directedbehaviorintheclassroomshouldbeguidedbythecurrentlearninggoals.
However,aswehavesaid,learninggoalsarenotalwaysadoptedbystudentsandsometimesstudentsnditdifculttomaintaintheirintentionstoaccomplishlearninggoalsevenwhentheyareadopted.
FollowingKuhl(1985),wecandistin-guishclassroomsituationsinwhichstudentsareabletomakegoodprogresstowardtheiradoptedlearninggoalsusingtop-downSRfromthosesitu-ationsinwhichstudentsfacelearninggoalsthataredifculttoadoptoraccomplishforanynumberofreasons.
Difcultyofadoptionandenactmentcanoccur,forexample,whenstudentsdonotndmeaninginthesubjectmatter,orlikewisewhentheyconfrontfailure,coercion,orcompetinggoals(e.
g.
entertainment,belong-ingness,safety,socialsupportgoals).
Suchobstaclescantriggerpositiveornegativeaffectthatmayoverrideanylearninggoals,causingprioritiestoshifttowardthewell-beingtrack.
Somestudentsdwellonmoods,feel-ings,andemotionsandusemaladaptiveemotion-focusedcoping(e.
g.
self-handicapping,crying,orshouting);whereasothersfocusontheproblemathandandtrytondasolutionorusetheirsupportnetwork(adaptive,problem-focusedcoping).
Wecanintegratethelearningandcopingliter-aturebythinkingofproblem-focusedcopingastheapplicationoflearnedvolitionalstrategiestohelpprotecttheintentiontolearnunderconditionsofdifculty.
AsdescribedbyCorno(2001),volitionalstrategiessuchastimeandresourcemanagement,prioritisinggoalsandmarkingcompletedtasksareimportantinschoolaswellasinlifebeyond.
Conditionsofdifcultythattriggertheneedforvolitionalcontrolmayincludefeltfrictionduetounrealisticassessmentsoftaskconditions,taskoverload,andinabilitytomeshacademicandnon-academicgoals.
Boekaerts(2005)andCorno(2004)arguethatbetterevidenceisneededofhowvolitionalstrategiesinuencestudents'abilitiestomanagetheirworkalongthemasteryorgrowthtrack,andhelpthemorbitbackto206BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
productivemasterygoalsoncetheyhavebecomeoverlyconcernedaboutwell-being.
Availableresearchdoessuggestthatwhenstudentscancalluponanunderstandingofvolitionalstrategies,theycanovercomesignicantobstacles(Kuhl&Kraska,1989)andmaintainasenseofvalueinthetask.
Vermeer,Boekaerts,andSeegers(2001)alsofoundthatstudents'willing-nesstomaintainlearningintentionsandpersisttowardmasteryinthefaceofdifcultydependsontheirawarenessofandaccesstovolitionalstrategies(i.
e.
metacognitiveknowledgetointerpretstrategyfailureandknowledgeofhowtobuckledowntowork).
Inasimilarvein,SkinnerandEdge(2002)concludedtheirreviewoftheliteratureonchildren'scopingstrategiesbynotingthatthedysfunctionalemotioncontrolstrategiesusedbysomechil-drenreectamaladaptivecopingresponsetosub-optimalenvironmentalconditionssuchasmodelsofhelplessnessorexpressionsofnegativeratherthanpositiveemotionsbyadults,andlittleenvironmentalsupport.
Instruc-tioninadaptivevolitionalstrategiesmaybeparticularlyusefulforchildrenwhoneedtodealmoreeffectivelywithchronicstressorsinschool.
Toreiterate,inourview,theRubiconmetaphormustbereconstruedtogainanadequatecharacterisationofgoal-settingandgoalstrivingprocessesinclassrooms.
Themessyworldofclassroomlearningcreatesasituationinwhichduelinggoalsbelieastrictlineartransitionfrommotivationaltovolitionalprocessingwithachangethatisdifculttoundo.
Rather,weproposethatwhenstudentshaveaccesstowell-renedvolitionalstrategiesmanifestedasgoodworkhabits,theyaremorelikelyto(1)stayonthegrowthtrack(i.
e.
volitionstrategyusesupportstop-downSR)and(2)getoffthewell-beingtrackwhenastressorblockslearning(i.
e.
volitionstrategyusehelpsstudentsrecoverfrommaladaptiveformsofbottom-upSRandsupportstheenvironmentalcuesthatleadtoadaptiveformsofbottom-upSR).
Accessiblevolitionstrategiesfunctionsomethingliketheswitchingtrackofarailwaysystem;byturningallotherlightstoredtheycankeepstudentsonthemasterytrackorre-routethemtowardgoalsforproductivemasteryinthefaceofdetractingenvironmentalcues.
SHIFTINGDEFINITIONSOFSRLIMPLYCHANGINGMEASUREMENTIntherstpartofthisarticlewelookedcloselyathowtheSRconstructhasbeenconceptualisedandreconceptualisedbymajorgroupsofpsychologistswhostudyeducation.
Wenotedthatself-regulationhasbeendeneddiffer-entlybydifferentresearchgroups.
WedistinguishedSRservingdifferentpurposes,namelytop-downSRandbottom-upSR,anddescribedvolitionalstrategiesasimportantforpersistenceandresourcemanagement.
Inthispartofourarticle,weexaminethemainmeasurementinstrumentsthatareavailabletoassessaspectsofSRinclassrooms.
SELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM207InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
Assessmentsusedatparticularpointsintheresearchhistorymirrorcon-ceptualisationsoftheSRconstruct.
Forexample,inthe1970sand1980s,researchers,followingFlavell's(1979)lead,emphasisedthemetacognitiveaspectsofSRandappropriateapplicationofcognitivestrategies.
Thefocuswasonindividualstudentknowledgeandskills.
Instrumentsmeasureddevelopmentalqualitiessuchasstudents'self-awarenessofandaccesstoaknowledgebaseinwhichinformationisstoredabouthow,when,andwheretousevariouscognitivestrategies.
Atthattime,researchersconceptualisedSRLasarelativelystableindividualinclinationtorespondtoarangeoflearningsituationsinatypicalway,independentofthecontext(beittheclassroom,homework,orjobtrainingsituations).
Questionnairesaswellasstructuredinterviews(andsometimesteacherratings)capturedregularitiesinstudents'reporteduseofcognitivestrategiestolearn,remember,andunderstandclassmaterial,aswellastheirmetacognitivestrategiesforplan-ning,monitoring,andmodifyingtheircognition.
Theassumptionwasthatstudents'self-regulatorycapabilitycouldbeaggregatedoverorabstractedfromself-reportedbehavioracrosssituationsoncerelevantbackgroundfactorswerepartialledout,andthatitwasvalidtoassumethiscapabilitycouldbedecontextualisedinself-reports(e.
g.
Entwistle,1988).
AsresearchonSRprogressedintothe1990s,existingassessmentinstru-mentstransformedintodomain-specicandsituation-specicself-reportinstruments,andmotivationandvolitionalcomponentswerebroughttotheforeground(e.
g.
effortmanagement,organisationalstrategies,persistenceatdifcultorboringtasks).
Examplesofdomain-specicinstrumentsincludetheMotivatedStrategiesforLearningQuestionnaire(MSLQ;Pintrich,Smith,Garcia,&McKeachie,1993)andtheSelf-RegulatedLearningInterviewSchedule(SRLIS;Zimmerman&Martinez-Pons,1988).
Thesemi-structuredSRLISasksadolescentstodescribetheirstudymethodstoaninterviewerwhopresentsthemwithbriefdescriptionsofhypotheticalsituationsandaseriesoffurtherprompts.
Studentsareasked,forexample,"Doyouhavespecicmethodsforimprovingyourstudyathome"Theseandsimilarotherself-reportinstrumentsaredesignedtomeasurethepresenceorabsenceandfrequencyofSRLcomponentsinthestudents'repertoireofresponses.
Thishistoryreectsaquantitative,dispositionalapproachtoassessmentofSRL,whichhasyieldedndingsusefulforinformingtheorybutcreatedsomemisconceptionsinpractice.
Forexample,someresearchersusingtheseinstrumentsineldstudiesinformedparticipatingteachersthatcertainoftheirstudentswereabletoself-regulatetheirlearningwhileotherswerenot.
Teachersweretold,onthebasisofevidencefromtheself-reportmeasures,thatsomestudentsappearedtolackSRcapability,andthattheyreliedroutinelyonexternalregulationinstead.
Thus,externalregulationhasbeenmistakenlyinterpretedinoppositiontoSR,ratherthanasacontinuumofresponsedependingonsituations.
208BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
TworelatedshiftsinthinkingaboutSRLhavefurtheredourunderstand-ingsince2000.
First,researchershavecometorealisethatSRLasithadbeenoperationalisedpreviouslybyeducationalpsychologistshadpropertiesthatallowedittobeaggregatedoversituationsandusedtopredictimpor-tantoutcomes(e.
g.
thatstudentscouldbeshowntohaverelativelystabletendenciestouseSRLthatweresystematicallyrelatedtosuccessinschool).
Atthesametime,SRLalsoappearedinstudentlearningtranscriptsasadevelopingprocessthatcameintoplaymoreorless,dependingonthesituation.
AsecondimportantshiftwastheinclusionofsocialandemotionalfactorsinSRLmodels.
AnewtrendineducationalresearchandininstructionaldesignstudieslearningassituatedandSRLinthepursuitofsocial-emotional(well-being)aswellasacademiclearninggoals(seee.
g.
Reigeluth,1999;StanfordAptitudeSeminar,2002).
Educationresearchershavebeguntoevaluatestudentsandclassroomsexperimentingwithcurricularandteachingreformsfollowingphilosophicalprinciplesofsocialconstructivism.
SeveralSRtheoristsdeclaredthatco-regulation(i.
e.
socialinteractionswithteachersandpeers)shapes,evendevelops,theSRprocessintheserviceoflearningandachieve-mentgoalsandthat,consequently,measurementinstrumentsshouldcap-turethequalityofsocialinteractionsastheyevolveinclassrooms(e.
g.
McCaslin&Good,1996;Patrick,Anderman,Ryan,Edelin,&Midgley,2001).
Newerassessmenttechniquesthusaddressthequalityofstudents'developingSRskillsinso-called"powerfullearningenvironments".
Aseducationalpsychologistsincreasinglyshifttheirattentionfrominves-tigatingSRLasastabletendencyorstyle,theyhavebeguntostudySRLasadevelopinganddynamicprocesswithinclassroomsandothercontextswherelearningtakesplace.
Generalisedtrait-likemeasuresarestillbeingusedinlarge-scalestudieswhencircumstancesprecludemoretargetedsituation-specicassessments;however,researchersnolongernditsatisfactorytodiagnosestudents'currentrepertoireofSRLandthenassumethatinterven-tionprogramsshouldinculcatestrategiesintherepertoire.
Researchershavecometorealisethattheultimategoalofcomprehensive,insightfulmodelsofSRLdependsuponstudyofSRwhileitisbeinggenerated.
Severalrecentinvestigations(forareview,seePerry,2002)describenewassessmenttechniquesdesignedtotspeciccontextsandcapturestudents'attemptsatSRinaction.
Atthesametime,researcherscapturestudentSR"onthey",theyidentifyfeaturesofclassroomenvironmentsthatseemtoaffectSRbothpositivelyandnegatively(featuressuchascomplexityoftasks,typesofinstructionaltechniques,methodsofstudent–teacherinter-action,andclassroomrewardstructures).
Effectsonboththeemergenceandhindranceofself-regulatoryskillshavebeenobserved.
Fromthecurrentresearchitisgraduallybecomingclearthatstudents'capacitytointerpretenvironmentalcuesinlightoftheirmultiplegoalsisSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM209InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
animportantaspectofSR.
Forexample,TurnerandPatrick(2004),whostudiedtwostudents'participationinmathematicsduringtwoconsecutiveschoolyears,foundthatparticipationbehaviorwasrelatedtoteacherexpectations,callingpatterns,andlevelsofmotivationalaswellasinstruc-tionalsupport.
Students'beliefsabouttheircapabilitiesmediatedtheseresults,suggestingthatstudentparticipationisinuencedbyteacherpracticesthatbothsupportandunderminethedevelopmentofgoodworkhabits.
TheremainderofthissectiondiscussesthevariousinstrumentsthathavebeendevelopedtomeasureSRineducation.
InstrumentsthatAssessSelf-RegulationResearchershavebeencreativeindesigningassessmentinstrumentsthatportraywhatself-regulatedlearnersdo,think,andfeelwhentheyareact-ivelyandconstructivelyengagedinlearning.
Theseassessmentsrangefromstrategyself-reportstolearningdiaries.
Self-reportQuestionnaires.
MostSRquestionnairesusereliableLikert-typescalestoassessthefrequencyofstudents'reportedstrategyuse.
Forexample,theMSLQ(Pintrichetal.
,1993),previouslymentioned,measuresreportedcognitiveandmetacognitivestrategyuseincloseconnectiontostudents'motivationalbeliefsandtheirtechniquesformanagingresourcesinaspecicdomain,suchasinanundergraduatecollegecourse.
Thisisaquantitativeapproachtoassessmentthatdependsonrelativelylargenum-bersofrespondentstoservepredictivefunctions,andaswehavesaid,ithascreatedsomemisconceptionsaboutSRLamongpractitioners.
ObservationsofOvertBehavior.
Observationscaptureongoingratherthanrecalledactions.
ObserversdecideaprioriwhichcategoriesofSRstrat-egyuseandprocessestheyintendtoobserve(e.
g.
orientationtowardthetask,resourcemanagement,modifyingaspectsoftheenvironment,checkingpro-gress,persistencefollowingfailure)andwhethertheywillfocusonindividualstudentsoroninteractionsbetweenstudents.
Theyalsocreateasamplingplanbeforehand(i.
e.
willtherebetimesamplingoreventsamplingandforhowmanysessions),anobservationcodingsystem,andscoringpro-cedures(scoringthepresenceorabsenceofpre-codedcategoriesofstrategies,orcodesfornarrativeprotocolsorvideorecords).
Duringtheobservations,typically,codingsystemsaresupplementedbyrunningrecordsofwhatisgoingonintheclassroom(e.
g.
theinstructionalsequence)aswellasa(verbatim)recordofwhatthetargetstudent(s)and/orteachersaid,perhapsontape.
Thisobservationmethodresultsinarichdatabaseofverbalandnon-verbalbehaviorinrelationtotasksandsocialinteractionpatternsfortargetsubjects.
Quantitativeresults(counts)ofresponsesacrosscategories210BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
canbesubjectedtostatisticalanalyses,andqualitativemethodsofdiscourseandcontentanalysiscanbeusedtodescribethedata.
Forexample,Turner(1995)observedhowrstgradersusedlearningandvolitionalstrategiesastheylearnedtoread,andrelatedthesestrategiestothereadinginstructionandtasksprovided.
Otherresearchhasexaminedhowstudentsco-regulateincooperativelearninggroups(seeCorno,2001).
InterviewEvidence.
Observationstudiesareoftencomplementedwhenresearchersalsousestructuredorsemi-structuredinterviews(seePerry,2002;Zimmerman&Martinez-Pons,1988).
Themainaimofmostinter-viewsistogatherqualitativedataaboutstudents'andteachers'experiencesduringSRLsessions.
Unstructuredinterviewsinvitestudentstotelltheirstoriesanddataarefrequentlypresentedasnarratives.
Structuredinterviewspreventstudentsfromjumpingfromonethoughttotheotherbyaskingcriticalquestionsthatbuildononeanother.
Semi-structuredinterviewsallowresearcherstoselectfromtheinterviewsheetthosequestionsthatactascontext-sensitiveprompts,encouragingstudentstoreectontheirstrat-egyuse,thoughts,andfeelingsaswellasontheirawarenessofspecicfeaturesoftheclassroomcontext.
Stimulatedrecallisaspecialformofinterview.
Students(orteachers,parents,etc.
)areinterviewedindividuallywhiletheywatchvideotapedepisodesofthemselvesworking.
Theaimoftheseguidedrecallsessionsistoinviterespondentstoidentifyandlabeltheirownactionsduringatask(Whatwereyoudoing(thinking,feeling)hereandtoprovideadditionalinformationaboutthereasonswhy).
Inter-viewresponsescansometimesbequantied(seeXu&Corno,1998).
ThinkAloudProtocols.
Inathinkaloudsession,thestudentreportsthoughts,feelings,andSRstrategieswhilesolvingaproblemorcompletinganassignment.
Thismethodproducesrichverbalisationdatafromstudents.
Ithastheadvantagethatongoingthoughtsandfeelingsareregisteredastheyoccur,ratherthanrecalledafterdoingthetask.
Adisadvantageisthatstudents,particularlyyoungerstudents,maynothaveavocabularythatissufcientlyrichtodescribetheirinnerthoughtssuccessfully.
Alsostudentsneedagreatdealofpracticebeforetheycanmanagethedualtask.
Inaddition,theextrataskofreportingone'scognitionsandfeelingscaninter-ferewiththetargettask,thuscreatingsomeoverloadandbias.
TracesofMentalEventsandProcesses.
AnothermethodusedtocapturespecicprocessesofSRistoexamineaspectsofstudentworkorworksamples.
Winne(seee.
g.
Winne&Perry,2000)studiedtheobservabletracesofprocessthatstudentsleavebehindastheywork,reasoningthatasstudentsexploretasksanddealwiththeircontent,thesetracescanbepickedupincarefullydesigned(computerortext)learningstudies.
OtherresearchersSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM211InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
collectstudentworksamples,suchastextpassagesmarkedwhilestudying,sectionscopiedoverinasummary,patternsofmovesincomputerproblemsolvinggames,andsoon.
Studentworktellsussomethingaboutthewaythestudentregulatedthelearningprocess,givingevidence,forexample,thatthestudentmadeadistinctionbetweenmajorpointsinthetextandthedetails.
Writtencommentsinthemarginofatextarealsoindicatorsofongoingregulationprocesses,suchas"check!
","needmoreexamples".
WinnelinkedobservedtracestocomponentsinhisSRLmodel.
Forexample,thecomment"askPeggytoexplain"waslinkedtothestudent'sbeliefthatthesocialcontextcanbeusedasaneffectiveresource,whereasthecomment"seealsoarticlePekrun"waslinkedtothestudent'sbeliefthatitisrelevanttoconnectcurrentinformationwithinformationalreadystoredinmemory.
SituationalManipulations.
SettingupsituationalmanipulationsintrueexperimentsisyetanotherwaytoexploreSRstrategiesthatstudentsuse.
Rheinberg,Vollmeyer,andRollett(2000)constructedacomplexcomputer-simulationsystemcalledTheBiologyLab.
Duringthelearningstageinthissystem,studentsdetectthesystem'sstructurebyfreelymanipulatinginputvariablesandanalysingtheresultingeffectsontheoutputvariables.
Stu-dentscanchoosehowlongtheywork,buttheyaretoldthattheywillhavetoapplytheirknowledgeintheapplicationstage.
Somestudentsusetrialanderror,otherssteeranddirecttheirlearningbyformingandtestinghypo-theses,makingcomplexcomparisons,andstillothersuseacombinationofbothstrategies.
Thestudents'knowledgeaboutthesystemandthesystem-aticityoftheirapproachisassessedregularlyasanindicatorofthequalityoftheirlearningprocess.
Intheapplicationstageofwork,studentsarepresentedwithaspecicendstatefortheoutputvariablesandarerequestedtosupplyaninputstatethatcouldleadtothedesignatedendstate.
RecordingStudentMotivationStrategiesasTheyWork.
Severalinstru-mentshavebeendevelopedtoenablestudentstosharetheirdevelopingtaskappraisalsandfeelingswiththeresearchersastheywork.
AnexampleisVermeer,Boekaerts,andSeegers'(2001)CondenceandDoubtScale,whichregistersthoseaspectsofSRconcernedwithstudents'developingcondenceintheirabilities.
Assessmentsareobtainedduringtheorienta-tion,performance,andvericationstagesofmathematicsproblemsolving.
Abeepersoundsatregularintervals,signalingthatthestudentshavetoregisteronave-pointscalehowcondenttheyfeelabouttheirsolutionatthatpoint.
KeepingDiaries.
Studentscankeepadiaryandrecordtheirmetacognit-iveormotivationandvolitionstrategies.
InRandiandCorno's(1997)QuestcurriculumforaddressingSRLinhighschoolhumanities,studentswrote212BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
entriesdescribingthewaystheytriedtocontroltheirattention,informa-tionprocessingload,andanxiety.
Diaryentrieswereanalysedlikeotherqualitativedata,usingcodingproceduresandthematicgrouping.
Thesedataareobviouslyeasiestforolderstudentsoradultstoprovide.
Forexample,inararestudyofSRinteachers,Randi(2004)foundthatpre-serviceteachers'diariescouldbeusedtoprovideilluminatingexamplesandnarrativeaccounts,notonlyoftheirstudents'SRL,butalsoofthewaystheythemselvesself-regulate.
Diariesalsogaveevidencethatthepre-serviceteacherstowhomRanditaughttheprinciplesofSRLexpressedagoodintellectualunderstandingofSRLasaresult.
Studentsmayopenupmoreindiariesthaninsomeotherformsofassessment.
Oneissuewithdiariesisthatsomestudentsinvariablywritemoreandmoreopenlythanothers;thereissomeconfoundingofcomfortwithwritingandwritingabilitywithSRLdiarydata.
Thisoverviewofassessmentinstrumentsillustratesthesubstantialvari-abilityinmeasurementacrossextantempiricalstudies.
Wemovenowinthenextmajorsectionofthisarticletodiscussattemptsbyresearcherstoenhancestudentself-regulation.
SRINCLASSROOMS:ATYPOLOGYOFINTERVENTIONSWesaidintheprevioussectionthatmodelsofSRevolvedpartlybecauseofimprovementsintheassessmentofSRconstructs.
Thesamecanbesaidfortheevolutionofinterventions,andenhancedmodelsareinuencinginterventionsaswell.
Thereisnoshortageofinterventionineducation,butdocumentinginterventioneffectshasbeendifcult.
Inpartthisisattribut-abletothecomplexsysteminwhichclassroominterventionsareembedded.
Onlysincetheearly1980shaveresearchersanalysedclassroomdatausinghierarchicalmodelingprocedurestoseparatethenestedeffectsofinterven-tionsonstudentswithinclassrooms,withingrades,withinschools,andwithindistricts(Cronbach&Webb,1982).
Classroominterventionsarealso(andshouldbe)subjecttouniqueadaptationsbyindividualteachersaccordingtotheexigenciesoftheirowncurricula,values,andbeliefs(Randi&Corno,1997).
Thebestevidenceonsocialprogramssuggeststhateduca-tionalinterventionsarealmostalwaysrealiseddifferentlyfromtheidealsheldbyresearchersandprogramdesigners;inaddition,educationalevalu-ationsarepoliticalaswellasscienticundertakings.
OurdiscussionaddressesthevarietyofconstraintsonscienticworkineducationthatlimittheeffectivenessofearlyeffortstoevaluateSRinter-ventionsinclassrooms(seeCorno,1995).
Manyoftheissuesandcon-straintsweidentifyarepresentinresearchoneducationalinterventionsofalltypes,andsomehavealonghistory(Campbell&Stanley,1963).
ThedifcultiesthatremainchallengethelatestgenerationofinterventionSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM213InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
research,continuingtorestrictthewidespreadadoptionofSRprograms.
Becausespacelimitsprecludeextensiveanalysis,wepresentatypologyofSRinterventionsthatspansrecentdecades.
Ourtypologyincludesexamplesofbothstrongandpromisingprogramsclassiedwithinthreebroadcat-egories.
Therstcategoryrepresentscognitive-behaviormodicationpro-grams,thepurposeofwhichistoretrainorreplacecertainmaladaptivecognitionsandbehaviorwithmoreadaptiveones.
ThesecondcategoryofprogramsdirectlyteachoraimtodeveloptheskillsandstrategiesthatunderlieSRLinclassrooms.
AndthethirdcategorydescribesanewgenerationofprogramsthatmakechangesintheclassroommilieusupportingstudentSRLasitdevelops.
Student–studentinteractionsinsubject-speciccontextsandactivitiesarecentralsitesforinterventionsofthislasttype.
Thisnewgenerationofprogramsevolvedfromspecicdevelopmentsinsocioculturaltheory.
TogetherthethreecategoriescovertherangeofeffortsbyeducatorstoaddressSR—namely,programsthatsuppressunproductiveormaladapt-ivethinkingandbehavior,programsthatpromotenewSRskillsandstrategies,andprogramsthatencourageandsupportSRasitdevelopsinsitu.
Cognitive-BehaviorModicationInterventionsTheearliestinterventionsinSRgrewoutofschoolpsychologyandbeha-vioralapproachestoself-management,ultimatelyreectingthemovefrombehaviortocognition.
Earlyprogramstargetedstudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisabilitieswhorequiredspecialattentiontoperformsuccessfullyinregularclassrooms.
Diagnosedneedsbecamepartofanindividualisededucationalplanthataddressedchangeusingvariousbehaviormodicationprocedures.
Threetypesofinterventionsdesignedforclassroomuseserveasexamples.
StressInoculationTherapy.
Meichenbaum(1977)describedcognitive-behavioralprocedurestohelpstudentsonthewell-beingpathwaywithcon-centrationandemotioncontrolproblems.
Specically,thisinterventionfocusedonwaystodirectandmaintainattention,modulateemotionalarousalorevaluationanxiety,andcopewithdifculty.
Studentswere,forexample,taughttoreplacephysiologicalexperiencesofanxietyanddis-tortedperceptionswithtargetedquestionsthathelpthempreparetolearn.
Meichenbaum'sresearchdemonstratedthatstudentscanbeeffectivelytaughttoreplacemaladaptivethoughtssuchas"Ican'tdothisproblem"withproductiveself-questioning,suchas"InwhatdifferentwayscanIdothis"Stressinoculationbasedoncognitive-behavioralprocedurescanbecostlyifseveraltrainingsessionsarenecessarytoestablishapatternofself-monitoringinstudents.
Inaddition,behaviorreportingcanbetime-consumingandcumbersomewhenusedinregularclassrooms.
Theextrinsic214BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
rewardoptionintheseprogramsremainscontroversial,andsometeachersareuncomfortableofferingthem.
Furthermore,themultipleproceduresinvolvedintheseinterventionsmakeitdifcultforresearcherstoestablishwhichcomponentsofagivenmulti-facetedinterventionarenecessaryforsuccess;itcouldbetheentirecombinationoronlyoneprocedurethatiscausative.
MentalSimulations.
Toovercomesomeoftheseproblems,researchersdesignedprogramsthattrainedstudentstousespecicstrategiesandsub-sequentlyapplytheminsimulatedsituations.
TaylorandSchneider(1989)zeroedinonasimplecognitiveexercisetheyhopedwouldaccomplishsev-eralcopingobjectivesatonce.
Intheir"processsimulation"interventiontechnique,theteachergetsstudentswhohavetroublefocusingtoimagineascenarioinwhichtheysuccessfullyaccomplishagoaljustbeforeactuallytacklingatask(e.
g.
tostudyforanexamandgetagoodgrade;tocompletehomework,etc.
).
Students"run"acompletesimulationofthemselvesaccomplishingthetask—beingclearintheirownmindaboutwhere,when,andwhattheyaredoing—ataregulartimeofdayduringeachof5–7dayspriortobeginningworktowardthegoal.
Thementalsimulationinvolvesplanningandsettingexpectationsatthesametimethatitencouragesself-awarenessaboutoutcomes,thushelpingstudentstoalterdysfunctionalbeliefsthatmaybedistortingexperiences.
Experimentswithcollegestudentsshowtheuseofprocesssimulationstobeaneffectivewaytocontrolfocusontheworktobedone.
Inaddition,studentswillextendtheproceduretonewsituationsontheirown(seeTaylor&Pham,1996).
ManipulatingStudents'MotivationinTasks.
Agrowingnumberofeduca-tionalpsychologistsstudiedwaystoinuenceaspectsofmotivationinyoungerstudents(suchasgoal-setting,efcacybeliefs,attributions)inschoolsubject-mattertasks.
Withfewexceptions,motivationprocessinter-ventionsaskstudentstoworkindividuallyorinsmallgroupswitharemedialteacherorschoolcounselorontasksdesignedtomanipulatethetargetpro-cess.
SomeresearcherstargetprocessesinthreephasesofSR—preparation,duringtasks,andfollowingtaskcompletion(self-evaluation).
PerhapsmostnotablearetheseriesofexperimentsbySchunkandcol-leagues(seeSchunk&Ertmer,2000,forareview),workbyZimmerman(e.
g.
Zimmerman&Ringle,1981),andtheattributionretrainingproceduresofDweck(1991).
Forexample,Schunkaskedstudentsassignedatrandomtocompleteasetofmathproblemsunderdifferentconditions—onegroupworkedunderinstructionstosetspecicandproximalsub-goals(tocom-pleteanumberofitemswithinatimelimit);anothergroupsetrathergen-eralgoals(tocompletetheentireproblemset).
Insomestudies,theexperimentalgroupalsocheckedanswersastheyworked,andusedgivenSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM215InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
informationthatsuccessesareduetoeffortandtakingtherightapproach;controlstudentsweretoldtheirsuccessdependsonabilityorchance.
Manystudieshaveamodelingcomponent—apeerorteachermodelsthestrategiestouse.
Resultsshowthatefcacyandperformanceontasksarefavorablyinuencedwhenstudentssetspecicgoals,effectivelyusefeedback,andmakeappropriatestrategyattributions(seePintrich,2003).
Researchersthenrecommendthatteachersshouldattendtogoal-setting,feedbackuse,andattributionalresponsesaspartoftheirregularclassroominstruction,andsomeinvestigatorshavedevelopedclassroomprogramsforthispurpose(Schunk&Zimmerman,1998).
Unfortunately,whenresearchersmakesuggestionstoteachersaboutwaystochangetheirinstruction,theyinvitearangeofpossibleresponsesthatdonotnecessarilyensurethatteachersattendtodiversestudentneedsinacontext-sensitiveway.
Inaddition,theoreticalmodelsincreasinglysug-gestthatmotivationmustbeaddressedattheclassroom(ratherthantheindividualstudent)level.
Thisshiftintheorisinghasledtoanothertypeofinterventionaimedatthewell-beingpathwayofSR.
Theinterventioncanbeseenasprovidingameansforteacherstoactivelysuppressorreorientmaladaptivebehaviorandmotivationpatternsforanentireclass,ratherthanaddressingtheneedsofstudentsonanindividualbasisinpull-outsessions.
Theultimateobjective,however,isthesame—toencourageindi-vidualstudentstowardproductiveself-management.
ModifyingtheClassroomEnvironment.
Ames(1992)describedinconsist-enciesbetweenSRtheory'semphasisonactivestudentengagement,i.
e.
goal-setting,self-monitoring,andself-evaluation,andtheperformanceevaluationsystemsextantintraditionalclassrooms.
Whenstudentsworktoobtaingoodgradesandotherexternalrewards,complianceratherthanindependenceisboththemessagegivenandtheresult(McCaslin&Good,1992).
Accordinglyaprogramtargetingtheclassroomenvironmentforchangeaimstoremakethewhole"system"bywhichstudentsareevaluatedandindoingso,givesnewmeaningtotheterm"classroommanagement".
OneexampleistheTARGETprogramthatAmes(1990)adaptedforclassroomuse.
Theacronym,TARGET,referstosixaspectsofclassroomstructurethatteacherscanmodifytopromotemotivationtolearninstudents(themasterypath)ratherthanmotivationtohideweaknessesoroutperformothers(thewell-beingpath)—namely,Typesoftasks,linesofAuthority,meansofRecognition,Groupingmethods,Evaluationpractices,anduseofTime.
Ames'(1990)recommendedchangestoeachaspectarederivedfromavarietyofstudiesandfromgoaltheory.
Theinterventionisconsistentwithtop-downSRinthatitencouragesstudentstosettheirownlearninggoalsandthenworktowardmastery,ratherthanfocusingto216BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
completetasksprescribedbyothers(volition-drivenSR),orbeingoverlyfocusedonsafetyandsecurity(bottom-upSR).
Justaswithanyframeworkthatallowsteacherslatitudeinimplementa-tion,thereareanumberofwaysteacherscanmakechangesreectingtheTARGETsystem,andsoithasbeendifculttoevaluatethefullprogramsystematically.
Nevertheless,Ames(1992)reportedthatteacherswhomovetheirclassroomsintheTARGETdirectionhaveincreasingnumbersofstu-dentswhoshowevidenceofmotivationtolearn(seealsoPatricketal.
,2001).
InterventionslikeTARGETgetclosertotheultimategoalofdevel-opingallstudents'SRcapabilities,butstilldonotgofarenough.
Theneedremainstoclarifyinuencesonthecognitivelearning/masterytrackofSRmodels,andthatisthedirectionofthesecondbroadclassofinterventionsinourtypology.
DirectInstructioninLearningandMetacognitiveSkillsandStrategiesThisclassofinterventionsfocusesoncognitiveandmetacognitiveaspectsofSRLthatareparticularlycriticalforstudentswithlearningdifculties,andonthelearning-to-learnandstudyskillsofstudentsinregularclassrooms.
TheunderlyingpremisederivesfromthepreviouslydescribedresearchlinkingcognitivecomponentsofSRtoachievementoutcomes.
AcademicStrategyInstruction.
Earlystrategyinstructionprogramstargetedstudentsneedingacademicremediation,anddeliveredlessonsasmini-coursesofferedbyresearchersorspecialinstructors.
Forexample,Weinstein(seee.
g.
Weinstein&Mayer,1986)developedageneralstudyandlearningskillsprogramforcollegestudentsandaLearningandStudyStrat-egiesInventorytoprovidethemwithfeedbackbeforeandafterthecourse.
Otherself-reportscalessuchastheMSLQdescribedpreviouslyhavealsobeenusedtodiagnoseimprovedunderstandingofstrategiestaughtinsuchprograms.
PathanalysesconductedbyresearchersondatafromstudiesofseparatecoursessuchasWeinstein'saswellasfromcoursesmodiedtoincludestrategyinstructioninsubjectareassuchasscienceorhumanitiesconrmedtheinuenceofimprovedstrategyuseonsubsequentachieve-mentsuchascoursegrades.
Followingthemovetodevelopcurriculumstandardsforsubjectstaughtinkindergartenthroughsecondaryschool,researchersalsomodiedtextbooksandothercurricularmaterials.
Theymovedbeyonddecontextualisedstrat-egyinstructiontoemphasiseuseofstrategiesincontext,transferofusetonewcontexts,andmetacognitivereection.
Forexample,Pressleyandhiscolleagues(Pressley,Woloshyn,Lysynchuk,Martin,Wood,&Willougyby,SELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM217InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
1990)developedthe"goodstrategyusermodel"andtrainedclassroomteacherstouseit.
Teachersreceivetraininginhowtoinstructstudentsinmemorysupportstrategies,waystomonitortheirreadingcomprehensionintextlearning,andinhowtoevaluatewhattheyhavelearned.
Manysuchstrat-egiesarenowintegraltoteachereducationinsubjectsrangingfromliteracytomathematics.
Evaluationsofresearchontheteachingofmetacognitiveskillsandstrategiesshowthatgoodstrategyusersreadmoreuentlyandwithbettercomprehensionthanstudentsreceivingmoretraditionalliteracyinstruction,andtherehavebeensimilarresultswithproblemsolvinginmath-ematics(seee.
g.
Pressley,1986).
Followinginnovationsinmodelsofinstructionaldesign,otherresearchersembeddedworkedexamplesofSRstrategiesinsubject-mattertextbooksandhomeworkassignments.
Totheextentthatstrategyinstructionhasbecomearegularpartofmanyschool-adoptedtextbooksseries,theseareimportantsuccessesforSRinterventionresearch.
However,followingatraditionalparadigmofinstructionaldesignraisesotherissuesbecauseittendstofocusonindividualstudentsratherthanthelargersocioculturalcontextinwhichstudentsworkandtoover-engineertheinstruction,sometimestothepointofscriptingteachers(seeReigeluth,1999).
ThisobservationbringsustothethirdbroadcategoryofSRinterventionineducation.
SecondGenerationClassroomInterventionsbasedonPrinciplesofSocioculturalismThroughthe1990s,assubject-matterresearchineducationincreasedunder-standingofthedisciplinarypracticesunderlyingdomainexpertise,itbecameclearthatexpertiseinsubjectareasisenhancedbyskillfulSR.
Accordingly,therehavebeendevelopmentsthatincludeSRinstructioninthedesignofsubject-specicinterventionsfocusedonoutcomessuchasreadingcompre-hension,composition,problemsolvinginmathematics,andinquiryinscience(Alexander,1997).
Theseinterventionsarebaseduponexplicitassessmentofrelationshipsbetweentheprocessesneededtodomeaningfulworklead-ingtoexpertiseineachsubjectareaandcorrespondingcomponentsofSR.
Increasingly,researchersalsohavelearnedhowimportantitistoworkcloselywithclassroomteacherstodevelopinstructionalprogramsforuseasaregularpartofactivitiescommonlyfoundinelementarythroughsecond-aryclassroomcurricula.
Classroomteacherscanmakethebestofaninterventionorcompromiseit.
Theiron-jobexpertiseisatadifferentlevelthanwhatcomestothemineducationcourses,andthroughittheylearntoinnovate(Randi&Corno,1997).
Researchersconcernedwithtreatmentdelityrarelywelcometeacherinnovation.
Andyet,paradoxically,"pedagogicalknowledgeofsubjectmat-ter",i.
e.
knowledgeofhowtoteachcomplexideastoparticularstudents,is218BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
nowrecognisedascriticallyimportanttoeffectiveeducationinterventions.
Everyteachingactissituatedinaparticularcontext,affectingtosomeextentwhatistaught.
Eachoftheserealisationsisconsistentwiththepremisesofmodernsocioculturism,atheoreticframeworkthatexplainsthedynamicsthroughwhichhumancultureshapeshumandevelopment(Vygotsky,1978).
Recently,therehasbeenaninfusionintoSRLinterventionsofsocioculturalobjectivesandfeatures,including,forexample,theappropriationbystudentsofdomainknowledgeandSRskillsthroughcognitiveapprenticeshipsinclassroomactivities,useofnewtechnologicaltoolsformediatedlearning,andlearner-to-learnercollaborationwithincommunities.
Inshort,liketheassessmentpro-cedureswedescribedpreviously,themostrecentinterventionsappearquitedifferentfromthoseimplementedjusttwodecadesbefore.
ApprenticeshipsinActivitiesthatDevelopSubject-matterExpertise.
AccordingtoCollins,Brown,andNewman(1989),subject-matterexpertisecomesaboutnaturallywhenteachersapprenticestudentstotheinterwork-ingsofadiscipline.
Whenstudentslearnfromteachershowtothinkaboutacademicwork,toreasonthroughproblems,toquestionassertionsandpresentarguments,andtousecognitiveactivitiessuchasstudytactics,theybegintothinkmorelikeexpertsthannovices.
Asteachersmodelandexplaintheirthinkinginthevarietyoftasksandactivitiestheyexpectstu-dentstoperform,theprocessofdoingtheintellectualworkisdemystiedandstudentscaneventuallytakeover.
PalincsarandBrown(1984)developedacognitiveapprenticeshippro-cedurecalled"reciprocalteaching"toimprovethereadingcomprehensionofregularclassroomstudents.
Inreciprocalteaching,studentsobservetheirteacherwhothinksoutloudwhilereadingtext,andthenasksstudentstodothesame.
Asshereads,theteachermodelscomprehensionmonitoringandmemorysupportstrategiessuchassummarising,rereading,markingimportantpoints,andasking"Wh"questions(asateacherwould).
Studentstakeovertheprocessinthesamewayandalsocritiqueoneanother'sques-tions.
Thispioneeringmodelofapprenticeshiphasbeenincorporatedintoothersuccessfulprogramsindifferentsubjectareas,includingwritingandcomposition(Bereiter&Scardamalia,1982;Harris&Graham,1996),andscienceandmathematics(Blumenfeld,Soloway,Marx,Krajcik,Guzdial,&Palincsar,1991;White&Frederiksen,1998).
Theseprogramsofferstrategyapprenticeworkbetweenpeersaswellasbetweenteachersandstudentsasacentralaspectofsubject-matterlessonsandrelatedactivities.
Againresultsshowpositiveeffectsonstrategyacquisitionandothertargetedcognitions,oftentimesleadingtoimprovedachievementoutcomes.
Unliketheearliestacademicstrategyinstructionprograms,peerappren-ticeshipsdepartfromthetraditionalclassroomarrangementinwhichtheSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM219InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
teacherretainsinstructionalauthority,transmittingcognitiveandmetacog-nitiveknowledgeandskillsalongwithsubject-matterlessons.
Nowadaysaswell,increasingnumbersofclassroomteachersrelyontechnologicalinnova-tionstoassistinefcientlyinculcatinglearningandproblemsolvingskillsinthecontextofknowledge-based,dynamicinstructionalenvironments.
Ifstudentsaretobetruly"self"-regulated,theninstructionshouldbuilduponallavailableresourcesintheinstructionalenvironment,includingpeersandtools,toactivateSRLefforts,mediatingratherthanshort-circuitingorsup-plantingstudents'ownlearning(Salomon,1983).
Teamsofresearchersaredesigninginnovativeapplicationsoftechnologytoolsforwidespreadadoptioninregularclassrooms,capitalisingondevelopmentsincomputerlearningenvironmentssuchashypertextandtheInternet.
Inaddition,researchersnowtargetthelargersystemsorcontextsinwhichSRcapabilitycanbelearned(e.
g.
teachers'SR,homework,andvirtualschoolordistance-basedreforms),ratherthanjusttheclassroomlearningofindividualstudents.
ComputerMediatedLearningEnvironments.
Computersarearguablythecontemporaryvehicleformediatedlearning,offeringnewopportunitiesforassessmentsembeddedininstructionalactivitiesandevents.
OriginallydenedbyFeuerstein(1979)inreferencetostudentandtutortransactions,mediatedlearningnowreferstoadaptiveinstructionthatcanbeprovidedbyintelligentcomputersoftware.
Thesoftwaresupportslearningthroughhintsandfeedback,opportunitiesforreection,andlinkstoothersourcesofinformation.
Asmoreteachersuseinteractivecomputerprogramsforclassroomapplications,researchersareexaminingstudentresponsesandstrategies,patternsofuse,andeffectsonrelatedoutcomes.
Theyarealsostudyinghowstudentresponsemodelsandpatternsofhelpseekingmaybeusedtotailorfeedbackandcontinuedinstructionaswellasfurtherprogramdevelopment(seeAleven,Stahl,Schworm,Fischer,&Wallace,2003).
Anarrayofinteractivesoftwareprogramsarebeingtestedandmanyalreadydemonstratepromisingresults;themuch-toutedpossibilitiesfortechnologyineducationmayactuallyberealised(e.
g.
ourpreviousreferencetoRheinbergetal.
'sBiologyLab).
Acentralinstructionalprincipleofthemostsophisticatedcomputermediatedenvironmentsisthenotionof"scaf-folding"forstudentSR(Bruner,1975).
Thatis,theprogramsaredesignedtoprovidesufcienthelpandsupportforbeginnerstoensuregainsoninitialassignmentsandactivitiesalongwiththebellsandwhistlesthatinnovativeprogramsprovide.
Earlysuccessesbuildexpectationsforfurthersuccess.
Oncestudentsstarttodemonstratecriterionlevelsofresponse,theprogramthenremovespiecesofscaffoldlittlebylittle,ultimatelypushingstudentsto"solo".
StudentsactuallydevelopandrenetheirownSRroutinesinthecontextofwhateverknowledgeenvironmenttheyexperience.
220BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
ExamplesofinteractivesoftwareprogramswithembeddedinstructioninSRincludethevideodisc-basedmathematicsproblemsolvingseriesfeatur-ing"anchored"instructioncalledJasper(CognitionandTechnologyGroupatVanderbilt,1992);programsforself-regulatedstudyingthatcanbecus-tomisedfordifferentsubjectareas(Hadwin&Winne,1998;Winne,Hadwin,Beaudoin,&Murphy,2003);knowledgeintegrationenvironmentsthatinclude"computerpartners"(Linn,1995);andthescientic"explanationcon-structor"(Sandoval,2003).
AmongtheseexampleprogramsonlytheJasperserieshasgonebeyondearlystagesofR&D.
EvaluationsofJaspershoweffectsonproblemsolvingscoresintheexpecteddirectionswhenteachersusetheprogramconsistentwithdevelopers'recommendations(Hickey,Moore,&Pellegrino,2003).
Interactiveprogramssupplementtheteacher'srepertoireforbuildingSRLcapacityinstudentswhiletheyacquiredomainknowledge,providingawayforteacherstoleveragetimeandexpertisewithareliableandengaginginstructionalproduct.
However,becausenotallteachershaveaccesstosuchprograms,teacherexpertisecanalsobeleveragedthroughnewvarietiesofgrouplearning.
CollaborativeLearninginClassrooms.
Beginninginthelate1970s,researchbyWebb(1980)ongroupprocessesinclassroomsandtheireffectsbegantoputsubstanceinwhathadbeenanevidentialvacuum.
Webb(1991)discovered,forexample,thatstudentstendedtohelponeanotherwhentheyworkedtogetheronsmallgroupactivities;intellectuallyablestudentsdeepenedtheirlearningbyexplainingconceptstopeersinneedofsupport,redeningwhatismeantbySRL.
Lowerachievingstudentsbenetedfromthe(typicallyeffective)explanationsprovidedbyablepeers,aswellasfromstudentswhomodeledgoodworkhabits.
Earlyndingssuchasthesehavebeenenhancedbyanextgenerationoftheory-drivenresearchoncooperativelearning,andmanyclassroominterventionsnowexistforlearningthatiscollaborative(seeWebb&Palincsar,1996,forareview).
Thegeneralunderstandingisthatcollaborativelearningsupportsself-regulationbecausepeersmodelanddiscusstheirownlearningandmotivationstrategies,whicharethen"distributed"acrossthegroupforindividualstopickupandmodifytosuittheirownneeds.
BrownandCampione(1994)carriedoutanumberofclassroominterven-tionsinecologicalscienceusingaformofcooperativelearninginwhicheachstudentcompletesaportionofagroupprojectdoingresearchwhichthegroupdiscussescollectivelyandpresentsasateam.
Theseresearchersusedcollaborative"Jigsaw"groupsasakeypartofanoverallapproachtohavingstudentslearnafew"bigideas"aboutthesubjectdeeply,enhancingunderstandingofconnectionstorelatedsubjects.
Theconceptofameaning-based"classroomlearningcommunity"developedbyBrownandCampioneSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM221InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
hasbeenadaptedforuseinothercontentdomains.
Researchersnowreferto"powerfullearningenvironments",whichfrequentlyincludecomputermediatedprogramsasenhancementsaswellasdiscussion-basedapproachestoelicitingstudentlearning(seeDeCorte,2004,fordiscussionofseveralexamplesofpowerfullearningenvironments).
CurrentDevelopments:LearningCommunitiesinSchoolsandBeyondWewouldberemissnottomentionsomeinnovativeeffortsattheforefrontofthecurrenteducationhorizonthatmovebeyondthescopeandcategoriesdenedforclassroomresearch.
Thesearecomprehensiveinterventionsaimedatreformingentireschoolsandsometimesthesystemsinwhichtheyareembedded.
Takingtoheartnotionsofsocialconstructivism—suchasthatmeaningcomesaboutfromsocialinterchange—theseinterventionsseektoestablishawiderlearningcommunitybeyondindividualclassroomsinwhichteachersaswellasstudentsarelearners.
Thereisanassumptionofcontinuingcyclesforstudyandpracticebolsteredbynecessaryresourcesandsupportatthehighestlevelsoftheschoolsystem.
EffortsbyindividualteacherstoengenderSRinstudentswillhavegreatercumulativeeffects,presumably,iftheyaresupportedbythelargerschoolcontext.
Wediscussexamplesoftheseinnovationstomakesomenalsummarypointsaboutthecurrentstatusofinterventionresearch.
EstablishingandEvaluatingSchool-wideInterventions.
Oneschool-wideSRreformistheInteractiveLearningGroupSystem(ILGS)innovationprogramintheNetherlands(Boekaerts,1997;Boekaerts&Minnaert,2003).
Theproject,targetingvocationalsecondaryschools,hasbeenevaluatedatseveralsystemlevelsforeffectsonbothteachersandstudentsintheshortandlongterms(seeBoekaerts&Minnaert,2003).
TheILGSfollowsfrominstructionalprinciplesforthedesignofpowerfullearningenvironmentstopromoteSRL(Design-BasedResearchCollective,2003).
Inonestudy,teachersweretrainedtodecreaseknowledgetransmissiontoaquarterofalessonunit;todevelopassignmentsforsmallgroupsformedonthebasisofstudentlearningstyles;tohelpstudentsactivaterelevantpriorknowledge;andtoincreasetheircoachingofskills.
Althoughthereweremanysuccessesinthisproject,evaluationsreinforcedthepoliticalnatureofacomprehen-siveschool-wideinnovation,raisingseveralimplementationissuesandcon-cerns,someofwhichwehavealreadynoted.
Forexample,onendingfromthisstudythatcommonlyoccursinschool-basedinterventionresearchisthatteachersinthenon-interventiongroupswereinuencedbythenewideasbeingtaughttointerventionteachers;theintervention'sappealledthemtoadoptsomeoftheprinciplestargetedbythenewinstructional222BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
model.
Thissortofconfoundingcompromisestheinternalvalidityofthetreatment,butrecommendationstokeepcontrolgroupteachersblindtotreatmentdistinctionsareimpractical.
Thatthisisaseeminglyintractableproblemineducationalresearchisanimportanttestimonytothecredibilityofsocioculturalassumptions(seeCook,2002).
Oneinsightfromthisprojectisthattheinnovationgaveeducatorsagoodgraspoftheprocessesthatunderliestudents'choiceofprocessingmodesandregulationstrategies.
Byprovidingthisdeeperunderstandingtoteachers,theprogramequippedthemtoobservethechangingpsychologicalneedsofstudentsandusethemtoadaptinstructionalstrategies.
Thisndingsug-gestsnewwaysofinvestigatingtheroleofstudentindividualdifferencesduringadaptiveinstruction(StanfordAptitudeSeminar,2002).
Wesaidpreviouslythatteacherinnovationisanimportantsteptowardsincreasedexternalvalidityinthedeliveryoftreatments.
However,tosecureinternalvalidityforsuccessfulevaluation,researchershavetoconvinceedu-catorstonavigatethroughthecyclicalinnovationprocess,decidingwhentomakechangesandwhentostabilisetheinnovativeinstructionsothatitmaybeevaluatedempirically.
BoekaertsandMinnaertsuggestthereisadiffer-encebetweenschoolimprovementeffortsdesignedtohelpschoolpersonnelimplementtheirownreformstrategies,andresearch-basedinterventionsseekingtoassessthevalidityofatreatment(seePintrich,2003,forasimilarposition).
Itmaybethatthelatterarebestconductedinlaboratoryschoolswheretheinnovativeprogramscanbetestedunderoptimalconditions.
TeachersasPartnersinResearch.
Anotherschool-widereformefforttowhichwehavereferredisPerry'sprograminCanada.
Perryandhercol-leaguesuseddescriptiveresearchonteachingwritingtoyoungstudentstodevelopnewassessmentsofSRL.
TheirearlystudiesaddsupporttotheTARGETframeworkdescribedpreviously;classroomtasks,authoritystructures,andevaluationpracticesshapeyoungchildren'sapproachestolearningandthoseapproachesvaryinacademiceffectiveness.
Inrecentwork,Perryandcolleaguesaddressedthepossibilitiesthatcomeforthwhenteachersworkwithresearcherstodesigntasksandinteractwithstudentsinwaysthatpromoteindependent,academicallyeffectiveSRL.
Perry,Phillips,andDowler(2004)demonstratedhowteacherswhoaremastersatcreatinghigh-SRLenvironmentscanmentornewteachers.
Thisincludes,forexample,co-designingtasksandpracticesthatfosterelement-aryschoolstudents'SRLinalearningcommunityusingproceduressuchas"data-directeddialogue"(Strahan,2003,p.
127),whereteachersconverseaboutstudentresponsestovariousassessments.
SocioculturaltheorysupportstheobservationthatteachersthemselvesneedarmintellectualunderstandingoftheSRconstructtoencourageSRSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM223InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
instudents.
Accordingly,Randi(2004)gavepreserviceteachersopportun-itiestodevelopSRinpartnershipwithresearcherswhohelpthemmovetothe"othersideofthedesk".
Randi'sinterventiondistinguishedstudentworkstylesandstudyhabitsfromvolitionalstrategiesteachersengagetolearnfromtheirteaching.
Herworkillustratesthevalueofpreserviceteachers'ownvolitionalstrategyusefortheirpurposes,reifyingvolitionalconstructsastheyareembodiedinteachingpractice.
TeacherpreparationprogramsmightprotablystructurelearningenvironmentsaffordingteachersopportunitiestolearnSRandthenapplythestrategiestotheirownteach-ing.
Presumably,oncearmgraspofSRisinhand,teachersexitingtheirpreservicecourseswillbemoreinclinedtoaddresstheconstructintheirownclassrooms,thuslaunchingtheknowledgebasebeyondtheuniversity.
DISCUSSIONIntherstpartofthisarticle,wedenedSRanddescribeditstwoparalleltracksinclassroomlearning.
WeconsideredhowstudentswhoarefacedwithchronicstressorssuchaslearningandemotionaldisabilitiesuseSRprocessesprimarilyformaintainingandrestoringwell-being.
Wesaidthateffectivecopingandself-managementcanbebroughtaboutthroughsoundinterventionfocusedonvolitionalstrategyusebystudentswhoneedhelp,andthiscanmakeanimportantdifferenceintheirstrugglestoadjusttoschool.
Self-regulatedlearning,incontrast,developsthroughpurposiveengagementwiththefundamentalconceptsandstructureofsubjectmatterasstudentswrestlewithcomplexandchallengingtasksalongthemasterypathway.
Weprovidedahistoricaltouroftheassessmentproceduresusedinedu-cationalpsychologytomeasurevariousaspectsofSR.
WedemonstratedhowshiftingdenitionsofSRLhaveledtochangingmeasurementpro-cedures;researchersmovedawayfromdecontextualisedmeasuresofSRLtodomain-specicmeasuresandthenontocontext-sensitivemeasures.
Alsoweillustratedhowresearchershavemadeuseofdifferenttypesofassess-menttoolsthat,together,reectourpresentunderstandingofwhatSRLisandwhichfactorsaffectitfavorablyandunfavorably.
ThevalidityandreliabilityoftherstgenerationofSRassessmenthasbeenlimitedandseveralissuesremain.
Oneissueisthatmuchresearchregistersonlythepresence,absence,andfrequencyofspeciccomponentsoftheSRprocess.
Althoughtherehasbeensufcientresearchtoaddresssystematicerrors,andtheinstrumentsusedareeasytoadminister,inself-reportquestionnairessuchastheMSLQ,socialdesirabilityandresponsebiasaredifculttoeliminate.
Validityremainsanissuewithallformsofself-reportbecausestudentrecallcanbeinaccurate;systematicerrormayresultwhenstudentsconsistentlyunder-oroverestimatetheirstrategyuse.
224BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
Anotherconcernisthatbecauseearlyself-reportinstrumentswerecon-structedonthebasisofdatafromsuccessfulstudents,theresultingscalesarenotalwaysvalidforlesssuccessfulstudents.
Infact,datacollectedwithsomeoftheseinstrumentshasledpractitionerstomisinterpretlowscoresonsubscalesasindicatinga"lackofSR".
Ourdiscussionaddressedasecondessentialpurposeofassessment:toestablisheffectsofinterventionprograms.
Nomatterwhatinstrumentsareselectedfromtheavailablearray,investigatorsoftenrealisethatacombina-tionofproceduresisneededtomeasureSRLinanygivenlearningcontext.
Forthisreason,researchershavedesignedassessmentpackagesincludingnewinstrumentsthatbettercapturethespecicoutcomesofanintervention(includingforexampletracesofmentalevents,situationalmanipulations,andrecordsofstudentworkstrategies).
Intheory,groupingsofappropriateassessmenttoolscancapturetrueorsystematicvariation(andchange)withgreaterbreadthandprecisionthancananyoneinstrument.
Adisadvantageofnewinstrumentsisthatmoreresearchisneededtodetermineassociatedsystematicerror.
Thepresentstateofartclearlydictates,however,thatacombinationofinstrumentsispreferableoverasingleinstrumentforassess-ingtheeffectsofgiveninterventions.
Ifresearchersexaminestudents'self-regulatorycapabilityfromdifferentvantagepointsusingdifferentmethodsofassessment(triangulation),andtheresultsappearsimilar,thentheycanbereasonablycertainthatmajoraspectsofreliabilityandvalidityhavebeenachieved.
IntheinterventionsectionofthisarticlewedescribedatypologyofSRinterventionsthatspansrecentdecades.
Wediscussedearlyattemptstoimprovestudents'SRskillsthattookeitheroftwoforms:encouragingindi-vidualstudentstowardproductiveself-managementordirectlyteachingthe(meta)cognitiveskillsandlearningstrategiesthatsuccessfulstudentsalreadyused.
Secondgenerationclassroominterventionswentbeyondtraditionalclassroomarrangementstotargetstudents'learningstrategiesandmeta-cognitiveskillsaswellastheimportanceofadoptingthebroadergoalofbecomingaresponsibleandindependentlearner.
Aconceptualmodeloftheself-regulatoryskillsandvolitionalstrategiesthatstudentsshouldbeabletouseinvariouscontentdomainsguidedthesenextgenerationinnovations.
WereferencedmanyofthesoundSRLinterventionsextant,andreviewedsomegenerallessonslearnedaboutclassroominterventionresearch.
ThemostpersistentissuesthatplagueeducationalinterventionresearchingeneralandSRinterventionsinparticularrevolvearoundtherelativelygreaterattentionresearchershavepaidhistoricallytointernalversusexternalvalidity(Cook,2002;Cronbach&Snow,1981).
Educationalresearcherswanttodrawrmconclusionsabouteffectsoftheirinterventionsontargetedclassroomsandonindividualstudents'developingcapabilitiestoself-regulate.
Atthesametime,theywanttobeabletoapplytheirndingstoSELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM225InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
differentsettingswithsimilarresults.
Iffacedwithachoicebetweenexternalandinternalvalidity,manyeducationalpsychologistsengagedinschoolimprovementgiveprioritytoexternalvalidity.
Theyreasonthateducationalresearchshouldbeclassroom-basedandclassroom-targeted,contendingthatthecostsofbeingwrongaboutthecausalinferencesarenotveryhighsinceclassroom-basedinvestigationscanbecross-fertilisedbyresearchinlaboratorysettings.
DirectionsforFutureResearchonSelf-RegulationintheClassroomToaddresssomeoftheshortcomingsofpastandpresentresearchoutlinedabove,weconcludethisarticlewithashortlistofsixguidelinesforfutureresearchonSRassessmentandeducationalintervention.
First,ourreviewsuggeststhatSRresearchineducationshouldbeguidedbyaclearconcep-tualmodelthatdescribestherolesandfunctionsoftop-downandbottom-upSRintheclassroomacquisitionofsubject-matterknowledgeandskills.
Thebasictenetsofthisconceptualmodelshouldbespeciedintermsofseveralpropositions(directandindirectrelations,moderatorsandmedi-ators,aswellasboundaryconditions).
Second,specicityandreciprocityinrelationsamongdifferenttypesoflearningenvironmentsinandoutsideclassrooms,particularmoderatorsandmediators,andassociatedoutcomesshouldbeformulatedandtested.
Third,asmoreassessmenttoolsprovideembeddedinstructioninSRstrategies,outcomemeasuresshouldextendbeyondstandardisedindicatorsofacademicachievementtoexamineimprove-mentonotherindicatorssuchasworksamplesandattainments(academicaccomplishmentssuchasawardsinmathclubsorscienceawards)overtime.
ThetargetshouldbeassessinghowstudentsgenerateSRstrategiesatthepointofuse,andadaptthemexiblyinpursuitoftheirgoalsandinresponsetoenvironmentalcuesthatmightleadtochangesingoals.
ResearchonSRinclassroomsneedstodisentangletheSRprocessesthatstudentsusetomanagelearningsituationsthatareintellectuallycom-plexandchallengingfromtheSRprocessesthatstudentsusetodealwithenvironmentalcuesthattriggeremotionsandashiftingoals.
Weneedtocataloguethevariousstrategiesthatstudentsusetodealwithbiological,environmental,developmental,andindividualdifferenceconstraintsandexaminesystematicallyhowbottom-upSRinteractswiththetop-downSRandvolitionalstrategiesthathavebeenmorecommonobjectsofclassroomstudies.
Fourth,researchersshouldbemorewillingtodiscusstheirconceptualmodels,assessmenttools,andresearchdesignsamongthemselves,collaboratingonhowbesttodevelopaptitudesforacademicwork.
Theyshouldcontinuetodisputethenatureoftheevidencesupportingtheeffectivenessofoldand226BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
newcomprehensiveinterventionortreatmentpackages.
Severalresearchersarguedthatthereisaneedtounpackindividualcomponentsofthesepack-agestoestablishtheirconnectionstocorrespondingcomponentsofSRandmoredistaloutcomes.
Fifth,researchersshouldattendcloselytohowSRinterventionsareexperi-encedbyteachersaswellasstudents,andworkwithteacherstoalterthoseaspectsoftheirteachingwithwhichtheyfeelcomfortable—perhapsinlieuofrevolutionaryandcross-cuttingchange.
PerhapsthentherealworldoftheclassroomwillprovideamoreconvivialhomeforSRinterventions.
Ournalsuggestionisthatresearchersalsoexaminethesocio-politicaldimen-sionsoftheconstruct;thatistosay,theyshouldstudyitssemioticsandwhatitmeanstoestablishagoalforallstudentstobecomeself-regulatedlearners(seeMcCaslin&Good,1996,forabeginning).
Ouranalysissuggeststhatatitsbest,classroomeducationcanleadstu-dentstowardtheadaptiveuseoftop-downandbottom-upSRinconjunc-tionwithvolitionalstrategiesbecauseteachersandothersintheextendedsocialmilieuprovidemodels,serveascoaches,andestablishenvironmentsconducivetoSR.
However,therewillremainconstraintsinclassroomandrelatedenvironmentsthatinterferewithstudenteffortsatSR.
Theseincludeconictinggoals,unproductiveworkhabitsandstyles,andinappropriateteachingmethods,allfactorsthatwillcontinuetocompromisethegoalofincreasingSRcapabilitiesforlargenumbersofstudents,nomatterhowcare-fullydesignedtheresearch.
REFERENCESAleven,V.
,Stahl,E.
,Schworm,S.
,Fischer,F.
,&Wallace,R.
(2003).
Helpseekingandhelpdesignininteractivelearningenvironments.
ReviewofEducationalResearch,73,277–320.
Alexander,P.
A.
(1997).
Mappingthemultidimensionalnatureofdomainlearning:Theinterplayofcognitive,motivational,andstrategicforces.
AdvancesinMotiva-tionandAchievement,10,213–250.
Ames,C.
(1990).
Motivation:Whatteachersneedtoknow.
TeachersCollegeRecord,91,409–421.
Ames,C.
(1992).
Classrooms:Goals,structures,andstudentmotivation.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,84,261–271.
Bereiter,C.
,&Scardamalia,M.
(1982).
Fromconversationtocomposition:Theroleofinstructioninadevelopmentalprocess.
InR.
Glaser(Ed.
),Advancesininstruc-tionalpsychology(Vol.
2,pp.
1–64).
Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Blumenfeld,P.
C.
,Soloway,E.
,Marx,R.
W.
,Krajcik,J.
S.
,Guzdial,M.
,&Palincsar,A.
(1991).
Motivatingproject-basedlearning:Sustainingthedoing,supportingthelearning.
EducationalPsychologist,26,369–398.
Boekaerts,M.
(1997).
Self-regulatedlearning:Anewconceptembracedbyresearchers,policymakers,educators,teachers,andstudents.
LearningandInstruction,7(2),11–186.
SELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM227InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
Boekaerts,M.
(1999a).
Motivatedlearning:Thestudyofstudent*situationaltrans-actionalunits.
EuropeanJournalofPsychologyofEducation,14(4),41–55.
Boekaerts,M.
(1999b).
Copingincontext:Goalfrustrationandgoalambivalenceinrelationtoacademicandinterpersonalgoals.
InE.
Frydenberg(Ed.
),Learningtocope:Developingasapersonincomplexsocieties(pp.
15–197).
Oxford:OxforduniversityPress.
Boekaerts,M.
(2005).
Self-regulation:Withafocusontheself-regulationofmotivationandeffort.
InW.
Damon&R.
Lerner(SeriesEds.
)&I.
E.
Sigel&K.
A.
Renninger(Vol.
Eds.
),Handbookofchildpsychology,Vol.
4,Childpsychologyinpractice(6thedn.
).
NewYork:Wiley.
Boekaerts,M.
,&Minnaert,A.
(2003).
Measuringbehavioralchangeprocessesduringanongoinginnovationprogram:Scopeandlimits.
InE.
DeCorte,L.
Verschaffel,M.
Boekaerts,N.
Entwistel,&J.
V.
Merrinboer(Eds.
),Powerfullearningenvironments:Unravellingbasiccomponentsanddimensions(pp.
71–81).
NewYork:Pergamon.
Boekaerts,M.
,&Niemivirta,M.
(2000).
Self-regulatedlearning:Findingabalancebetweenlearninggoalsandego-protectivegoals.
InM.
Boekaerts,P.
R.
Pintrich,&M.
Zeidner(Eds.
),Handbookofself-regulation(pp.
417–451).
SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Boekaerts,M.
,Pintrich,P.
R.
,&Zeidner,M.
(Eds.
)(2000).
Handbookofself-regulation.
SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Brown,A.
L.
,&Campione,J.
C.
(1994).
Guideddiscoveryinacommunityoflearners.
InK.
McGilly(Ed.
),Classroomlessons:Integratingcognitivetheoryandclass-roompractice(pp.
229–272).
Cambridge,MA:MITPress/BradfordBooks.
Bruner,J.
S.
(1975).
Fromcommunicationtolanguage:Apsychologicalperspective.
Cognition,3,255–287.
Campbell,D.
,&Stanley,J.
C.
(1963).
Experimentalandquasi-experimentaldesignsforresearchonteaching.
InN.
L.
Gage(Ed.
),Handbookofresearchonteaching(1stedn.
,pp.
171–246).
NewYork:Macmillan.
CarverC.
S.
,&Scheier,M.
F.
(1990).
Principlesofself-regulation:Actionandemotion.
InE.
T.
Higgins&R.
M.
Sorrentino(Eds.
),Handbookofmotivationandcognition:Foundationsofsocialbehavior(Vol.
2,pp.
3–52).
NewYork:TheGuilfordPress.
CognitionandTechnologyGroupatVanderbilt(CTGV)(1992).
TheJasperseriesasanexampleofanchoredinstruction:Theory,programdescription,andassess-mentdata.
EducationalPsychologist,27,291–316.
Collins,A.
,Brown,J.
S.
,&Newman,S.
E.
(1989).
Cognitiveapprenticeship:Teachingthecraftsofreading,writing,andmathematics.
InL.
B.
Resnick(Ed.
),Knowing,learning,andinstruction:EssaysinhonorofRobertGlaser(pp.
453–494).
Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Cook,T.
D.
(2002).
Randomizedexperimentsineducation:WhyaretheysorareEducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,24,175–200.
Corno,L.
(1995).
CommentsonWinne:Analyticandsystemicresearcharebothneeded.
EducationalPsychologist,30,201–206.
Corno,L.
(2001).
Volitionalaspectsofself-regulatedlearning.
InB.
J.
Zimmerman&D.
H.
Schunk(Eds.
),Self-regulatedlearningandacademicachievement:The-oreticalperspectives(2ndedn.
,pp.
191–226).
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
228BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
Corno,L.
(2004).
Workhabitsandworkstyles:Volitionineducation.
TeachersCollegeRecord,106,1669–1694.
Cronbach,L.
J.
,&Associates(1980).
Towardreformofprogramevaluation.
SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
Cronbach,L.
J.
,&Snow,R.
E.
(1981).
Aptitudesandinstructionalmethods(2ndedn.
).
NewYork:Irvington.
Cronbach,L.
J.
,&Webb,N.
(1982).
Between-classandwithin-classeffectsinareportedaptitude*treatmentinteraction:ReanalysisofastudybyG.
L.
Anderson.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,67,717–724.
DeCorte,E.
(2004).
Mainstreamsandperspectivesinresearchonlearning(mathematics)frominstruction.
AppliedPsychology:AnInternationalReview,53(2),279–310.
Design-BasedResearchCollective(2003).
Design-basedresearch:Anemergingpar-adigmforeducationalinquiry.
EducationalResearcher,32,5–8.
Dweck,C.
S.
(1991).
Self-theoriesandgoals:Theirroleinmotivation,personality,anddevelopment.
InR.
A.
Dienstbier(Ed.
),Nebraskasymposiumonmotivation1990(Vol.
38,pp.
199–235).
Lincoln,NE:UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Entwistle,N.
(1988).
Motivationalapproachesinstudents'approachestolearning.
InR.
R.
Schmeck(Ed.
),Learningstrategiesandlearningstyles(pp.
21–51).
NewYork:PlenumPress.
Feuerstein,R.
(1979).
Thedynamicassessmentofretardedperformers:TheLearningPotentialAssessmentDevice:Theory,instruments,andtechniques.
Baltimore,MD:UniversityParkPress.
Flavell,J.
H.
(1979).
Metacognitionandcognitivemonitoring:Anewareaofcog-nitivedevelopmentinquiry.
AmericanPsychologist,34,906–911.
Frijda,N.
H.
,&Mesquita,B.
(1995).
Thesocialrolesandfunctionsofemotions.
InS.
Kitayama&H.
R.
Markus(Eds.
),Emotionandculture(pp.
51–88).
Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Gollwitzer,P.
M.
(1990).
Actionphasesandmind-sets.
InE.
T.
Higgins&R.
M.
Sorrentino(Eds.
),Handbookofmotivationandcognition(Vol.
2),Foundationsofsocialbehavior(pp.
53–92).
NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Hadwin,A.
F.
,&Winne,P.
H.
(1998).
CoNoteS:Asoftwaretoolforpromotingself-regulatedlearninginnetworkedcollaborativelearningenvironments.
InC.
Rust(Ed.
),Improvingstudentlearning:Improvingstudentsaslearners(pp.
539–549).
Oxford:OxfordCentreforStaffLearningandDevelopment.
Harris,K.
R.
,&Graham,S.
(1996).
Makingthewritingprocesswork:Strategiesforcompositionandself-regulation.
Cambridge,MA:BrooklineBooks.
Hickey,D.
T.
,Moore,A.
L.
,&Pellegrino,J.
W.
(2003).
Themotivationalandaca-demicconsequencesofelementarymathematicsenvironments:DoconstructivistinnovationsandreformsmakeadifferenceAmericanEducationalResearchJournal,38,611–652.
Kuhl,J.
(1985).
Volitionalmediatorsofcognition-behaviorconsistency:Self-regulatoryprocesssesandactionversusstateorientation.
InJ.
Kuhl&J.
Beckman(Eds.
),Actioncontrol:Fromcognitiontobehavior(pp.
101–128).
NewYork:Springer-Verlag.
Kuhl,J.
,&Kraska,K.
(1989).
Self-regulationandmetamotivation:Computationalmechanisms,development,andassessment.
InR.
Kanfer,P.
L.
Acherman,&SELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM229InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
R.
Cudeck(Eds.
),Abilities,motivation,andmethodology:TheMinnesotasymposiumonindividualdifferences(pp.
343–368).
Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Lawrence,J.
A.
,&Volet,S.
E.
(1991).
Thesignicanceandfunctionofstudents'goals:Adjustmentinacademicstudy.
InL.
Oppenheimer&J.
Valsiner(Eds.
),Theoriginsofaction:Interdisciplinaryandinternationalperspectives(pp.
133–157).
NewYork:Springer-Verlag.
Linn,M.
C.
(1995).
Designingcomputerlearningenvironmentsforengineeringandcomputerscience:Thescaffoldedknowledgeintegrationframework.
JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,4,103–126.
McCaslin,M.
,&Good,T.
(1992).
Compliantcognition:Themisallianceofmanage-mentandinstructionalgoalsincurrentschoolreform.
EducationalResearcher,21,4–17.
McCaslin,M.
,&Good,T.
(1996).
Theinformalcurriculum.
InD.
C.
Berliner&R.
C.
Calfee(Eds.
),Handbookofeducationalpsychology(pp.
622–672).
NewYork:Macmillan.
McCaslin,M.
,&Hickey,D.
T.
(2001).
Educationalpsychology,socialcontructivism,andeducationalpractice:Acaseofemergentidentity.
EducationalPsychologist,36,133–140.
Meichenbaum,D.
(1977).
Cognitivebehaviormodication.
NewYork:Plenum.
Palincsar,A.
S.
,&Brown,A.
L.
(1984).
Reciprocalteachingofcomprehension-fosteringandmonitoringactivities.
CognitionandInstruction,1,117–175.
Patrick,H.
,Anderman,L.
H.
,Ryan,A.
M.
,Edelin,K.
C.
,&Midgley,C.
(2001).
Teachers'communicationofgoalorientationsinfourfth-gradeclassrooms.
ElementarySchoolJournal,102,35–58.
Perry,N.
E.
(2002).
Usingqualitativemethodstoenrichunderstandingsofself-regulatedlearning.
EducationalPsychologist,37(1),1–3.
Perry,N.
,Phillips,L.
,&Dowler,J.
(2004).
Examiningfeaturesoftasksandtheirpotentialtopromoteself-regulatedlearning.
TeachersCollegeRecord,106,1854–1878.
Pintrich,P.
R.
(2000).
Theroleofgoalorientationinself-regulatedlearning.
InM.
Boekaerts,P.
R.
Pintrich,&M.
Zeidner(Eds.
),Handbookofself-regulation(pp.
452–502).
SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Pintrich,P.
R.
(2003).
Amotivationalscienceperspectiveontheroleofstudentmotivationinlearningandteachingcontexts.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,95,667–686.
Pintrich,P.
R.
,Smith,D.
A.
F.
,Garcia,T.
,&McKeachie,W.
J.
(1993).
ReliabilityandpredictivevalidityoftheMotivatedStrategiesforLearningQuestionnaire(MSLQ).
EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement,53,801–813.
Pressley,M.
(1986).
Therelevanceofthegoodstrategyusermodeltotheteachingofmathematics.
InJ.
Levin&M.
Pressley(Eds.
),EducationalPsychologist,21,139–161.
Pressley,M.
,Woloshyn,V.
,Lysynchuk,L.
M.
,Martin,V.
,Wood,E.
,&Willougyby,T.
(1990).
Aprimerofresearchoncognitivestrategyinstruction:Theimportantissuesandhowtoaddressthem.
EducationalPsychologyReview,2,1–58.
Randi,J.
(2004).
Teachersasself-regulatedlearners.
TeachersCollegeRecord,106,1825–1853.
230BOEKAERTSANDCORNOInternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
Randi,J.
,&Corno,L.
(1997).
Teachersasinnovators.
InB.
J.
Biddle,T.
L.
Good,&I.
F.
Goodson(Eds.
),Internationalhandbookofteachersandteaching,Vol.
I.
(pp.
1163–1221).
Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademic.
Reigeluth,C.
M.
(Ed.
)(1999).
Instructional-designtheoriesandmodels:Anewpara-digmofinstructionaltheory,Vol.
II.
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Rheinberg,F.
,Vollmeyer,R.
,&Rollett,W.
(2000).
Motivationandactioninself-regulatedlearning.
InM.
Boekaerts,P.
R.
Pintrich,&M.
Zeidner(Eds.
),Hand-bookofself-regulation(pp.
503–531).
SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Salomon,G.
(1983).
Communicationandeducation.
SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
Sandoval,W.
A.
(2003).
Conceptualandepistemicaspectsofstudents'scienticexplanations.
JournaloftheLearningSciences,12,5–52.
Schunk,D.
H.
,&Ertmer,P.
A.
(2000).
Self-regulationandacademiclearning:Self-efcacyenhancinginterventions.
InM.
Boekaerts,P.
R.
Pintrich,&M.
Zeidner(Eds.
),Handbookofself-regulation(pp.
631–650).
SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Schunk,D.
H.
,&Zimmerman,B.
J.
(1998).
Self-regulatedlearning:Fromteachingtoself-reectivepractice.
NewYork:Guilford.
Skinner,E.
,&Edge,K.
(2002).
Parenting,motivation,andthedevelopmentofchildren'scoping.
NebraskaSymposiuminMotivation,48,77–143.
StanfordAptitudeSeminar:Corno,L.
,Cronbach,L.
J.
,Kupermintz,H.
,Lohman,D.
F.
,Mandinach,E.
B.
,Porteus,A.
W.
,&Talbert,J.
E.
(2002).
Remakingtheconceptofaptitude:ExtendingthelegacyofRichardE.
Snow.
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Strahan,D.
(2003).
Promotingacollaborativeprofessionalcultureinthreeelementaryschoolsthathavebeatentheodds.
ElementarySchoolJournal,104,128–146.
Taylor,S.
E.
,&Pham,L.
B.
(1996).
Mentalsimulation,motivation,andaction.
InP.
M.
Gollwitzer&J.
A.
Bargh(Eds.
),Thepsychologyofaction:Linkingcognitionandmotivationtobehavior.
NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Taylor,S.
E.
,&Schneider,S.
K.
(1989).
Copingandthesimulationofevents.
SocialCognition,7,174–194.
Turner,J.
C.
(1995).
Theinuenceofclassroomcontextsonyoungchildren'smoti-vationforliteracy.
ReadingResearchQuarterly,30,410–441.
Turner,J.
C.
,&Patrick,H.
(2004).
Motivationalinuencesonstudentparticipationinclassroomlearningactivities.
TeachersCollegeRecord,106,1759–1785.
Vermeer,H.
,Boekaerts,M.
,&Seegers,G.
(2001).
Motivationalandgenderdiffer-ences:Sixth-gradestudents'mathematicalproblem-solvingbehavior.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,92(2),308–315.
Volet,S.
E.
,&Lawrence,J.
A.
(1989).
Goalsintheadaptivelearningofuniversitystudents.
InH.
Mandl.
,E.
deCorte,N.
Bennett,&H.
F.
Friedrich(Eds.
),Learn-ingandinstruction:Europeanresearchinaninternationalcontext:Vols.
II&III(pp.
497–516).
Oxford:Pergamon.
Vygotsky,L.
(1978).
Mindinsociety:Thedevelopmentofhighermentalprocess.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Webb,N.
M.
(1980).
Aprocess-outcomeanalysisoflearningingroupandindividualsettings.
EducationalPsychologist,15,69–83.
Webb,N.
M.
(1991).
Task-relatedverbalinteractionandmathematicslearninginsmallgroups.
JournalforResearchonMathematicsEducation,22,366–389.
SELF-REGULATIONINTHECLASSROOM231InternationalAssociationforAppliedPsychology,2005.
Webb,N.
M.
,&Palincsar,A.
S.
(1996).
Groupprocessesintheclassroom.
InD.
C.
Berliner&R.
C.
Calfee(Eds.
),Handbookofeducationalpsychology(pp.
841–876).
NewYork:Macmillan.
Weinstein,C.
E.
,&Mayer,R.
(1986).
Theteachingoflearningstrategies.
InM.
Wittrock(Ed.
),Handbookofresearchonteaching(3rdedn.
,pp.
315–327).
NewYork:Macmillan.
White,B.
Y.
,&Frederiksen,J.
R.
(1998).
Inquiry,modeling,andmetacognition:Makingscienceaccessibletoallstudents.
CognitionandInstruction,16,3–118.
Winne,P.
H.
(1995).
Inherentdetailsinself-regulatedlearning.
EducationalPsycho-logist,30,173–187.
Winne,P.
H.
,Hadwin,A.
F.
,Beaudoin,L.
,&Murphy,C.
(2003).
gSTUDY:Atool-kitfordevelopingcomputer-supportedtutorialsandresearchinglearningstrategiesandinstruction(version1.
0).
SimonFraserUniversity,Burnaby,BC.
Winne,P.
H.
,&Perry,N.
E.
(2000).
Measuringself-regulatedlearning.
InM.
Boekaerts,P.
R.
Pintrich,&M.
Zeidner(Eds.
),Handbookofself-regulation(pp.
531–566).
SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Xu,J.
,&Corno,L.
(1998).
Casestudiesoffamiliesdoingthird-gradehomework.
TeachersCollegeRecord,100,402–436.
Zimmerman,B.
J.
,&Martinez-Pons,M.
(1988).
Constructvalidationofastrategymodelofstudentself-regulatedlearning.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,80,284–290.
Zimmerman,B.
J.
,&Ringle,J.
(1981).
Effectsofmodelpersistenceandstatementsofcondenceonchildren'sself-efcacyandproblemsolving.
JournalofEduca-tionalPsychology,73,485–493.