“The term “volition” refers
to both the strength of will needed to complete a task, and the
diligence of pursuit (Corno, 1993).”
Self-Regulated Learning
Motivation is a necessary but insufficient
condition for positive academic outcomes. Motivation results
in a decision to act, a decision that then must be implemented via
engagement in action. Once a student engages in the pursuit
of an academic goal, volition (self- regulation) is critical to
ensuring that the myriad of variables that might derail the student
from his/her intent do not interfere (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). When tasks require high information processing demands
(e.g., academic learning) in the presence of distractions or
competing goals, self-regulated cognitive strategies help the
student maintain his/her focus on completing the intended
action(s).
As defined earlier in this document, volitional
controls reference conscientiousness and self- regulation and the
student's “state in planning for and during the action, and
the controls used to sustain the intention (Gollwitzer,
1996)” (Corno, et al., 2002, p. 90). The ability to
self- regulate one’s motivation, cognition, affect, and
behavior is critical to adaptive development and growth (Corno et
al., 2002; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Snow et al., 1996).
Most educators would agree, and the research literature supports
the conclusion that a student who can monitor and regulate their
own learning in the face of distractions and frustrations learns
and performs better than students who are weak in self-regulation
(Pintrich, 2000c; Schunk & Zimmerman,
2003).
Key Assumptions
The theoretical and empirical self-regulation
research, which includes linkages to literature in such domains as
self-efficacy, academic goal setting, academic goal orientation,
knowledge (domain-specific, strategy) and causal attribution, has
been considerable during the past two decades (Puustinen &
Pulkkinen, 2001). Briefly, literature syntheses have
identified 5 primary models of SRL (advanced by Boekaerts,
Borkowski, Pintrich, Winne, and Zimmerman) (Puustinen &
Pulkkinen, 2001) and 7 prominent theoretical perspectives (operant,
phenomenological, information processing, social cognitive,
volitional, Vygotskian, and cognitive constructivist) (Zimmerman,
2001). Although a number of differing models of self-
regulated learning exist, most models define academic self-
regulation as “an active, constructive process whereby
learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor,
regulate, and control their cognition” (Pintrich & Zusho,
2002, p. 250).
Most SRL models share a number of common
assumptions. According to Pintrich (2000c), these
assumptions are:
Ÿ
The active, constructive assumption, which views
“learners as active constructive participants in the learning
process” (p. 452).
Ÿ
The potential for control assumption which assumes that
“learners can potentially monitor, control, and regulate
certain aspects of their own cognition, motivation, and behavior as
well as some features of their environment” (p.
454).
Ÿ The goal, criterion,
or standard assumption which assumes that “there is some
type of criterion or standard (also called goals or reference
value) against which comparisons are made in order to assess
whether the process should continue as is or if some type of change
is necessary” (p. 452).
Ÿ
The mediation assumption which states that
“self-regulatory activities are mediators between
personal and contextual characteristics and actual achievement and
performance” (p. 453).
Characteristics, Processes, and
Phases
Self-regulated students possess 3 major
characteristics and employ 3 major processes (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000). Self- regulated students
typically use a variety of self- regulated strategies, believe they
can perform well (positive self- efficacy), and set multiple and
varying personal goals. Furthermore, “self-regulated
learners engage in three important processes: self- observation
(monitoring of one’s activities); self-judgment (evaluation
of how well one’s own performance compares to a standard or
to the performance of others); and self- reactions (reactions to
performance outcomes)” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p.
124). Of particular importance to students who
experience repeated failure (e.g., students with disabilities) is
the finding that students who receive positive feedback from their
self- observations and judgments tend to continue to engage in
positive goal- directed learning. Conversely,
self-observation and judgment that provides frequent unfavorable
evaluations and reactions increases the probability of
disengagement from learning.
According to Pintrich’s (Pintrich, 2000c;
Pintrich & Zusho, 2002) framework for self-regulated learning,
most SRL models include 4 major phases (which do not necessarily
occur in an a strict linear sequence): (a) planning and activation;
(b) monitoring; (c) control and regulation; and (d) reaction and
reflection. These 4 phases are conceptualized to
operate in all major domains of human behavior—cognition,
motivation and affect, and behavior. As a result, in the most
general sense, there are at least 12 major SRL “cells”
(4 phases-by-3-behavior domains). This level of conceptual
breadth produces a quandary in the identification, definition, and
listing of the implications of the wide array of potential SRL MACM
variables. Furthermore, many of the MACM variables described
previously in this paper (e.g., goal setting, self-efficacy) are
targets of SRL strategies. Given the resultant complexity of
the SRL literature and the necessary decision to refrain from
in-depth descriptions of the nuances of different underlying
theories in this paper, a pragmatic decision was made to only
define and describe, in general terms, the 4 major phases of SRL
that operate across cognitive, motivation and affect, and
behavior. Examples of specific cognitive, motivation and
behavior strategies are included for illustrative purposes.
Finally, the relatively small amount of research on classroom-
based SRL investigation is surprising given the frequent lament
from teachers regarding the importance of a student’s
“study habits or skills” (Pintrich & Zusho,
2002).
