Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1990, Vol. 82, No. 1,51-59 0022-0663/90/$00.75

Student Differences in Self-Regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex,

and Giftedness to Self-Efficacy and Strategy Use
Barry J. Zimmerman Manuel Martinez-Pons
Graduate School and University Center Brooklyn College
City University of New York City University of New York

Forty-five boys and 45 girls of the 5th, 8th, and 1 lth grades from a school for the academically
gifted and an identical number from regular schools were asked to describe their use of 14 self-
regulated learning strategies and to estimate their verbal and mathematical efficacy. The groups
of students from both schools included Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Students came
from middle-class homes. Gifted students displayed significantly higher verbal efficacy, mathe-
matical efficacy, and strategy use than regular students. In general, 1 lth-grade students surpassed
8th graders, who in turn surpassed 5th graders on the three measures of self-regulated learning.
Students' perceptions of both verbal and mathematical efficacy were related to their use of self-
regulated strategies. Evidence of relations between students' strategic efforts to learn and percep-
tions of academic self-efficacy is concordant with a triadic view of self-regulated learning.

During the past few years, a number of theories have been Students' selection and use of strategies depends directly on
proposed to describe how students become regulators of their their perceptions of their academic efficacy and reciprocally
own learning (e.g., Corno, 1989; Henderson, 1986; Mace, on feedback through a cybernetic loop: If monitoring indicates
Belfiore, & Shea, 1989; McCombs, 1989; Paris & Byrnes, a deficiency in performance, learners' self-efficacy will be
1989; Pressley, 1986; Rohrkemper, 1989; Wang & Peverly, affected, and this, in turn, will affect their subsequent moti-
1986). These theories of self-regulated learning share a view vation and choice of strategies. According to this triadic
of students as metacognitively, motivationally, or behaviorally formulation, students' self-regulated learning is not an abso-
active promoters of their .academic achievement (Zimmer- lute state of functioning, but rather varies on the basis of the
man, 1986, 1989b). Unlike other learning models, self-regu- academic context, personal efforts to self-regulate, and out-
lation theories seek to explain students' differences in moti- comes of behavioral performance. Self-regulated learners are
vation and achievement on the basis of a common set of assumed to understand the impact of the environment on
processes. A number of theorists (e.g., Lepper & Malone, them covertly and behaviorally during acquisition and to
1987; McCombs, 1984; Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Ryan, Connell, know how to improve that environment through the use of
& Deci, 1984; Zimmerman, 1985) have been interested in various strategies.
explaining an "intrinsic" motive to learn by self-regulated Research has shown that students' self-efficacy perceptions
students, especially under adverse circumstances. are related to two aspects of the proposed reciprocal feedback
Recently, Zimmerman (1989a) proposed a formulation to loop: self-monitoring (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Kuhl, 1985;
explain self-regulated academic learning based on Bandura's Pearl, Bryan, & Herzog, 1983) and students' academic moti-
(1986) triadic theory of social cognition (see also Schunk, vation and achievement (Schunk, 1984). However, little at-
1989). He suggested that students' efforts to regulate their tention has been devoted to the relation between efficacy
learning involves three classes of determinants: their personal perceptions and students' use of self-regulated learning strat-
processes, the environment, and their behavior. Strategies egies. This was one goal of the present investigation.
enable student learners to personally (self-) regulate their Considerable progress has been made in identifying strate-
behavior and environment as well as their covert functioning. gies that students use to regulate their (a) personal functioning,
(b) academic behavioral performance, and (c) learning envi-
ronments. For example, the strategies of organizing and trans-
This research was supported in part by a grant from the City forming (Baird, 1983; Corno &Mandinach, 1983), rehearsing
University of New York Professional Staff Congress-CUNY Research and memorizing (McCombs, 1984; Paris, Newman & Jacobs,
Award Program to Barry J. Zimmerman. We acknowledge the gra- 1984), and goal setting and planning (Bandura & Schunk,
cious assistance and cooperation by the principals, the participating 1981; Mischel & Patterson, 1978) focus on optimizing per-
teachers, and students at Hunter College Campus Schools, Brooklyn sonal regulation. Strategies such as self-evaluating (Bandura
Academy, Hudde Junior High, and PS 217. We would particularly & Cervone, 1983, 1986) and self-consequating (Mace & Krat-
like to thank Stacy Nicholas for her invaluable help, Florence Mang-
lani for her dedication and professionalism as the interviewer, and
chowill, 1985) were designed to enhance behavioral function-
Robert C. Calfee and Dale H. Schunk for their helpful editorial ing. The strategies of seeking information (Baird, 1983; Wang,
suggestions regarding this article. 1983), record keeping and self-monitoring (Spates & Kanfer,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to 1977), environmental structuring (Thoresen & Mahoney,
Barry J. Zimmerman, Program in Educational Psychology, Graduate 1974), seeking social assistance (Zimmerman, 1983), and
School, City University of New York, 33 West 42 St. New York, reviewing academic materials (Wang, 1983) are intended to
New York 10036. optimize the students' immediate learning environment. Pre-

51
52 BARRY J. ZIMMERMAN AND MANUEL MARTINEZ-PONS

viously, we (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) developed closely associated with self-efficacy: "persistence of motive
a structured procedure, termed the Self-Regulated Learning and effort" and "confidence in their abilities" (Cox, 1976, p.
Interview Schedule (SLRIS), to measure students' use of these 23). For this reason, it was expected that intellectually gifted
self-regulated learning strategies. Students were asked to de- students would display greater academic self-efficacy than
scribe the methods they used in a series of common learning regular students. Although no sex differences in academic self-
contexts, and measures of strategy use were derived from their efficacy were predicted, they were explored. The issue of sex
answers. These measures of strategy use were found to be differences in self-regulated learning has received some atten-
highly correlated with the students' academic achievement. tion (Mandinach & Corno, 1985); however, information is
Subsequently, we (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988) lacking regarding developmental changes in students' strategy
investigated the construct validity of the SLRIS with the use of use and academic self-efficacy among academically gifted and
teacher ratings of students' level of self-regulation in their regular students.
classes. We assumed that teachers are in position to observe
directly not only students' use of many self-regulated learning
Method
strategies but also many related motivational aspects of stu-
dents' functioning, such as their promptness, comprehensive-
ness, and commitment in completing assignments or prepar- Sample
ing for class. Several items of the scale that we developed for
use by teachers dealt with students' intrinsic interest in aca- From one gifted and three regular schools, equal numbers of boys
demic tasks. Factor analyses of the teachers' ratings along and girls were chosen randomly from each of three grades. Thirty
fifth-grade students, 30 eight-grade students, and 30 eleventh-grade
with students' scores on a standardized test of mathematics students were drawn from a highly selective school for intellectually
and English revealed a single self-regulated learning factor gifted children in New York City. The school is run on a tuition-free
that accounted for nearly 80% of the explained variance. basis by a collegiate school of education for students who are selected
Students' reports of using self-regulated learning strategies on an open, competitive basis. Students enter the school in two waves:
during the interview correlated .70 with the obtained teachers' in elementary and in junior high school. Approximately 60 children
rating factor. These outcomes indicated a substantial relation are chosen randomly, from a large pool scoring at or above the 99th
between students' use of self-regulated learning strategies and percentile on a standardized test of mental ability, to enter the
their motivation. However, no attempt was made in this elementary school and to continue through high school. The second
research to determine the underlying source of this motiva- wave of students are admitted on the basis of their scores on an
tion. achievement test constructed by the faculty of the school. Any student
who scores above the ninth-grade level on a standardized test in
The present investigation sought to demonstrate the use- mathematics and English and who resides in the city of New York
fulness of two measures of students' academic efficacy in may take this examination. From a large pool of applicants, approx-
predicting their use of triadic self-regulation strategies in imately 200 students are selected on the basis of their total score on
conventional learning settings. This descriptive analysis will the selection test. During both waves of testing, an effort is made to
serve as a basis for subsequent experimental tests of reciprocal recruit and admit qualified minority students. The 1989 graduating
relations between self-efficacy and strategy use in laboratory class of the high school achieved the highest score on the Scholastic
Aptitude Test of any school in the United States; over 50% of the
settings. In view of previous evidence (Zimmerman & Mar-
class members were designed as National Merit finalists.
tinez-Pons, 1988) that students' mathematics and verbal
achievement were highly correlated with their use of many In addition to these students, 30 fifth graders were drawn from a
regular, nonselective elementary school, 30 eighth graders from a
self-regulated learning strategies in the SLRIS, we decided to
regular, nonselective junior high school, and 30 eleventh graders from
assess students' academic self-efficacy in these same two con- a nonselective public high school affiliated with a different collegiate
tent areas. school of education in the same city. In both gifted and regular
Related research has shown that students develop separate schools, students came generally from middle-class homes and varied
verbal and math self-concepts by the 5th grade because of in race. (The sample included White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian
their growing ability to distinguish their competence on dif- students.) No precise figures on students' ethnicity or social class were
ferent academic tasks (Marsh, 1986). Although no comparable gathered because of restrictions in school policy. The attrition rate in
developmental data exist for measures of children's self-effi- all schools in the sample was judged by school officials as very low.
cacy, it is hypothesized that measures of students' verbal and
mathematical efficacy would predict their use of self-regulated Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule
learning strategies. The students' ability to appraise academic
competence accurately can be expected to lead to grade-level This structured interview was developed to assess 14 classes of self-
increases in self-efficacy above the fifth grade that are based regulated learning strategies. The strategies were: self-evaluating; or-
on students' acquisition of verbal and mathematical knowl- ganizing and transforming; goal-setting and planning; seeking infor-
mation; keeping records and monitoring; environmental structuring;
edge. It was hypothesized that the self-efficacy of 1 lth graders
self-consequating; rehearsing and memorizing; seeking peer, teacher,
would exceed that of 8th graders, whose self-efficacy would, or adult assistance; and reviewing tests, notes, and texts. One category
in turn, surpass that of Sth graders. of non-self-regulated learning responses (labeled other) was also in-
In addition to their grade level, students' degree of giftedness cluded. Definitions for each strategy are provided by Zimmerman
was expected to influence their perceptions of efficacy. Gifted and Martinez-Pons (1986).
students are of particular interest because they exhibit not Eight different learning contexts were described to each student: in
only high intellectual ability but also two characteristics classroom situations, when completing writing assignments, when
 SPECIAL SECTION: STUDENT DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 53

completing mathematics assignments, when checking science or Eng- Table 1

lish homework, when preparing for a test, when taking a test, when Self-Regulated Learning Contexts
poorly motivated to complete homework, and when studying at
home. These contexts represent a revision and extension of six 1. Assume your teacher is discussing with your class the history of
contexts that were presented in previous research (Zimmerman & the civil rights movement. Your teacher says that you will be
Martinez-Pons, 1988). These learning contexts are presented in Table tested on the topic the next day. Do you have a method that
1. For each context, students were asked to indicate the methods they you would use to help you learn and remember the informa-
would use. If the students gave an answer, they were asked to describe tion being discussed? What if you are having trouble under-
standing or remembering the information discussed in class?2
any additional methods. If any student failed to offer an answer, a
probe was given (see the last question in each context). If the student 2. Assume your teacher asks students in your class to write a short
still failed to mention any self-regulated learning strategies, question- paper on a topic such as the history of your community or
ing was discontinued for that learning context. Research (Zimmer- neighborhood. Your score on this paper will affect your report
man & Martinez-Pons, 1988) on the construct validity of this inter- card grade. In such cases, do you have any particular method to
view procedure has indicated it provides significant control for the help you plan and write your paper? What if you are having
biasing effects of student verbal expressiveness and for background difficulty with the topic?*
knowledge not associated with self-regulated learning.
3. Teachers usually expect much accuracy with students' math
home work. Many of these assignments must be completed
Student Academic Efficacy Scales without the help of a teacher. Is there any particular method
you use when you don't understand a math problem at home?
What if the assignment deals with a very difficult type of prob-
Two general areas of academic efficacy were of interest: mathe- lem?"
matical problem solving and verbal comprehension. Following Ban-
dura's (1986) recommendation that level of task be varied when self- 4. When completing homework assignments such as science reports
efficacy is being assessed, each scale was composed of 10 items that or English grammar exercises, do you use a particular method
increased in difficulty. The Verbal Efficacy scale involved 10 words for checking your work after it isfinished?What if it is a
that were selected from the Dolch word list and from the Thorndike difficult assignment?"
and Lorge (1944) word frequency list. For each word, the students
rated their efficacy in defining it, using a scale that ranged from 0% 5. Most teachers give important tests at the end of marking periods,
(completely unsure) to 100% (completely sure). The Mathematics and these tests greatly affect report card grades. Do you have a
Efficacy scale involved 10 problems that ranged in difficulty from particular method for preparing for these tests in English or
history? What if you are preparing for an especially difficult
simple arithmetic to algebra, probability, and statistics. A statistical test?"
problem was added, although statistics is not typically taught in high
school, to provide sufficient ceiling for high school students using the 6. When taking a test in school, do you have a particular method
scale. The students were asked to rate their efficacy for solving each for obtaining as many correct answers as possible? What if it is
mathematical problem using the same 100-point percentage scale that a difficult test question?8
was used to measure verbal efficacy.
We wanted to ensure that the items in both the mathematics scale 7. Many times students have difficulty completing homework as-
and the verbal scale would be able to discriminate varying perceptions signments because there are other, more interesting things they
of efficacy by 5th graders and 1 lth graders. To meet this objective, would rather do, such as watching TV, daydreaming, or talking
both scales included items that increased sharply in difficulty; how- to friends. Do you have any particular method for motivating
ever, this feature was expected to reduce interitem response consist- yourself to complete your homework under these circum-
stances? What if you are trying to meet a pressing deadline?*
ency. Kuder-Richardson 20 analyses revealed coefficients of .64 for
verbal efficacy and .69 for mathematical efficacy. Test-retest meas- 8. Some students find it easier if they can arrange the place where
ures of stability were viewed as more appropriate for these two highly they study. Do you have a particular method for arranging the
graduated scales. To examine this hypothesis, the two self-efficacy place where you study? What if you are having difficulty con-
scales were given to 10 male and 15 female high school students centrating on your school work?"
chosen from the 9th through 12th grades of a nonselective high school
affiliated with a collegiate school of education and were re-adminis- * This is the follow-up question.
tered to the students 2 weeks later. This retest sample represented a
broad range of academic achievement; it included students who were
at academic risk as well as high achievers. As anticipated, the test- tigators to administer both the structured interview and the tests of
retest coefficients for mathematical efficacy (.73, p < .02) and for academic efficacy. She recorded students' responses to the question
verbal efficacy (.78, p < .02) were higher than the interitem coeffi- for each context verbatim. A "strategy frequency" scoring procedure
cients for students in the regular sample. These outcomes indicate (see Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) was used later to score the
acceptable levels of stability and reliability for 10-item scales. Students students' answers, and multiple strategies were tallied individually
involved in retesting did not participate in other aspects of the study. and summed across the eight contexts. A reliability check (Withall,
1949) by one of the principal investigators of more than 20% of the
protocols revealed an agreement level of 85%. Areas of nonagreement
Procedure were discussed with reference to the definition of the strategies and
were resolved through mutual consent.
Parental consent was obtained for students who were randomly The students were brought individually to a separate room in their
selected to participate. Both parents and students were informed that school by the interviewer. In one room, each student was seated
the students would be interviewed about their study practices. The across a table from the interviewer and was informed that he or she
interview was conducted by a female graduate student with extensive would be asked some questions about his or her study practices. The
training in individual testing. She was trained by the principal inves- interviewer then administered the structured interview. With few
54 BARRY J. ZIMMERMAN AND MANUEL MARTINEZ-PONS

exceptions, students answered the interviewer's questions thought- surpassed 5th graders (M= 598), bothps < .05. However, the
fully. After the interview was completed, the academic efficacy scales difference in mathematical efficacy between students in the
were administered. two higher grades failed to reach significance.
The verbal self-efficacy scale was administered first. The inter- The only statistical interaction to reach significance oc-
viewer instructed the students as follows:
curred between students' giftedness and grade, Fmui,(4, 334) =
2.59, p < .04. According to univariate tests, this interaction
For each word presented below, estimate how sure you are that
you can define it correctly. You must give your answer in 10 was confined to the students' verbal efficacy measures, F(2,
seconds or less, so you will not have time to write a definition. 168) = 4.64, p < .02, MSC - 0.11. Post hoc testing revealed
Give you best estimate of your confidence (any number between that gifted children displayed a significant increase in verbal
0% and 100%) that your definition will be judged as correct by efficacy between the 5th (M - 573) and 8th (M = 722) grades
a teacher. Some words are very difficult, and most students but not between 8th and 1 lth (M = 747) grades. In contrast,
cannot define them. It is important that you do not guess but
give a realistic estimate of whether your answer is correct. If you regular students showed a significant increase in verbal effi-
are completely unsure of your answer, mark 0%; if you think cacy between the 8th (M = 525) and 1 lth (M = 608) grades
you may have answer but are not sure of it, mark 50%; if you but not between the 5th (M = 483) and 8th grades, all ps <
are completely sure of your answer, mark 100%. .05.
The mathematical self-efficacy scale was administered next. The
instructions were identical to those given for the verbal self-efficacy Student Differences in Strategy Use
scale with the exception that the phrase "math problem" replaced
"word" in the instructions, and the verbs "solve" or "solution" Self-regulated learning strategy means are presented in Ta-
replaced "define" or "definition." These instructions were designed ble 3 for each group of students based on their grade, sex, and
to prompt the students to give realistic estimates of their verbal and
giftedness. The same 3 (5th, 8th, or 1 lth grades) x 2 (boys or
mathematical efficacy without actually attempting to figure out a
specific answer. girls) x 2 (gifted or regular students) MANOVA model was used;
however, the 15 self-regulation strategies served as dependent
measures.
Results There was a main effect for students' sex, FmuSt( 15, 154) =
2.09, p < .02, grade, JFmill,(30, 308) = 4.26, p < .01, and
Student Differences in Academic Efficacy giftedness, FmaSl(l5, 154) = 3.78, p < .01, and an interaction
between students' giftedness and grade, Fmu,^30, 308) = 2.21,
In Table 2, the students' verbal and mathematical efficacy p < .01. Univariate tests revealed that gifted youngsters (M =
means are presented on the basis of their grade, sex, and 0.57) reported significantly higher use of organizing and trans-
giftedness. Each scale mean can be interpreted as a percentage forming strategies than regular students did (M = 0.36), F(2,
of self-efficacy for the respective group by dividing the mean 168) = 3.84, p = .05, MSt = 0.52. An unusual grade pattern
by 10 (items) (e.g., for male 5th graders' verbal efficacy, 591/ in the use of this strategy emerged, F(2, 168) = 6.70, p < .01,
10 = 59%). A 3 (5th, 8th, or 1 lth grades) x 2 (boys or girls) MS. = 0.52: Eighth graders (M = .70) surpassed 5th graders
x 2 (gifted or regular ability) multivariate analysis of variance {M = 0.29) as expected (p < .05) but 1 lth graders (M = 0.47)
(MANOVA) was used with verbal and mathematical efficacy did not. However, the difference in use of this strategy by 8th
serving as dependent measures. The two efficacy measures and 1 lth graders was not statistically reliable.
were found to be correlated (r = .56, p < .01). Girls (M = 1.88) displayed more goal-setting and planning
A main effect for students' sex was found, Fmu,,(2, 167) = than did boys (M = 1.56), F(l, 168) = 6.61, p < .02, MS, =
4.62, p < .02.' Univariate tests revealed that boys (M = 681) 1.28. Students' use of this strategy also varied based on their
surpassed girls (M= 536), F(l, 168) = 9.12, p < .01, M& = giftedness and grade, F(2, 168) = 6.97, p < .01, MSt = 1.28.
0.11, in verbal efficacy but not mathematical efficacy. Stu- Post hoc tests revealed a decline in use of this strategy between
dents' giftedness also produced a large main effect, Fmult(2, 8th and 1 lth grades for both gifted and regular students (both
167) = 43.48, p<.00l,R = .59. Univariate tests indicated ps < .05). This decline was greater for gifted students (from
that gifted students displayed greater verbal efficacy (M = M = 2.30 to 1.00) than for students of regular ability (from
734) than regular students (M = 536), F(l, 168) = 85.66, p < M = 2.04 to 1.30).
.01, MSC = 0.11, as well as greater mathematical efficacy (M With regard to students' keeping records and monitoring,
= 724) than regular students (M = 638), F(\, 168) = 19.56, p significant differences were found by sex, i^l, 168) = 15.30,
< .01, MSC = 0.17. In addition, students' efficacy varied p < .01, MSC = 0.91, and grade, F(2, 168) = 2.94, p < .05,
substantially by grade, irrau,,(4, 334) = 20.75, p < .01, R = MSe = .91. Girls (M = 2.04) kept records and monitored
.59. Significant grade differences were found in both verbal more frequently than boys (M = 1.50). Although 1 lth graders
and mathematical efficacy, smaller F(2, 168) = 29.82, p < (M = 1.82) and 8th graders (M = 1.86) kept records and
.01, MSe = 0.11. Post hoc comparisons were conducted using monitored more than 5th graders {M = 1.63), these differences
Newman-Keuls procedure. These test revealed significantly did not achieve significance during post hoc testing. Girls (M
greater verbal efficacy by 1 lth graders (M= 677) than by 8th = 0.74) surpassed boys (M = .55) in environmental structur-
graders (M = 619), who in turn significantly surpassed 5th
graders (M = 528), all ps < .05. Regarding mathematical
efficacy, 1 lth graders (M = 779) and 8th graders (M = 740) 1
This test was based on Wilks's lambda multivariate criterion.
 SPECIAL SECTION: STUDENT DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 55

Table 2
Students' Verbal and Mathematical Efficacy Means and Standard Deviations by Grade, Sex, and Giftedness
Gifted Regular
Male Female Male Female
Academic self-efficacy 5th 8th 11th 5th 8th 11th 5th 8th 11th 5th 8th 11th
Mathematics
M 616 690 842 626 741 830 610 653 712 541 576 758
SD 135 113 110 141 70 138 155 175 151 97 111 137
Verbal
M 591 736 793 555 709 700 533 539 598 433 492 619
SD 116 58 60 115 104 132 112 125 112 104 106 90
Note. 5th, 8th, and 1 lth grades.

ing, F(l, 168) = 3.91, p < .05, MSC = .41, and gifted students formed in which students' self-regulated learning strategies
(M = 0.36) gave more self-consequences than regular students were used to predict their verbal and mathematical efficacy
{M = 0.18), F(l, 168) = 6.47, p < .02, MSe = 0.22. separately. Overall, students' perceptions of mathematical
Univariate tests revealed also that gifted students (M = efficacy were correlated with their use of self-regulated learn-
0.54) displayed higher levels of seeking peer assistance than ing strategies, R = .41, F(14, 165) = 2.31, p < .01. More
regular students (M = 0.29), / ^ l , 168) = 6.84 p < .01, MSC = specifically, mathematical self-efficacy was related signifi-
0.43. On the basis of their giftedness and grade, students cantly to the strategy of reviewing notes, 0 = .26, p < .01, and
differed also in their seeking adult assistance, F(2, 168) = was related marginally to the strategy of seeking adult assist-
3.49, p < .04, MS, = 0.43: Gifted students (M = 1.33) ance, 0 = -.14, p < .08. The latter negative standardized
surpassed regular students (M = 0.75) at the 5th-grade level, regression coefficient indicated that students' reliance on
p < .05, but not at 8th- or 1 lth-grade level. With regard to adults for assistance was negatively correlated (r = - . 14) with
seeking teacher assistance, grade differences were found, F(2, their perceptions of mathematical efficacy.
168) = 3.34, p < .04, MSC = 0.19. Post hoc tests revealed that Students' perceptions of verbal efficacy were also correlated
the 1 lth-grade students (Af = 0.28) surpassed both 8th-grade with their use of self-regulated learning strategies, R = .42,
(M = 0.08) and the 5th grade (M =0.16) students, although F(14, 165) = 2.55, p < .01. More specifically, verbal self-
only the former contrast reached statistical significance, p < efficacy was related significantly to students' use of the strat-
.05. Students from the latter two grades did not differ signifi- egies of reviewing notes (0 = .21, p < .01), organizing and
cantly. transforming (0 = .16, p < .05), and seeking peer assistance
Concerning the strategy of reviewing notes, gifted students (i8 = .18, p < .03). The self-regulated learning strategy of
(M = 0.88) surpassed regular students (M = 0.58), F(l, 168) seeking adult assistance was marginally related to verbal self-
= 7.53, p < .01, MS; = 0.54, and in addition, grade differences efficacy, |8 = -.15, p < .06. As with mathematical efficacy,
were found, F(2, 168) = 6.08, p < .01, MSC = 0.54. Newman- students' verbal efficacy was negatively correlated with their
Keuls tests revealed that the 1 lth graders (M = 0.97) signifi- seeking adult assistance (r = .—16).
cantly surpassed the 5th graders (M = 0.59), p < .05, but not
8th graders {M = .72). Students' review of texts was negatively
related to their grade level; 1 lth graders (M = 1.20) reported
less text review than 8th (M = 1.32) and 5th {M = 1.64) Discussion
graders, F(2, 168) = 6.54, p < .01, MSC = 0.81. However, no These initial developmental data indicate that students vary
pairwise differences between these groups achieved signifi- widely in their perceptions of academic self-efficacy and use
cance. of self-regulated learning strategies. On the basis of evidence
Boys (M = 0.46) gave significantly more other responses that even 5th graders can appraise their math and verbal
than girls (M = 0.23), the only non-self-regulated category of competence accurately (Marsh, 1986), it was predicted that
learning, F(l, 168) = 8.48, p < .01, MSC = 0.29. In addition, students in the present study would display increases in per-
there was an interaction between students' giftedness and ceived efficacy from the 5th through the 1 lth grade that were
grade, F(2, 168) = 5.56, p < .01, MSC = 0.29, for the other due to their growing verbal and mathematical knowledge. As
category; however, no pairwise comparisons achieved statis- was hypothesized, high school students' academic efficacy
tical significance. surpassed that of junior high school youngsters, and the
efficacy of junior high school students, in turn, surpassed that
Academic Efficacy and Self-Regulated Strategy Use of elementary school children. Although 1 lth graders' verbal
and mathematical efficacy exceeded that of 8th graders, only
In order to determine the relation of students' perceptions the former difference achieved statistical significance. How-
of academic efficacy to their use of specific self-regulated ever, the 8th-grade students significantly surpassed 5th-graders
learning strategies, two multiple regression analyses were per- in both verbal and mathematical efficacy. These develop-
56 BARRY J. ZIMMERMAN AND MANUEL MARTINEZ-PONS

Table 3
Self-Regulated Learning Strategy Means and Standard Deviations by Grade, Sex, and Giftedness
Gifted Regular
Male Female Male Female
Self-regulated strategy 5th 8th 11th 5th 8th 11th 5th 8th 11th 5th 8th 11th
Self-evaluating
M 2.53 2.87 2.53 2.80 2.27 3.87 3.40 2.80 2.73 3.20 2.67 2.60
SD 1.30 1.30 0.92 1.57 1.10 1.41 1.68 1.57 1.49 1.27 1.45 1.24
Organizing & transforming
M 0.13 0.80 0.40 0.47 0.73 0.87 0.20 0.47 0.33 0.07 0.80 0.27
SD 0.35 0.86 0.74 0.83 0.88 0.92 0.41 0.83 0.62 0.26 0.94 0.59
Goal setting & planning
M 0.80 2.20 0.73 1.20 2.40 1.27 1.93 1.87 1.13 2.60 2.20 1.60
SD 0.94 1.01 0.80 1.21 1.35 1.34 1.10 1.25 0.99 1.30 1.08 1.06
Seeking information
M 1.80 2.60 2.00 2.00 2.20 1.60 1.80 1.87 2.00 2.27 2.13 1.47
SD 1.38 0.74 1.20 1.46 1.01 0.99 1.37 1.41 1.31 1.03 1.19 1.06
Keeping records & monitoring
M 1.40 1.93 1.53 1.73 2.06 2.27 1.27 1.47 1.27 1.87 2.47 1.80
SD 1.24 0.80 0.99 1.33 0.59 1.03 0.88 0.52 0.80 0.99 0.92 1.01
Environment structuring
M 0.33 0.73 0.60 0.80 0.73 0.60 0.87 0.33 0.40 0.73 0.93 0.60
SD 0.62 0.70 0.74 0.68 0.80 0.63 0.74 0.49 0.63 0.46 0.46 0.63
Self-consequating
M 0.07 0.40 0.47 0.27 0.40 0.53 0.26 0.00" 0.27 0.13 0.20 0.20
SD 0.26 0.63 0.64 0.46 0.51 0.64 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.35 0.41 0.41
Rehearsing & memorizing
M 0.80 0.27 0.27 0.33 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.67 0.20 0.80 0.73 0.60
SD 1.08 0.46 0.59 0.49 0.64 0.74 0.74 0.11 0.41 0.94 0.70 0.51
Seeking assistance
Peer 0.53 0.53 0.40 0.40 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.27 0.47
0.60 0.80
M 0.78 0.64 0.74 0.51 0.83 0.35 0.62 0.72 0.41 0.46 0.64
SD 0.91
Teacher 0.07 0.13 0.33 0.00" 0.07 0.27
0.27 0.00* 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.33
M
SD 0.80 0.00 0.56 0.41 0.35 0.49 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.00 0.26 0.59
Adult 0.80 1.20 0.46 0.67 1.27 0.40
M 1.07 1.20 0.40 1.60 1.00 0.53
SD 0.80 0.68 0.74 0.91 0.76 0.74 0.78 1.08 0.64 0.72 0.96 0.63
Reviewing
Tests 0.13 0.13 0.53 0.33 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.53 0.20 0.27 0.20
M 0.40
SD 0.51 0.35 0.35 0.74 0.62 0.35 0.35 0.49 0.64 0.41 0.46 0.41
Notes 0.53 0.47 0.67 0.80
M 0.67 0.53 1.20 0.60 0.93 1.33 0.27 0.73
SD 0.62 0.64 0.94 0.74 0.80 0.98 0.46 0.96 0.52 0.52 0.72 0.68
Texts
M 1.20 1.07 1.47 1.80 1.27 1.40 1.87 0.80 1.13 1.67 1.13 0.80
SD 0.78 0.70 0.64 0.94 0.80 0.91 1.30 0.78 1.06 1.05 0.74 0.86
Other
M 0.73 0.27 0.67 0.40 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.47 0.53 0.00" 0.27 0.33
SD 0.80 0.46 0.62 0.63 0.62 0.26 0.35 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.46 0.49
Note. 5th, 8th, and 1 lth grades.
* No students in these cells used this self-regulated learning strategy.

mental effects accounted for 35% of the variability in students' occurs because of competitive grading and students' growing
perceptions of self-efficacy (R = .59). sense of their ability as an endowed trait (see Paris & Byrnes,
These outcomes are interesting theoretically because they 1989). Thus, at a time when students' self-perceptions of
stand in contrast to developmental trends in students' self- academic competence are declining, their perceptions of self-
ratings of academic competence. There is extensive evidence efficacy are increasing, according to the present data. This
(Benenson & Dweck, 1986; Nichols, 1978;Stipek, 1981) that apparent anomaly can be resolved if one considers the dis-
children's self-perceptions of competence decline from the tinctive nature of these two measures. Self-competence meas-
time they enter school through high school, with the most ures typically involve social comparisons between a rater and
dramatic drop occuring during junior high. Presumably this his or her classmates (e.g., Stipek, 1981). In contrast, self-
 SPECIAL SECTION: STUDENT DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 57

efficacy measures involve estimates of performance success in only the single non-self-regulated other category. These
that are unrelated to the skills of classmates. These develop- findings show greater use of self-regulated learning strategies
mental data suggest that instructional procedures that draw by girls despite their being lower than boys in verbal efficacy.
on or enhance students' perceptions of self-efficacy, such as The picture that emerges from these data—of girls as greater
participant modeling or mastery learning (Bandura, 1986; users of strategies but as less self-efficacious than boys—is
Schunk, 1984; Zimmerman, in press), may hold particular provocative.
promise for motivating junior and senior high school students. The results indicated that gifted students made greater use
Developmental research specifically comparing children's ac- of certain self-regulated learning strategies than did regular
ademic self-efficacy and perceived competence measures is students. Gifted students displayed greater organizing and
needed. transforming, self-consequating, seeking peer assistance, and
As expected, student's giftedness was associated with high reviewing notes. It is interesting to note that these strategies
levels of academic efficacy. The size of this effect was large (R represent the triadic spectrum for self-regulating learning:
= .59) and accounted for 35% of the variance in students' namely, for regulating personal processes (organizing and
academic efficacy. The gifted students' verbal and mathemat- transforming), one's behavior (self-consequating), and one's
ical efficacy item means were 73% and 72%, respectively, environment (reviewing notes and seeking peer assistance). In
whereas the means for regular students were 54% for verbal addition to peer assistance, gifted students sought significantly
efficacy and 64% for mathematical efficacy.2 It appears that more adult assistance than did regular students during the
these gifted youngsters were more distinguished by their verbal fifth grade. Generally, gifted students obtained this assistance
efficacy than by their mathematical efficacy. These self-effi- from their parents; thus, gifted youngsters took greater advan-
cacy findings provide empirical support for anecdotal evi- tage of parental resources at home. Whether this outcome
dence that gifted students display extraordinary academic was due to greater parental interest, parental availability, or
motivation and self-confidence (e.g., Cox, 1976). parental academic skills is unknown.
The data also revealed that gifted youngsters displayed The use of a number of self-regulated learning strategies
different developmental patterns in their math and verbal was related to students' grade level in school. These results
efficacy from regular students. Gifted students showed an proved to be more complex than anticipated. For example, a
increase in verbal efficacy between the 5th and 8th grades, significant decline occurred in students' reviewing texts across
whereas regular students displayed a significant increase in the three grades (although pairwise comparisons did not prove
verbal efficacy between the 8th and 1 lth grades. Gifted young- significant according to Newman-Keuls criteria). This decline
sters appear to acquire confidence in their verbal comprehen- is perplexing unless attention is focused on reciprocal changes
sion at a younger age than regular students; however, some in students' use of a closely associated strategy, reviewing
caution is in order when one is interpreting these findings notes: Students displayed an increase in their review of notes
because the gifted students attended a separate high school across the three grades. Together these data indicate that, with
with a highly accelerated academic program. This academic increasing age and grade level, students shift their reviewing
milieu undoubtedly affected the perceptions of efficacy and activities from published text materials to self-recorded notes.
use of self-regulated learning strategies of these students. It A similar reciprocal relation occurred between two social
should be mentioned that the academic programs at the assistance strategies. A significant decline in student reliance
regular schools were considered to be of high quality. on adult assistance occurred between the 8th and 1 lth grades;
Evidence that boys perceive significantly greater verbal self- however, during the same time period, there was an increase
efficacy than girls and comparable mathematical self-efficacy in students' seeking of teacher assistance. Analyses of individ-
was unexpected. In general, the literature on sex differences ual protocols indicate that these data reflect students' shift
in ability (e.g., Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) indicates that boys during high school from using their parents as sources of
often surpass girls in mathematics and but not in verbal assistance to using their teacher. Furthermore, the regression
ability. These ability differences convey similar expectations analyses revealed that students' reliance on adults (generally
regarding measures of academic efficacy; however, a very their parents) for assistance tended to be negatively related to
different pattern of sex differences emerged. Unfortunately, both verbal and mathematical efficacy, whereas seeking as-
no performance data or standardized measures of achieve- sistance from peers was positively related to verbal self-effi-
ment were available for students in the present sample, so we cacy. It appears that students' perceptions of academic self-
could not determine if boys' and girls' self-efficacy perceptions efficacy develop in concurrence with their increasing inde-
were equally accurate. It is possible that boys' verbal self- pendence from their parents. These outcomes will be of
efficacy reports may have been too optimistic or that the girls interest to both Vygotskian (e.g., Diaz & Neal, in press) and
were too pessimistic. The implications of either of these social cognitive (e.g., Zimmerman, in press) researchers who
possible outcomes for understanding sex differences in self- view children's development of self-regulation as an achieve-
regulated learning are important and should be investigated ment of socialization processes.
further.
Analyses of sex differences in use of self-regulated learning
strategies revealed that girls reported significantly more record
keeping and monitoring, environmental structuring, and goal- 2
The item means were calculated by dividing the academic efficacy
setting and planning than did boys. The boys surpassed girls test total by the number of items (i.e., by 10).
58 BARRY J. ZIMMERMAN AND MANUEL MARTINEZ-PONS

Significant increases occurred in students' keeping of rec- explain the extraordinary motivation and achievement of
ords and monitoring between the 5th and 8th grades, and this these students. Teachers may wish to use self-efficacy meas-
level of use was sustained during the 1 lth grade. With the ures to better understand students with little motivation as
strategy of organizing and transforming, students' use in- well as to better identify areas of students' giftedness. Third,
creased significantly between the 5th and 8th grades also; the fact that gifted students made greater use of learning
however, this was followed by a nonsignificant decline in the strategies designed to regulate personal processes, behavior
use of this strategy in the 1 lth grade. The results indicate that functioning, and environmental events is noteworthy. The
students' use of the strategies of keeping records and moni- achievement of these students in school indicates that a triadic
toring and organizing and transforming leveled off after junior model of self-regulation may have merit for training students
high school. to become more effective learners. Together these findings
A significant increase in goal-setting and planning occurred suggest that students' perceptions of academic efficacy can
between the 5th and 8th grades; however, this increase was provide an important window for understanding individual
followed by a significant decline between the 8th and 1 lth differences in learning and motivation.
grades. We can offer no explanation for the diminished use
of this strategy by 1 lth-grade students; however, we are reluc-
tant to accept that high school students engage in less goal- References
setting and planning than junior high students. It is possible Baird, L. L. (1983). Attempts at defining personal competency. (Re-
that high school students are more covert in their use of this search Rep. No. 83-15). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Serv-
strategy than are 8th graders and that additional probing may ice.
be necessary to detect the use of this strategy by the former. Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations ofthought and action: A social
For example, if a student mentioned task components but cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
not their timing or sequential accomplishment, the inter- Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluating and self-efficacy
viewer might provide further probes to determine if these mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems.
temporal criteria were implicit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-
On the basis of developmental research indicating that reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organization Behavior
students' verbal and mathematical self-concepts become dif- and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.
ferentiated by the fifth grade (Marsh, 1986), we hypothesized Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-
that measures of verbal and mathematical self-efficacy would efficacy, and intrinsic motivation through proximal self-motiva-
each be predictive of students' use of self-regulated learning tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
strategies. Regression analyses revealed support for this pre- Benenson, J., & Dweck, C. (1986). The development of trait expla-
diction: Students' perceptions of verbal and mathematical nations and self-evaluations in the academic and social domains.
efficacy were each correlated significantly with strategy use. Child Development, 57, 1179-1187.
However, verbal self-efficacy proved to be more highly cor- Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulating learning: A volitional analysis. In B.
related with strategy use than mathematical self-efficacy both J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 111-
in terms of the variance explained (18% vs. 16%, respectively) 141). New York: Springer.
and number of strategies used (four vs. two, respectively). Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engage-
Interestingly, verbal efficacy was correlated with use of the ment in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychol-
self-regulated learning strategies of organizing and transform- ogist, 18, 88-118.
ing, reviewing notes, and seeking peer assistance. Evidence Cox, C. M. (1976). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses.
that gifted students displayed precocious development of these In W. Dennis & M. W. Dennis (Eds.), The intellectually gifted(pp.
three strategies as well as verbal efficacy suggest that a devel- 17-24). New York: Grune & Stratton.
opmental link between these strategies and verbal efficacy Diaz, R. M., & Neal, C. J. (in press). The social origins of self-
may exist. regulation. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
In conclusion, it is clear that students' efforts to strategically Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helpless-
regulate their learning are associated with higher self-percep- ness: Continuous changes in performance strategy and achievement
tions of mathematical and verbal efficacy. Although we did cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social
not design this study to find a causal link between these Psychology, 36, 451-462.
components of a triadic self-regulation loop, we did discover Henderson, R. W. (1986). Self-regulated learning: Implications for
that students displayed greater perceptions of efficacy and use the design of instructional modules. Contemporary Educational
of learning strategies as they advanced in school. This initial Psychology, 11, 405-427.
developmental study revealed several additional findings of Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognitive-behavior consist-
interest to educators. First, in view of evidence that students' ency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation.
perceptions of their academic efficacy increase during the In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control (pp 101-128). New
York: Springer.
junior high school years (in contrast to their perceptions of
Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and
academic competence), teachers may wish to use instructional instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E.
or assessment procedures that reduce social comparison and Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction (Vol.
focus on task mastery to ensure optimal motivation. Second, 3, pp. 107-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
evidence that gifted students display very high levels of self- Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex
efficacy precociously (particularly in the verbal area) can differences. Stanford, CA: Standard University Press.
 SPECIAL SECTION: STUDENT DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 59

Mace, F. C, Belfiore, P. J., & Shea, M. C. (1989). Operant theory lated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and
and research on self-regulation. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. practice (pp. 83-110). New York: Springer.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Spates, C. R., & Kanfer, F. H. (1977). Self-monitoring, self-evalua-
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 27-50). New York: Springer. tion, and self-reinforcement in children's learning: A test of a multi-
Mace, F. C, & Kratchowill, T. R. (1985). Theories of reactivity in stage self-regulation model. Behavior Therapy, 8, 9-16.
self-monitoring: A comparison of cognitive-behavioral and operant Stipek, D. (1981) Children's perceptions of their own and their
models. Behavior Modification, 9, 323-343. classmates' ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 404-
Mandinach, E. B., & Corno, L. (1985). Cognitive engagement varia- 410.
tions among students of different ability level and sex in a computer Thoresen, C. E., & Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Behavioral self-control.
problem solving game. SexRoles, 13, 241-251. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of
external frame of reference model. American Educational Research 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College Press.
Journal, 23, 129-149. Wang, M. C. (1983). Development and consequences of students'
McCombs, B. (1984). Processes and skills underlying continuing sense of personal control. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.),
intrinsic motivation skills training interventions. Educational Psy- Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp.
chologist, 19, 199-218. 213-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCombs, B. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve- Wang, M. C, & Peverly, S. T. (1986). The self-instructive process in
ment: A phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. classroom learning contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: ogy, 11, 370-404.
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 51-82). New York: Springer. Withall, J. (1949). The development of a technique for the measure-
Mischel, W., & Patterson, C. J. (1978). Effective plans for self-control ment of social climate in classrooms. Journal of Experimental
in children. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child Education, 77,347-361.
psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 199-230). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zimmerman, B. J. (1983). Social learning theory: A contextualist
Nichols, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and account of cognitive functioning. In C. J. Brainerd (Ed.), Recent
ability, perceptions of own attainment, and the understanding that advances in cognitive developmental theory (pp. 1-49). New York:
difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800- Springer.
814. Zimmerman, B. J. (1985). The development of "intrinsic" motiva-
Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to tion: A social learning analysis. In G. J. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals
self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman of Child Development (pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
& Dale H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Development of self-regulated learning:
achievement: Theory, research and practice (pp. 168-200). New Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psy-
York: Springer. chology, 76,307-313.
Paris, S. G., Newman, R. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). Social context Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). A social cognitive view of self-regulated
and functions of children's remembering. In C. J. Brainerd & M. academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-
Pressley (Ed.), The cognitive side of memory development (pp. 81- 339.
115). New York: Springer-Verlag. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b). Models of self-regulated learning and
Pearl, R., Bryan, T., & Herzog, A. (1983). Learning disabled children's academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk
strategy analyses under high and low success conditions. Learning (Eds.) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,
Disability Quarterly, 53, 296-309. research, and practice (pp. 1-25). New York: Springer.
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to Zimmerman, B. J. (in press). Self-regulating academic learning and
the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139- achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective.
161. Educational Psychology Review.
Rohrkemper, M. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a
achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learn-
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement- ing strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143-167). New York: Springer. 628.
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1984). A motivational Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation
analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of
C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
(pp. 13-51). New York: Academic Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). The self-efficacy perspective on achievement
behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 199-218. Received July 27, 1988
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated Revision received August 4, 1989
learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regu- Accepted September 8, 1989