This article was downloaded by: [Purdue University]

On: 29 July 2013, At: 14:35

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychologist
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement:

An Overview
Barry J. Zimmerman
Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Barry J. Zimmerman (1990) Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview,
Educational Psychologist, 25:1, 3-17, DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 25(1), 3-17
Copyright o 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Self-Regulated Learning and Academic

Achievement: An Overview

Barry J. Zimmerman
Graduate School of the City University of New York

Educationd researchers have begun recently to identify and study key

processes through which students self-regulatetheir academic learning. In this
overview, I present a general definition of self-regulated academic learning
and identify the distinctive features of this capability for acquiring knowledge
and skill. Drawing on subsequent articles in this journal issue as well as my
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

research with colleagues, I discuss how the study of component processes

contributes to our growing understanding of the distinctive features of
students' self-regulated learning. Finally, the implications of self-regulated
learning perspective on students' learning and achievement are considered.

Since the founding of the republic, American educational leaders have

stressed the importance of individuals assuming personal responsibility and
control for their own acquisition of knowledge and skill. Benjamin Franklin
wrote extensively in his "Autobiography" about techniques he used to
improve his learning, erudition, and self-control (Benjamin Franklin Writ-
ings, 1868/1987). He described in detail how he set learning goals for
himself, recording his daily progress in a ledger. He sought to improve his
writing by selecting exemplary written models and attempting to emulate
the authors' prose. In addition to teaching himself to write, Franklin felt
this procedure improved his memory and his "arrangement of thoughts,"
two cognitive benefits that research on observational learning has verified
(Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978; Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974). Recog-
nition of the importance of personal initiative in learning has been
reaffirmed by contemporary national leaders such as Gardner (1963),
former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who suggested that

Requests for reprints should be sent to Barry J. Zimmerman, Doctoral Program in

Educational Psychology, Graduate School, City University of New York, 33 West 42nd Street,
New York, NY 10036.
 4 ZIMMERMAN

"the ultimate goal of the education system is shift to the individual the
burden of pursuing his own education" (p. 21).
Until recently, there has been very little empirical evidence regarding how
students become masters of their own learning, a topic that has become
known as self-regulated learning (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Within the
last few years, however, researchers have begun to identify and study some
of the key processes by which students direct their acquisition of academic
knowledge. A self-regulated learning perspective on students' learning and
achievement is not only distinctive, but it has profound implications for the
way teachers should interact with students and the manner in which schools
should be organized. This perspective shifts the focus of educational
analyses from students' learning ability and environments as "fixed" entities
to their personally initiated processes and responses designed to improve
their ability and their environments for learning.
In this overview, I present a general definition of self-regulated academic
learning first and then identify the distinctive features of this capability for
acquiring knowledge and skill. Finally, I describe how key component
processes, which are discussed in subsequent articles in this journal issue,
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

contribute to these distinctive features of students' self-regulated learning.

DEFINITIONS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

At one time or another, we have all observed self-regulated learners. They

approach educational tasks with confidence, diligence, and resourcefulness.
Perhaps most importantly, self-regulated learners are aware when they
know a fact or possess a skill and when they do not. Unlike their passive
classmates, self-regulated students proactively seek out information when
needed and take the necessary steps to master it. When they encounter
obstacles such as poor study conditions, confusing teachers, or abstruse text
books, they find a way to succeed. Self-regulated learners view acquisition
as a systematic and controIlable process, and they accept greater responsi-
bility for their achievement outcomes (see Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, &
Pressley, in press; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1990).
As familiar as this description may be, it is not helpful pedagogically
unless it leads eventually to operational definitions of the component
processes by which students self-regulate their learning. Although defini-
tions of self-regulated learning involving specific processes often differ on
the basis of researchers' theoretical orientations, a common concept-
ualization of these students has emerged as metacognitively, motivationally,
and behaviorally active participants in their own learning (Zimmerman,
1986). In terms of metacognitive processes, self-regulated learners plan, set
goals, organize, self-monitor, and self-evaluate at various points during the
 LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 5

process of acquisition (Corno, 1986, 1989; Ghatala, 1986; Pressley,

Borkowski, OE Schneider, 1987). These processes enable them to be self-
aware, knowledgeable, and decisive in their approach to learning. In terms
of motivational processes, these learners report high self-efficacy, self-
attributions, and intrinsic task interest (Borkowski et al., in press; Schunk,
1986; Zimmerman, 1985). To observers, they are self-starters who display
extraordinary effort and persistence during learning. In their behavioral
processes, self-regulated learners select, structure, and create environments
that optimize learning (Henderson, 1986; Wang & Peverly, 1986;
Zimmerman 8 Martinez-Pons, 1986). They seek out advice, information,
and places where they are most likely to learn; they self-instruct during
acquisition and self-reinforceduring performance enactments (Diaz & Neal,
in press; Rohrkemper, 1989).
When defining self-regulated learning, it is important to distinguish
between self-regulation processes, such as perceptions of self-efficacy, and
strategies designed to optimize these processes, such as intermediate goal-
setting (Zimmerman, in press). Self-regulated learning strategies refer to
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

actions and processes directed at acquisition of information or skills that

involve agency, purpose, and instrumentality perceptions by learners.
Undoubtedly, all learners use regulatory processes to some degree, but
self-regulated learners are distinguished by (a) their awareness of strategic
relations between regulatory processes or responses and learning outcomes
and (b) their use of these strategies to achieve their academic goals.
Systematic use of metacognitive, motivational, and/or behavioral strategies
is a key feature of most definitions of self-regulated learners (Zimmerman,
1989a).
A second feature of most definitions of self-regulated learning is a
"self-oriented feedback" loop (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Zimmerman,
1989b). This loop entails a cyclic process in which students monitor the
effectiveness of their learning methods or strategies and react to this
feedback in a variety of ways, ranging from covert changes in self-
perception to overt changes in behavior such as altering the use of a learning
strategy. Phenomenological theories of self-regulated learning (e.g.,
McCombs, 1986, 1989) depict this feedback loop in terms of covert
perceptual processes such as self-esteem and self-concepts, whereas operant
theories (e.g., Mace, Belfiore, & Shea, 1989) favor overt descriptions in
terms of self-,recording,self-instruction, and self-reinforcement responses.
Social cognitive theorists (e.g., Bandura, 1989) caution against viewing this
control loop in terms of only negative feedback (Le., seeking to reduce
differences between one's goals and observed outcomes); they report a
positive feedback effect as well (i.e., seeking to raise one's goals based on
observed outcomes). Regardless of theoretical differences in what is mon-
itored and how outcomes are interpreted, virtually all researchers assume
 that self-regulation depends on continuing feedback of learning effective-
ness.
A third feature of definitions of self-regulated learning is an indication of
how and why students choose to use a particular strategy or response.
Because self-regulated learning involves temporally delimited strategies or
responses, students' efforts to initiate and regulate them proactively require
preparation time, vigilance, and effort. Unless the outcomes of these efforts
are sufficiently attractive, students will not be motivated to self-regulate.
They may choose not to self-regulate their learning when the opportunity
arises-an outcome that requires a comprehensive accounting of their
academic motivational processes. Operant theorists (e.g., Mace et al., 1989)
claim that all self-regulated learning responses are ultimately determined by
contingent external rewards or punishment such as social approval, en-
hanced status, or material gain, whereas phenomenological theorists (e.g.,
McCombs, 1989)view students as motivated by a global sense of self-esteem
or self-actualization. Between these two ends of the continuum, other
theorists favor motives such as self-efficacy, achievement success, and
cognitive equilibrium.
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

An important aspect of theories of self-regulated learning is that student

learning and motivation are treated as interdependent processes that cannot
be fully understood apart from each other. For example, student percep-
tions of self-efficacy are both a motive to learn and a subsequent outcome
of attempts to learn (Schunk, 1984, 1989). Self-regulated learners are not
merely reactive to their learning outcomes; rather, they proactively seek out
opportunities to learn (Zimmerman, 1989a). They self-initiate activities
designed to promote self-observation, self-evaluation, and self-improve-
ment such as practice sessions, specialized training, and competitive events
(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). Their heightened motivation is
evident in their continuing tendency to set higher learning goals for
themselves when they achieve earlier goals, a quality that Bandura (1989)
called self-motivation. Thus, self-regulated learning involves more than a
capability to execute a learning response by oneself (i.e., self-control) and
more than a capability to adjust learning responses to new or changing
conditions from negative feedback. It involves proactive efforts to seek out
and profit from learning activities. At this level, learners are not only
self-directed in a metacognitive sense but are self-motivated as well. Their
skill and will are integrated components of self-regulation (see McCombs
and Marzano, this issue).
In summary, definitions of students' self-regulated learning involve three
features: their use of self-regulated learning strategies, their responsiveness
to self-oriented feedback about learning effectiveness, and their interdepen-
dent motivational processes. Self-regulated students select and use self-
 LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 7

regulated learning strategies to achieve desired academic outcomes on the

basis of feedback about learning effectiveness and skill.

STUDENTS' SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

STRATEG I ES

There is a growing body of laboratory and field research indicating the

important role that students' use of self-regulated learning strategies plays
in their academic achievement. A variety of metacognitive, motivational,
and behavioral strategies have been studied at a number of universities and
laboratories throughout the world (see reviews by Pressley et al., 1987;
Simons & Beukhof, 1987; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Zimmerman, 1989b).
Contributors to this journal issue have been extensively involved in research
on strategy training, including such strategies as self-instruction, verbal
elaboration, text comprehension monitoring, goal setting, and self-
recording, and describe their research and its implications in their respective
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

articles. Their research illustrates that teaching students to self-regulate

their academic learning is more complex than was initially envisioned.
Before considering the results of their training studies, I discuss several
descriptive studies in which a colleague and I sought to determine whether
students' use of these strategies was related to their academic performance
and achievement in school.
Several years ago, Martinez-Pons and I (see Zimmerman & Martinez-
Pons, 1988) developed a structured interview procedure that involved a
number of contexts or descriptions of instructional problems that students
often encounter, particularly during studying and clilss preparation such as:

Many times students have difficulty completing homework assignments

because there are other, more interesting things they would rather do such as
watching TV, daydreaming, or talking to friends. Do you have any particular
method for motivating yourself to complete your homework under these
circumstances? (p. 285)

Regardless off whether a student's response was scoreable or not, the

respondent was systematically probed for other 'bethods." His or her
responses were recorded and later scored for the presence of 1 or more of
14 self-regulxted learning strategies, namely, self-evaluation, organization
and transformation, goal setting and planning, information seeking, record
keeping, self-monitoring, environmental structuring, giving self-conse-
quences, rehearsing and memorizing, seeking social assistance (peers,
teacher, or other adults), and reviewing (notes, books, or tests). This list of
 8 ZIMMERMAN

strategies was drawn from available research, and definitions were refined
during pilot testing. We decided to use an open-ended interview format
instead of a questionnaire format because we felt constructed answers more
closely simulated naturalistic conditions of students' self-regulated learning
than multiple-choice answers.
In our first investigation (Zimrnerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986), we
correlated high school students' strategy reports with their achievement
track placement in school. Forty of the students were drawn from the
advanced academic track in their school, and the remaining 40 were drawn
from lower tracks. Compared to students in lower tracks, youngsters from
the advanced track reported significantly greater use of all strategies but
one, self-evaluation. Even the use of that strategy was numerically greater
for the advanced students; however, the difference did not reach statistical
significance. Discriminant function analyses reveal that the students'
achievement track could be predicted with 93% accuracy using their
weighted strategy totals across the learning contexts. Clearly, students' use
of these self-regulated learning strategies was strongly associated with
superior academic functioning.
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

An unexpected but interesting finding is that students in the lower

achievement tracks tended to give several common non-self-regulated
responses with greater frequency than students from the advanced track.
These included "reactive" statements that indicated a lack of personal
initiative such as "I just do what my teacher tells me," and "will power"
statements that indicated simple resolve (without using strategies) such as
"If I'm having difficulty motivating myself to complete my homework, I
just work harder." These data suggest that less frequent mention of
strategies by students in the lower achievement tracks was not due to their
lack of verbal expressiveness but rather to their lack of self-regulatory
initiative.
In an effort to further establish the validity of student reports of
self-regulated strategy use, we asked high school teachers to rate their
students for their use of strategies in a second study (Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1988) using Likert scales. These items focused on learning
strategies that are observable directly in school (e.g., asking for further
information or being self-evaluative about test results) or are deducible
from their observable effects (e.g., completing assignments on time or being
prepared for class). In addition to these direct and indirect measures of
strategy use, we developed several items designed to assess the students'
intrinsic motivation displayed during class and homework.
These teacher ratings were submitted to multivariate analyses along with
the students' mathematics and verbal scores on a standardized achievement
test. By combining the teachers' ratings factorially with standardized
achievement tests scores, it was possible to separate the students' achieve-
 LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 9

ment outcomes associated with their use of self-regulated learning strategies

from their general ability. Factor analyses of these two sets of scores reveal
a single, Self-Regulated Learning factor that accounts for nearly 80% of the
variance. All the items of the teacher rating scale loaded highly on this
Self-Regulated Learning factor, and the students' verbal and mathematical
achievement scores loaded partly on this factor and partly on a second
General-Ability factor as expected. Students' reports of using self-regulated
learning strategies as assessed by our structured interview procedure
correlated .TO with the derived Self-Regulated Learning factor. The latter
results suggest that students' use of self-regulated learning strategies made a
distinctive contribution to their academic achievement apart from their
General Ability.

MONITORING SELF-ORIENTED FEEDBACK AND

RELATED DECISION MAKING
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

Initial optimism that teaching students' various learning strategies would

lead to improved self-regulated learning has cooled with mounting evidence
that strategy use involves more than mere knowledge of a strategy
(Schneider, 11985). Pressley, Ghatala, and their colleagues have been at the
forefront of research on monitoring learning strategies; they have summa-
rized this research in a number of articles (see Ghatala, 1986; Pressley &
Ghatala, this issue). Based on studies of both spontaneous and trained use
of monitoring, they conclude that student awareness of learning outcomes
is critical to continued strategy use. For example, when students were
offered information regarding the relative effectivceness of two strategies
(one of which was chosen for its greater effectiveness), not even mature
learners monitored differences as they actually executed the strategies
(Pressley, Levin, & Ghatala, 1984; Pressley, Ross, Lcevin, & Ghatala, 1984).
However, adults were able to derive and use strategy effectiveness infor-
mation when prompted to monitor their performance on a recall test
following study with differentially effective strategies. Older grade school
children could derive but not use strategy effectiveness information, and
young children could not even derive strategy effectiveness information
(e.g., Moynahan, 1978). These developmental data suggest that monitoring
learning outcomes is a complex metacognitive activity that involves directed
attention and sophisticated reasoning processes. This conclusion is borne
out by subsequent training research. Ghatala, Levin, Pressley, and
Goodwin (1986) found that young children not only need to be shown how
to monitor the outcomes of their recall efforts, but that they also need
training in attributing recall outcomes to strategy use and in using this
information to make appropriate decisions.
 10 ZIMMERMAN

In her article on self-instruction (see Harris, this issue), Harris also

discusses the key role of self-monitoring and related decision making in
self-regulating learning. Self-instruction training has been used to assist
learners in regulating a wide variety of personal processes such as attention,
problem solving, response guidance, and motivation. Harris reviews re-
search indicating that conveying knowledge of reading and writing strate-
gies does not improve acquisition unless self-monitoring and related
decision-making procedures are taught specifically. For example, Eliott-
Faust and Pressley (1986) taught third-grade students to verbally instruct
themselves when using a reading comprehension strategy and to self-
monitor its effectiveness. When compared to simply teaching the children
the reading strategy, this self-instruction training not only enhanced these
youngsters' reading comprehension, but it fostered their continued use of
the comprehension strategy as well.
However, Harris cautions that identifying the key self-monitoring and
related decision-making components in self-regulated learning may be
difficult. For example, Sawyer, Graham, and Harris (1989) gave fifth- and
sixth-grade children with learning disabilities explicit training in self-
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

verbalizing a writing composition strategy, in making strategy attributions,

and in self-regulating (i.e., goal setting, self-assessment, and self-
recording). They found this multicomponent self-regulation training was
more effective than writing composition training alone on posttest and
generalization measures of composition quality and self-efficacy. Although
the self-regulation component added numerically to the impact of training
in self-instruction and strategy attributions, this increase did not attain
statistical significance.
Together these studies suggest that multicomponent training involving
self-monitoring and related decision making is necessary in order to teach
students to interpret feedback from their academic learning optimally;
however, it is not yet clear in this research which specific components of
self-regulation are most essential. Finally, it should be noted that Harris
and her colleagues found that self-regulation training not only improved
students' learning, but it also improved their perceptions of efficacy, a
widely studied measure of students' motivation to self-regulate.

MOTIVATING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

Because theories of self-regulated learning seek to explain students' personal

initiative in acquiring knowledge and skill, they all treat students' motiva-
tional processes as interdependent with learning processes. How these
processes are described and how they are hypothesized to interact, however,
varies from theory to theory. All theories of self-regulation assume that
 LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 11

students interpret learning outcomes as having tangible or intangible

personal (i.e., self) implications. Behaviorally oriented approaches (e.g .,
Mace et al., 1989) focus on tangible outcomes such as material or social
gains, whereas cognitively oriented approaches emphasize intangible out-
comes such as self-actualization, self-efficacy, or reduced cognitive disso-
nance (Zimmerman, 1989a).
In their article in this journal issue, McCombs and Marzano present an
elaborate conceptualization of students' self-system processes. Their for-
mulation rests on the phenomenological premise that student perceptions of
academic tasks are filtered through a system of self-structures composed of
self-beliefs, self-goals, and self-evaluations. When a student is aware of self
as agent, a sense of self-efficacy, internalized goals for learning, and an
experience of competency are produced. In their view, self-regulated
learning requires more than cognitive skill; it requires a will or motivational
component as well. When students understand that they are creative agents,
responsible for and capable of self-development and self-determination of
their goals, their self as an agent will provide the motivation necessary for
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

self-regulation. Like other theories of self-regulated learning, McCombs

and Marzano assume that students' continued motivation is dependent on
monitoring their performance. However, they stress that innate capabilities
for self-regulation are best realized through metacognitive self-awareness
that deepens students' understanding of self as agent.
In contrast to this phenomenological emphasis on global self-system
structures as the source of personal agency, social cognitive approaches to
self-regulated learning (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1989; Zimmerman,
1989b)have focused on perceptions of self-efficacy as the ultimate source of
students' motivation. Self-efficacy differs from other self-system processes
by focusing on personal ratings of performance success in task domains.
These measures are also distinctive because they depend primarily on
mastery criteria (i.e., a percentage scale) rather than comparative criteria
(i.e., the performance of other students). For example, students have been
asked to estimate their likelihood of solving particular mathematics prob-
lems (see Schunk, 1981). The domain-specific property of self-efficacy
measures has been credited with producing their high correlation with
students' actual performance during self-regulated learning (Zimmerman,
in press), and the mastery-based property has been shown recently
(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) to produce an incremental develop-
mental profile from elementary school to high school that contrasts
markedly with a decremental profile characteristic of self-competence
ratings involving social comparisons with other students (see Paris &
Byrnes, 1989).
In this journal issue, Schunk reviews research linking students' percep-
tions of self-efficacy to their goal-setting activities. According to the
 12 ZIMMERMAN

aforementioned definition, all self-regulated learners have the option of not

self-regulating. Those who are not sufficiently desirous of a particular
learning outcome are not generally assumed to self-regulate. Thoresen and
Mahoney (1974) noted that problems in self-regulation typically arise when
discrepancies occur between short-term outcomes and long-term outcomes.
For example, during academic studying, students must sacrifice immediate
recreational time for the possible eventual rewards of high marks. Their
willingness to make this sacrifice demands both self-confidence in one's
ability to learn and the personal resolve to delay gratification-two
self-regulative capabilities that are often lacking in young children (Mischel
& Mischel, 1983). Cognitive views of self-regulation describe and assess this
futuristic orientation in terms of goals and have sought to increase it
through a variety of methods such as intermediate goal setting, self-
instruction, and self-evaluation (e.g., Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Behav-
iorist researchers have used these same procedures as well but prefer to
interpret them as forms of interresponse control leading eventually to
external reinforcement (e.g., Bijou & Baer, 1961).
Schunk argues convincingly that a reciprocal relationship exists between
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

students' goal setting and their perceptions of self-efficacy. When students

set intermediate goals for themselves that are specific and proximal in time,
they can perceive their learning progress more readily, and this in turn
enhances their self-efficacy. Increased self-efficacy can lead students recip-
rocally to set even more challenging ultimate goals for themselves. Schunk
surveys research from a number of training studies of student goal setting
and self-efficacy and reports considerable support for their reciprocal
relationship.

STUDENTS' DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

Although the proposed definition focuses on explaining students'

metacognition, motivation, and behavior during academic learning epi-
sodes, it is important to consider how children acquire a capacity or
capability to self-regulate their learning. Most theorists assume that young
children cannot self-regulate their learning in any formal manner
(Zimmerman, 1989a). I have mentioned several reports of interesting
developmental patterns in young children's display of various self-regulated
learning processes such as their inability to effectively self-monitor and
respond to their learning outcomes (Ghatala, 1986) and an incremental
growth in their verbal and mathematical self-efficacy (Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1990). In addition to the developmental growth in these two
forms of academic self-efficacy, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990)
 LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 13

found a cross-sectional increase in students' combined use of the 14

strategies assessed by our structured interview procedure from the 5th to the
8th grades and from the 8th to the 1lth grades. Gifted students in this study
displayed precocious development of both verbal and mathematical self-
efficacy in comparison to nongifted students. This finding is interesting
because gifted youngsters have been described as highly self-motivated
(e.g., Cox, 1976).
In their article in this journal issue, Paris and Newman summarize
research on developmental changes underlying children's capability to
regulate their own learning. For example, before the age of 7, children
appear naive and overly optimistic about their ability to learn (e.g., Flavell,
Friedrichs, & Hoyt, 1970; Stipek & Tannatt, 1984). They begin school with
only a vague understanding of what is involved in academic tasks (e.g.,
Meyers & Paris, 1978), and their strategic knowledge is fragmentary and
intuitive (e.g ., Paris, Lipson, & Wixon, 1983). Young children rarely reflect
on their performance (Skinner, Chapman, & Baltes, 1988), and they believe
that trying hard is sufficient to ensure success (Dweck & Elliott, 1983).
However, as children approach adolescence, their academic self-perceptions
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

become more accurate (Harter, 1985). They develop an increasingly differ-

entiated understanding of academic tasks (e.g., Brown & Smiley, 1977), and
their monitoring of the differential effectiveness of cognitive strategies for
learning grows with age (e.g., Pressley et al., 1984). They gradually realize
effort alone will not guarantee success (Nicholls, 1978, 1984).
Paris and Newman hypothesize that these changes depend on children's
building personal theories of self-competence, academic tasks, cognitive
strategies, motivation, and social cognition in the classroom. Young
children construct a coherent set of beliefs about themselves, their confi-
dence, the nature of tasks, the usefulness and availability of cognitive
strategies, and the social dispositions of other people in the classroom. With
young children, these beliefs are often implicit and imprecise; nevertheless,
they are used to mediate efforts to self-regulate their learning. With age,
children can reflect on their beliefs and can articulate them more accurately.
Paris and Newman offer a number of suggestions concerning how teaching
and peer interaction processes can promote children's development of
effective personal theories to self-regulate learning.

CONCLUSION

Self-regulated learning theories of academic achievement are distinctive

from other accounts of learning and instruction by their emphasis (a) on
how students select, organize, or create advantageous learning environ-
ments for themselves and (b) on how they plan and control the form and
 14 ZIMMERMAN

amount of their own instruction. Undoubtedly, all learners are responsive

to some degree during instruction; however, students who display initiative,
intrinsic motivation and personal responsibility achieve particular academic
success (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). These self-regulated students
are distinguished by their systematic use of metacognitive, motivational,
and behavioral strategies; by their responsiveness to feedback regarding the
effectiveness of their learning; and by their self-perceptions of academic
accomplishment.
Contributors to this issue of the Educational Psychologist review and
analyze recent research and theory on key self-regulatory processes students
use to learn and achieve academically. Our understanding of the interde-
pendence of these processes has now reached the point where systematic
efforts can be launched to teach self-regulation to students who approach
learning passively, and a number of notable efforts have been undertaken
already (see Graham & Harris, 1989; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Existing
laboratory training studies caution, however, that limited attempts at
instruction that focus on only one or two processes are unlikely to promote
long-term effects. Instead, attention must be directed toward developing all
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

three dimensions of self-regulated learning in students: metacognitive,

motivational, and behavioral. At a time when students often appear to lack
both the will and skill to achieve academically, educators need instructional
approaches that can offer direction and insight into the processes of
self-regulated learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported (in part) by Grant 6-66169 from the
PSC-CUNY Research Award Program of the City University of New York
to Barry J. Zimmerman.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1179-1184.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41, 586-617.
Benjamin Franklin writings. (1987). New York: Literary Classics of the United States.
(Original Autobiography published 1868)
Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development: A systematic theory. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
 LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 15

Borkowski, J. G., Carr , M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. (in press). Self-regulated cognition:
Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol
(Eds.), Dimensions of thinking: Review of research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose
passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1-8.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and selfregulation: A control-theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 11, 333-346.
Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 111-141). New York: Springer.
Cox, C. M. (1976). The early traits of three hundred geniuses. In D. Dennis & M. W. Dennis
(Eds.), The intellectually gifted (pp. 17-24). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Diaz, R. M., & Neal, C. J. (in press). The social origins of self-regulation. In L. Moll (Ed.),
Vygofskyand education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 644-691). New York: Wdey.
Elliot-Faust, Dl. J, & Pressley, M. (1986). How to teach comparison processing to increase
children's short- and long-term listening comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educa-
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

tional Psychology, 78, 27-33.

Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A., & Hoyt, J. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization
processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324-340.
Gardner, J. W. (1963). Self-renewal. New York: Harper & Row.
Ghatala, E. S. (1986). Strategy-monitoring training enables young learners to select effective
strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 43-54.
Ghatala, E. S., Levin, J. R., Pressley, M., & Goodwin, D. (1986). A componential analysis of
the effects of derived and supplied-utility information on children's strategy selections.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 76-92.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction:
Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81, 353-361.
Harter, S. (1985). Processes underlying self-concept formation in children. In J. Suls & E.
Greenald (Eds.), Psychologicalperspectiveson the self(Vol.3, pp. 137-181). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Henderson, R. Vil. (1986). Self-regulated learning: Implications for the design of instructional
modules. Corntemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 405-427.
Mace, F . C., Belfiore, P. J., & Shea, M. C. (1989). Operant theory and research on
self-regulation. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-egulated learning and
academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 27-50). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
McCombs, B. L,. (1986). The role of the self-system in self-regulated learning. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 11, 314-332.
McCombs, B. L. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A phenomeno-
logical view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achtevement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 51-82). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Meyers, M., &Paris, S. G. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690.
Mischel, H. N., & Mischel, W. (1983). The development of children's knowledge of
self-control strategies. Child Development, 54, 603-619.
 Moynahan, E. B. (1978). Assessment and selection of paired-associate strategies: A develop-
mental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26, 257-266.
Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of
academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child
Development, 49, 8800-814.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning
in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Selfregulated learning and
academic achievement: Theory, research, andpractice (pp. 168-200). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixon, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-3 16.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy
users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals
of child development (Vol. 5, pp. 89-129). New York: JAI Press.
Pressley, M., Levin, .I. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and
children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 270-288.
Pressley, M., Ross, K. A., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). The role of strategy-utility
knowledge in children's decision-making. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38,
491-504.
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

Rohrkemper, M. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian

view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Selfregulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, andpractice (pp. 143-167). New York: Springer.
Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York:
Academic.
Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). [Improving learning disabled students'
composition skills with story grammar strategy training: A components analysis]. Unpub-
lished raw data.
Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relation-
ship: An integrative review. In D. J. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. McKinnon, & T. G. Waller
(Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 57-109). Orlando,
EL: Academic.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's development: A
self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 93-105.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). The self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologist, 19, 199-218.
Schunk, D. H. (1986). Verbalization and children's self-regulated learning. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 11, 347-369.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman
& D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 83-1 10). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Simons, P. R. J., & Beukhof, G. (Eds.). (1987). Regulation of learning. Den Haag, The
Netherlands: SVO.
Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control, means-end, and agency
beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 117-133.
Stipek, D. L., & Tannatt, L. M. (1984). Children's judgments of their own and their peers'
academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 75-84.
Thoresen, C. E., & Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Behavioralself-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
 LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 17

Wang, M. C., & Peverley, S. T. (1986). The self-instructive process in classroom learning
contexts. Corztemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 370-404.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York:
Macmillan.
Zimmerman, R. J. (1985). The development of "intrinsic" motivation: A social learning
analysis. Annals of Child Development, 2, 117-160.
Zimmerman, U. J. (1986). Development of self-regulated learning: Which are the key
subprocesses7 Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 307-3 13.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B.
J. Zimmermm & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-25). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (in press). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The
emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for
assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of
student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 14:35 29 July 2013

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated

learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1974). Observational learning of rule governed
behavior with children. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 29-42.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.