Self-regulated Learning: A Narrative Review

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning Available at http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/index.php/JSMaP

e-ISSN: 2395-0463 Volume 01 Issue 10

November 2015

107| P a g e http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/Available online:

Self-regulated Learning: A Narrative Review Husain Abdulhay

Payame Noor University of Qom, Iran, [email protected]

Abstract:

Issue of self- versus other-regulation is also

diligently stressed and applied in

contemporary education so as to put person

at the helm of situation, not a pawn at the

mercy of circumstances. In the same vein,

this study aims to draw attention to a newly

developed concept of learning which

overemphasizes the role of individual

learner in attunement of his thought,

emotions and strategies to accelerate and

escalate the extent of his acquisition. To do

so, an overview of this new phenomenon

known as self-regulated learning is given at

first and evidence attesting to the

fruitfulness and utility of such strategy is

dispensed in the following.

Keywords: Self-regulated learning,

motivation, cognition, metacognition,

context

1. INTRODUCTION

Self-regulated learning (henceforth SRL)

emerged as a result of inquisitiveness into

“how students become master of their own

learning” (Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons,

1990, p.4). It has been eventuated from

inquiry into the process of learning by those

learners who have been assiduous and

triumphant in their learning despite

hindrances to their efforts (ibid).

Self-regulation has gained momentum in

educational psychology consonant with

constructivism approach to learning to

attend more to the role of individual learner

and his/her needs for better management of

his/her learning. Research in educational

domain is likewise exploiting this

advancement by highlighting all aspects of

individuals which are worth the

investigation and consideration for an

effective learning to occur. This prompted

researchers to pedagogically extend an

operational definition for self-regulated

learning.

Self-regulation has come to the fore as

learner’s responsibility for learning and

taking active role for constructing his own

knowledge is much more acknowledged and

promulgated in developmental education.

Contemporary education acknowledges the

centrality of learner and learner’s

development and seeks to lend assistance to

advance this development by considering all

aspects of learning and teaching affecting

learners’ progress. Knowledge is not any

more transmitted to acquirers; rather, it is

obtained in a way, bound and determined by

learners, to actualize this entity.

Learners are much more valued in the

contemporary educational system in so far

as their roles as the builders of knowledge

are more gratified. SRL is congruent with

constructivism and learner-centered

education. Self-regulated learning is in

parallel with constructivist view of learning

and teaching in that it puts learner at the

epicenter of learning and construction of

knowledge and, hence, it merits more heed

in contemporary education. Constructivism

underscores the importance of individual

self in building meaning (Vygotsky, 1978).

Learner acts out as an umpire of feeding

inlet of knowledge to them.

Disassociation from text-based education

and moving towards constructivism seeks

http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/index.php/JSMaP

http://internationaljournalofresearch.org/



November 2015


learners to be independent self-regulative

learners and this is much sooner

accomplished in a milieu which supports

and provides sufficient altitude for learners

to experience and implement their skills and

strategies to self regulate their learning.

Teachers can provide enough leeway for

learners to participate and engage by

creating an environment which is secure to

experience and maneuver over their

learning. Cultivating a milieu which is

encouraging and motivating allow for

experiencing and implementing skills and

strategies more willingly and get feedback

for establishing and if deemed necessary

altering their strategies to learn more

effectively.

Literature aims to spur teachers and

practitioners to reckon at learners’

responsibilities and decision making,

congruent with constructivism and schism

from transmission of knowledge, rote

learning, and spoon-feeding schools of

teaching.

2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED

LITERATURE

Self-regulated learning has been in the

limelight over the last three decades. It has

grabbed attentions among academics and

psychologists. It stems from educational

psychology and percolates in educational

and non-educational studies and instruction.

SRL has attracted many fields from

psychology to mathematics, health, sport,

medic, technology, policy making, and

language education. Myriad empirical and

non empirical studies exist concerning

educational and non educational self-

regulation learning.

Effect of self-regulatory strategies on

academic success has been well established

in many studies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;

Pintrich, 1990; Zimmerman, 1990). Self-

regulated learners indulge much higher self-

propulsion in their learning in comparison

with those who do not self-regulate.

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) refer

to a growing body of correlational research

which denotes higher achievements with

greater usage of learning strategies by self-

regulated learners than with little utilization

of self-directed learning strategies.

Wolters, A. C. (2010) in a review study

entitled the relation between the 21st Century

and self-regulated learning (SRL), with

reference to multiple studies, evinced that

however forging students into a self-

regulated learner establishes the stepping-

stone to volition, motivation, and self-

management in them, transferable also to

contexts outside of school.

Effect of schooling on the different

dimensions of self-regulated learning has

been examined in different fields of study. Leutwyler, Bruno & Maag Merki, Katharina

(2009) in a longitudinal study extending for

almost two years in gymnastic school

revealed significant effect of schooling on

development of self-regulatory capacity of

young learners.

Pratontep and Chinwonno (2008)

scrutinized the self-regulated learning

strategies of 30 Thai university students in a

reading comprehension program. The results

uncloaked significant differences between

the students’ English reading

comprehension, divided into upper and

lower level groups based on their

competencies in reading comprehension,

especially for the lower level group, in pre-

and post-test. Students reported frequent use

of metacognitive and performance

regulation strategies through the self-

regulated learning interview schedule. The

students in upper level group actively used

self-regulated learning strategies more often

than the lower level did to regulate their





November 2015


metacognition and performance.

Furthermore, the students’ verbal protocols

of reading unveiled the use of self-regulated

learning strategies in the performance or

volitional control phase more often than in

the forethought or self-reflection phases.

The positive effects of interventions

studies designed to promote students’ SRL

have now been well established. Training

programs are carried out and pilot tests are

conducted as part of the syllabus or running

experiments to enhance self-regulated

learning. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004)

present an anecdote of a cyclical model of

academic self-regulation in a case study

program to highlight the primary processes

and techniques used by an self-regulation

coaching (henceforth SRC) working with a

12-year-old Caucasian student and,

eventually, to empower her self-regulation

skills. The program was sprouted from

social-cognitive theory and research and

integrated many of the essential features of

the problem-solving model. Interventions

used in the Self-regulation empowerment

program (SREP) comprising making

graphic, cognitive modeling and coaching,

and structured practice sessions. The SRC

assessed Anna’s motivational profile as well

as how she used strategies to self-regulate

her learning according to triadic phases of

self-regulation and, at the end, after getting a

feeble grade in the tests she was offered an

intervention approach in an individualized

training program to teach her to set goals, to

record in person the performance processes

(i.e., strategies used) and outcomes (i.e., test

grades), and to evaluate goal progress and

strategy effectiveness. The intervention

programs at the end endorsed her improved

test score of 90 as a result of her newly

acquired study strategies.

The training program much attended to

the psychological side of Anna and

encouraged her to press in and press on by

recording and monitoring her progress with

the help of delivered self-regulation

strategies taught by her coach. Taking more

responsibility for her learning and

modifying her beliefs and motivating herself

helped Anna to elevate her grades in school.

The studies bear robust evidence of the

positive effects of SRL instructional

programs on children's academic

achievement. It must also be mentioned that

training programs will benefit more students

and even educators when they are

implemented concurrent with other

academic interventions or social programs

and when they consider all aspects of

learners (affective, cognitive, motivational

and cultural) and learning settings and self-

regulation stages cannot be applied in a rigid

way to every learning activity (ibid).

Causal-effect study carried out by Liu

(2008) showed that self-regulatory capacity

of learners can predict learners’ self-

perceptions in English achievement that in

practice affects their successes. This notifies

how the enrichment of self-regulatory

capacities in the forms of perceptions and

beliefs assists learners to attain success.

3. A DEFINITION OF SELF-

REGULATED LEARNING

Self-regulated learning is a composite

concept encapsulating besides cognitive and

metacognitve strategy also motivation and

affection in its framework. Currently, self-

regulation is recognized as an amalgamation

of cognition, metacognition, motivation and

emotion. Zimmerman (1989) posits that the

learner’s decisive self-management of

environment, behavior, and personal

processes is the most visible indicator of a

learner’s degree of self-regulation.

Self-regulated learning with its

broadened definition is “multi-component,





November 2015


iterative, self-steering processes that target

one’s own cognitions, feelings, and actions,

as well as features of the environment for

modulation in the service of one’s own

goals” (Boekaerts and Karoly, 2005).

Paris and Paris (2001) identify self-

regulated learning in its three words as the

mobilization of autonomy and control by the

individuals steering and regulating their

actions toward attainment of the goals.

While self-regulation is defined in its

discourse meaning as control process of

learning, academic self-regulation is

identified as proactively active participation

of learners in the process of learning.

Theorists have their own set interpretation of

self-regulated learning contingent upon

tradition and schools they’ve adopted for

learners’ learning processes.

The terms “self-regulation” and “self-

control” are being used interchangeably,

albeit some subtle distinctions are drawn by

different researchers. Some use the term

self-regulation more broadly to refer to goal-

directed behavior whereas “self-control”

may be associated specifically with

conscious impulse control (Baumeister and

Vohs, 2004). To Schmeichel and Baumeister

(2004), self-regulation associates well with

both conscious and unconscious alteration of

responses by the self, while “self-control”

implies a more explicit and cognizant

process of response alternation. By the same

token, it can be said that through self-

regulation learners wages into acting of the

self to change its own responses.

Zimmerman (1990) asserts that however

self-regulated learning is defined differntly

according to adopted theoretical orientations

by different researches but the commen

conceptualization shared among them is that

self-regulated learners are cognitively,

metacognitively, motivationally and

behaviorally predisposed to accomplish their

goals . To become self-regulated learner

means that one becomes adept in orientating

his/her learning to reach his/her own goals

despite cognitive, motivational and

emotional impediments. Self-regulation

enacts as an interim gadget for optimizing

learning and expediting process of goal

achievement. Paris and Paris (2001)

propound that each person builds his/her

own theory of self-regulation.

Self-regulation appeals for heeding the

interplay of context and individual behavior

(Bandura, 1986). Many instruments and

methods exist and are developed to

understand self-regulation (e.g. the Learning

and Strategies Study Inventory to assess

self-regulation strategies in general; LASSI

(Weinstein, 1987) , Scale of English Self-

Regulated Learning Strategies originated by

Wang, Wang, and Li, 2007 and Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire,

MSLQ originated by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia

& McKeachie (1993).

4. THEORIES AND MODELS OF SELF-

REGULATED LEARNING

STRATEGIES (SRLs)

SRL is examined against various

theoretical perspectives for the inclusion of

many facets of control and learning (Paris

and Paris, 2001). They name Piaget’s

constructivist theory, Vygotsky’s socio-

cultural theory, social learning theories, and

information-processing theories as the

central tenets of these theoretical

perspectives to study SRL. Zimmerman

(1989) expounds it in terms of

phenomenological, social cognitive,

Vygotskian and cognitive constructivist

theories and volitional.

The most prominent theory which

overshadows the self-regulation studies and

research is Albert Bandura’s social cognitive

theory (Zimmerman and Schunk, 1989).





November 2015


Zimmerman (1995), the avant-garde author

on self-regulated learning, pursues social

cognitive theory to study self-regulation.

However, social cognitive theory has

illuminated self-regulated learning studies

by providing a holistic backdrop against

which the self processes are enacted. It seeks

to emphasize reciprocal interactions between

the environment, the person, and his/her

behavior (Bandura, 1997). It purveys a

theoretical framework to scrutinize learning

in its real context. All the contributors,

inside and outside of the individual learners,

to control and regulate learning is

encapsulated in social cognitive theory.

Learners, in this theory, are identified with

their thorough dimensions in which their

thoughts, feelings and actions interact

reciprocally in an integrating and molding

environment to generate the desired

learning.

Social cognitive theory addresses the

interrelationship between the learner, the

learners’ behaviors, and the social

environment of classroom (Bandura, 1997).

Social cognitive theory expounds on how

learners’ properties are influenced by

characteristics of learning environment. It

represents a broad spectrum of the factors

which influence the learners and learning

processes. With the help of the theory

researchers are enabled discern umbilical

nexus between the learners and learning

environment. The consideration of

environment in determining actual learning

is urged by social cognitive theory, an

assumption akin to Vygotscian view of

learning, to swerve the riveted attention on

the sole studies of cognitive individual

development.

Social cognitive theory regards

contextual or situational variables as potent

contributors to students’ motivation and

self-regulation than personal attributes. It

implies in a sense that the context is

influential in individual’s cognitive,

behavioral and motivational processes of

learning. In this view, the individual’s self-

regulated learning is not seen as a stable trait

in all situations. However it is liable to

alternation and change over the course of

time and leaned upon different settings. So

as a result of the application of this theory to

education, self-motivational beliefs and

behaviors will vary depending on the nature

of educational setting or the specific tasks

which learners are required to do.

There are many models of self-regulated

learning each of which originates from a

different theoretical perspective. In the

domain of academic studies many models of

self-regulation have been projected, each of

which traces back and is imputed to a

different theoretical approach, which

categorically overlap in their construct and

conceptualization (Wolters 2010). The

following showcases some, the most

prominent of which is the Zimmerman’s

model.

A. The Personal Responsibility Orientation

model set forth by Brockett and Hiemstra

(1991)

B. The Effort Management Hierarchy model

developed by Thomas and Rohwer (1993)

C. Zimmerman’s three-phase self-regulation

model (Zimmerman, 1990)

The Personal Responsibility Orientation

model set forth by Brockett and Hiemstra

(1991) places self-direction in learning as an

overriding theme with two related sub-

dimensions. There exists the following two

constructs under the umbrella of self-

direction: (a) self-directed learning which

incorporates the concepts of the adult learner

and teaching-learning process set forth by

Knowles, and (b) learner self-direction

which focuses on characteristics internal to





November 2015


the individual that incline person toward

taking self-initiated onus.

According to Thomas and Rohwer

(1993), the effort management hierarchy

model is based on four hierarchical levels of

study activity. These activities include

monitoring, self-regulation, planning and

evaluating. Thomas and Rohwer purport that

learner self-direction occurs in a continuum

of activities which range from awareness of

needs to individual control of one’s study

efforts including concentration, time and

effectiveness of learning. They add that the

key to self-directed learning is regulation

and remediation.

Zimmerman’s triadic self-regulation

model introduces self-regulation as a

cyclical process involving learner

assessment and feedback of personal,

behavioral, and environmental factors

during three phases of the learning process:

(a) the forethought phase during which goal

setting and social modeling occur; (b)

performance control during which the

learner compares their performance to that

of other learners and provides self-

instruction regarding learning strategy; and

(c) self-reflection, the stage of self-

evaluation, resultant feedback, and self-

reward for performance success (Schunk,

2001).

Pintrich (2000) proposes four

assumptions for self-regulation and learning:

The first assumption, active constructive

assumption, assumes that all acquirers be

active, efficient participants in the learning

process. Learners subsume new material and

anchor it based on previously internalized

information to establish individualized

meaning, purposes, and strategies. Secondly,

control potential is the assumption that

learners have the ability to self-manage their

thought processes, motivation and behavior

and the environment. Third, goal

assumption, assumes that learners set goals

and self-regulate their efforts by monitoring

thought processes, behavior, and motivation

en route to reaching those goal. The fourth

assumption, mediation, recognizes the role

of learners’ personal, behavioral, and

environmental self-regulation processes of

learning for adjusting mercurial volatility of

the individual, the learning context and goal

attainment (ibid).

Paris and Paris (2001) extended a

developmental metaphor of self-regulation

based on socio-cultural model of learning in

which students develop competencies and

become more self-regulated. In this model

of learning Piagetian tenet is also applied in

which behaviors are molded and organized

through participation of learners in zone of

proximal development and self-regulation is

an adaptive representation of this

organization demonstrated in a situation

than a set of skills to be learnt (ibid.).

5. COGNITIVE & METACOGNITIVE

FACETS OF SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

Metacognition is considered as an effective

strategy for putting self-regulation into

effect. Positive direct effects of

metacognitive self-regulation on deep

learning strategies and on self-regulatory

strategies was sealed by Al-Harthy and Was

(2010).

Metacognition is ken about cognition and

regulation of cognition. It refers to ability to

mull over and control ones’ own learning

(Flavell, 1979, 1981). Knowledge about

cognition encompasses three sub-processes

facilitating reflective aspect of meta-

cognition: declarative, procedural and

conditional knowledge. Regulation of meta-

cognition includes planning, monitoring,

debugging and evaluation of strategies. The

metacognitive self-regulation component





November 2015


refers to the awareness of and control over

the cognitive processes.

Susimesta (2006), in an attempt to

identify the theoretical and empirical

boundary line between self-regulation, self-

regulated learning and metaconition,

concluded that drawing a boundary line

between cognition skills and strategies and

metacognition skills and strategies is

sometimes difficult. Dinsmore, Alexander,

and Loughlin (2008), by rehashing and

dissecting 225 studies, found that

metacognition is so pertained to cognitive

orientation while self-regulation more to

human action. Duckworth, K., Akerman, R.,

MacGregor A.,Salter, E., & Vorhaus , J.

(2009) endorse that cognitive and non-

cognitive skills are entwined.

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990)

purport that, students who are mecognitivley

aware show a better performance and are

more strategic than those learners who are

less informed of. Not to mention, many of

the metacognitive knowledge and skills are

not necessarily and specifically taught in

classroom. As Elliot (1999) puts it, students

mould their ideas and reactions gradually

and only after undergoing many challenging

learning.

However, there is some inconsistency

between findings in some researches. Pokay

and Blumenfeld (1990) evidenced the

negative relationship between meatcognitive

strategy use and achievement. To quote

Zimmerman (1995, p. 217), “it is one thing

to possess metacognitive knowledge and

skill but another thing to be able to self-

regulate its use in the face of fatigue,

stressors, or competing attractions”.

6. MOTIVATIONAL FACETS OF

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

According to Boekaerts, M. (1999) most

studies have focused on modifying cognitive

dimensions of self-regulation for optimal

learning to happen than those of affection,

motivation and performance. Zimmerman

(1995) claims that self regulation is more

than metacognitive ken and thinking skills.

It concerns with self efficacy beliefs and the

sense of agency and going through

motivational and behavioral processes to

effectuate the in-place beliefs. However,

self-regulation is comprised of a convoluted

system of social, motivational and

behavioral processes that is inaugurated by

individual referenced to self-factor (ibid).

He persuades and prevails on researchers to

traverse metacognitive knowledge and skill

to consider more the motivational and

behavioral processes underlying self-

efficacy and personal agency for

effectuating these self beliefs.

Reaserch in domain of strategy

instruction denotes that strategy awareness

is good predictor of learners‘ use of

strategies but motivatioenal belief of lerners

is good indicator of putting these strategies

into use. Motivational studies of self-

regulation are escalating as motivational

beliefs play a significant part in deployment

of metacognitive strategies (Wolters C, A. &

Pintrich P, R. 1998; Young, 2005).

Studies on motivation and strategies

demonstrate a close link between

motivational beliefs and use of strategies.

Existing research has documented positive

relations between students’ academic self-

efficacy and their use of self-regulation

strategies (Schunk, 2005). In an early

schooling study, Pintrich and De Groot

(1990) found that middle school students’

self-efficacy beliefs were positively related

to their cognitive engagement and academic

performance. The findings documented that

school children who believed they were

capable of learning were more likely to





November 2015


report use of SRL strategies and to persist

longer at difficult academic tasks.

Paulsen and Gentry (1995) examined the

relationships among motivational variables

(intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation, task

value, control of learning, test anxiety, and

self-efficacy), cognitive learning-strategy

subcategories (rehearsal, elaboration, and

organization), self-regulation subscales

(time, study, and effort), and students’

academic performance (final grade) in an

Introduction to Financial Management

course. They found that all motivational

variables were significantly related to the

academic performance, final grade in the

course, where path analysis revealed the

self-efficacy as the strongest predictor of

performance.

Motivational beliefs act as cantilevers

which strengthen the suspensions of

attitudes to sustain effort and persistence for

finalizing the goal. Self-regulated learner is

tantamount to a self-efficacious learner who

persists in his beliefs despite worries and has

the adequate will to strive to attain his goals.

Self-regulated learner is tantamount to a

self-efficacious learner who persists in his

beliefs despite worries and has the adequate

will to strive to attain his goals. Research

denotes that effective self-regulation is

pivoted on students’ sense of self-efficacy

for self-regulating their learning and taking

on actions (Schunk, 1995).

7. ENVIRONMNETAL FACETS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

SRL is conceptualized as a dynamic

process enhanced by some contextual

features (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005).

Social cognitive theory sets great store by

interrelated interaction of the environment,

the person, and his or her behavior

(Bandura, 1986). Social cognitive theorists

postulate that student’ social experiences in

learning environment, particularly their

interactions with teachers, can affect self-

regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1989). An

allover calibration of the factors influencing

learning overshadowed by social cognitive

theory has helped researchers and educators

to scrutinize self-regulated learning much

scrupulously.

Myriad studies of strategy instruction

have shown that cognitive practices along

side with non-cognitive support result in

higher attainments. Pintrich and De Groot

(1990) believe that the importance of

classroom contextual factors for instigating

key enablers of learning, viz. ‘will’ and

‘skill’ represented as older cognitive models

of learning, to succeed is irrefutable.

Zimmerman (1997) recognizes

environmental determinants as physical and

social attributions. Social experiences in

learning are like autonomy support,

feedback to self-evaluate, leaner-centered.

Influence and contribution of learning and

teaching context and domains can be

examined at three levels of macro (school)

micro (classroom) and personal (individual

level) and this study only considers the

social aspects of learning and teaching at

micro levels. Physical attributions are

facilities, equipments, arrangement of

classroom and et cetera.

There are multitudes of studies that

vindicate the irrefutable effect of the

contextual factors on developing self-

regulatory capacity of learners (Cleary and

Zimmerman, 2004; Lin, 2004; Perry, 1998;

Sungur and Gungoren, 2009; Wolters and

Pintrich 1998; Yen, 2005; Young, 2005). In

a correlational study conducted by Yen

(2004) the strength of association between

student-teacher interactions and self-

regulated learning(r =.36, p <.01) was found

to be large which endorsed once again the





November 2015


constructive role of teachers in creating a

setting conducive to fostering and spurring

student's self-regulated learning. Young (

2005) in a study aiming to fathom

motivational effect of the classroom

environment in facilitating self-regulated

learning found that delivery with high

interaction, encouraging feedback, and clear

goals that emphasize learning over grades

will augment intrinsic motivation and the

use of self-regulated learning strategies.

Leutwyler and Merki (2009) conducted a

longitudinal study in an ecologically valid

setting of 20 public and two private high

schools in Switzerland (Gymnasium, ISCED

3A) without specific training programs. The

results showed the significant effects of

schooling and instructional processes on

students’ progress in self-regulated learning

though differing in degree of stability

contingent upon different features of the

school and instructional process. The

development of many aspects of cognitive

and metacognitive self-regulation was

impacted by school process variables, to a

greater degree, than students’ extra-

curricular experience. The findings implied

the effect of various social and didactical

factors on the promotion of self-regulation

of cognitive, metacognition and motivation.

Cognitive and metacognitive self-regulation

variances explained by these variables

ranged between 1.8 % for transformation

strategies and 5.3 % for monitoring

strategies and evaluation strategies.

Perceived social inclusion played an

important role in the positive development

of practically all dimensions of motivational

self-regulation (βmin = .131; p < .05). With

regard to the didactic aspects of classroom

instruction, requiring students to elaborate

frequently promoted the development of

intrinsic motivation (β = .089; p < .05) while

teachers’ use of a process orientation

showed no effect at all and high self-reliance

of learners had a demonstrable effect on

only one single case. The degree of

transferring orientation in teaching

(measured using the scale “elaboration”)

illustrated the positive relations with the

development of cognitive and metacognitive

self-regulation. Only one association

between motivational self-regulation and

teachers’ use of transfer orientation was

demonstrable in isolated cases only. Gender

had impacts only on some aspects of

cognitive and metacognitive self-regulation,

explaining between 12.8 % and 25.3 % of

the variance for monitoring strategies and

transformation strategies and explained

much of the variances in motivational self-

regulation both of which accounted for

students’ starting conditions.

Critical role of specific contextual and

situational variables on students’ motivation

and self-regulation has been attested in

recent studies. (Lin, Xi-zhe 2004;

Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Young, 2005;

Zimmerman, 1989). Classroom environment

contributing to students’ motivation and

autonomy to have opportunity and take

responsibility for personal experience is

recommended by Paris and Paris (2001).

Many aspects of learning

environment like autonomy support in the

form of providing choices and opportunity,

teaching programs, teaching approaches,

student-teacher interaction, and motivational

beliefs have been found to contribute to

fostering and development of this skill

(Ames, 1992; Lin, 2004).

The optimal conditions for developing

self-regulation occur when children and

young people have an opportunity to pursue

goals that they themselves find meaningful;

they will also be invited to develop their

skills by selecting their own activities,

taking initiative, engaging in challenging

and co-operational learning experiences and

making their own decisions (Boekaerts and





November 2015


Corno, 2005). Self-regulation, as an

indivisible compartment of such

professional development, is emphasized by

social constructivist theory. This means that

knowledge is constructed through social

interaction and is a shared experience rather

than an individual one (Vygotsky, 1978).

Teachers need to be involved in sharing and

reflecting on their practices with their

colleagues. Teachers leading a solitary

practice may not be aware of the need to

make changes in their instructional

perspectives. Teachers’ collaboration with

one another has been widely studied as a

remedy to the isolation that many teachers

experience. Butler, et al., (2004) propound

that cooperation creates a professional

learning community that holds members

accountable while sustaining momentum

during “inevitable challenges”.

Classroom environment contributing to

students’ motivation and autonomy to have

opportunity and take responsibility for

personal experience is recommended by

Paris and Paris (2001). So as for learners’

self-regulated learning a supporting and

empowering environment is likewise

required to be designed and implemented by

teachers and educators to motivate learners

to deploy self-regulatory strategies.

Harrison and Prain (2009) conducted a

case study on 11 year 8 students’ self-

regulation of learning beliefs and practices

in two English task completion and

engagement within an 11 month schooling

program influenced by the learning and

teaching processes, contextual,

organizational factors in an Australian

regional secondary school context with a

low socio-economic origin. Students were

questioned on affective and cognitive

strategy uses after completing tasks by the

authors and teachers after two or three

weeks. students reported use of self-

regulatory strategies by honing independent

learning through constructing an

environment that cater for their differences

in interest and also by harnessing structure

of the class and learning and teaching

process.

The research comprised part of a tri-

schooling study project to obtain self-

regulatory capacities of students on lessons,

within and in pursuit of task completion

activities, by classroom observations and

interviewing learners and teachers. Their

perceptions and strategies were noted these

were coded as the springboard for the

further analysis on the self-regulatory

development patterns. Engagement was

operationalized in respect of cognitive,

emotional and behavioral processes. Within

task completion, interview yielded that

learners reported affective responses to the

tasks and use of strategies.

Among 11 participants, nine showed

sundry self-regulatory tactics, alacrity to

take responsibility for executing the tasks,

seeking help from teachers and classmates

and peer learning and happiness on

achieving set goals and also managements of

their own times. One of the participants,

Albert, having gone through inquiry into his

failure on task completion revealed that he

had difficulty in implementing the strategies

he had shown at other skills than school

work at which he was good.

Experiencing transformed organization of

the class in a new learning community and

teacher’s expectation of students to work

independently in inquiry time had

significant impact on student’s perceptions

and subsequently on their self-regulatory

practices. The new learning community

brought with it the convolution of each

specific environment which had an enabling

effect on students’ developments. Support of

teachers showed significantly the

improvement of self-regulatory strategies.





November 2015


Unscheduled syllabuses in the new learning

community dissipated the monotony of the

activities while provoking some uncertainty

and anxiety over what will come next but

axiomatically offering more challenge and

responsibility and providing more

opportunity in the new environment.

Results had some implications for future

reinforcement of self-regulatory capacity of

schoolchildren students through caring for

students’ differences, providing non-rigid

and positive non-competing learning

environment, more accurate learning

evaluative system, and support for teachers

to meet student’s need collaboratively.

8. IMPORTANCE OF SELF-

REGULATED LEARNING IN

ACADEMIC ENDEAVORS

Self-regulated learning has been introduced

in education taking its roots from

educational psychology. SRL has grabbed

attention of many people from different

fields from psychology to mathematics,

health, sport, medical, technology, policy

making, marketing and language education.

It is in line with constructivist epistemology

and in parallel with the learner-centered

education and gradual schism from teacher-

directed learning through providing learners

with opportunity and laissez-faire to have

control over their learning skills and

participating them in decision-making

Educational psychology research has

dealt extensively with self-regulation and its

significance as a mediating variable for

academic performance, success and social

competence (Zimmerman, 1990; Magno,

2010). Self-regulated learning is a

composite concept encapsulating apart from

cognition and metacogniton also motivation

and affection in its construct.

Effect of self-regulatory strategies on

academic success has been well-established

galore in many studies (Kitsantas, Steen, and

Huie, 2009; Lindner and Harris 1992;

Pintrich, 1999; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990;

Zimmerman, 1990). In the realm of

academic self-regulated learning cross-

sectional and longitudinal studies in

naturalistic and non naturalistic contexts

prevail that do address the development and

enhancement of self-regulated learning.

Self-regulation is believed to be the best

predictor of academic performance on all the

outcome measures, suggesting that the use

of self-regulatory strategies, such as

comprehension monitoring, goal setting,

planning, and effort management and

persistence is essential for academic

performance on different types of actual

classroom tasks (Boekaerts and Corno,

2005; Zimmerman and Pons, 1986, 1988).

Previous studies dealt exclusively with

pure cognitive models of SRL but by

expansion of theories and models research is

currently encapsulated other dimensions of

self-regulated learning which interplay in

self-regulated learning process. Duckworth

et al. (2009) state that self-regulation is not

concerned with ‘thinking skills’; it also

questions the role of emotion, motivational

beliefs, self-concept and contextual factors

in learning. The word self is more

appreciated when it is reflected as a whole

enacting and formulating in connection with

world. Individual as a whole entity

integrated in setting, yields more precise

speculations about his thought, motivation

and behaviors.

Studies depict that the acquisition of self-

regulation skills is not an all or nothing

phenomenon learnt overnight. This is not a

skill acquired instantaneously and

automatically and like other learning needs

to be nurtured and practiced by schooling. It





November 2015


is a skill that beings from early schooling

and continues to flourish cognitively by age

and diminish motivationally at the same

time, invigorated and empowered by co- and

other-regulation. Hong and O’Neil (2001)

revert back to multitudes of studies which

evince that it is a trait which is not stable

and is subject to fluctuation and oscillation.

While many educators consider self-

regulation as a set of skills, some consider it

as the deployment of all individual resources

to invigorate learning process. Paris and

Paris (2001) extended a developmental

metaphor of self regulation based on socio-

cultural model of learning in which students

develop competencies and become more

self-regulated. In this model of learning

Piagetian tenet is also applied in which

behaviors are molded and organized through

participation of learners in zone of proximal

development and self-regulation is an

adaptive representation of this organization

demonstrated in a situation than a set of

skills to be learnt (ibid.).

Self-regulation is also studied as the state

or the trait attributes in relation to the

psychological characteristics. With self-

regulation as a protean system, trait-related

measures are also important in self-regulated

learning to be studied in connection with

academic performance. Hong and O’Neil

(2001) concur that differences of trait and

state constructs for self-regulation in

individual learners are also in need of

consideration both for learning and

performance and for offering training

programs by instructors. Winne and Perry

(2000) maintain that self-regulated learning

measure tools can be categorized as an

aptitude gauge and an activity (event) gauge.

Measurements of aptitude examine stable

qualities and properties of students that

represent predictable behaviors in the future

that come in the form of self-reporting

questionnaires, structured interview and

teacher judgment or as event gauge which

describes state and processes of individuals

while they are self-regulating.

The research on self-regulation has not

been limited to the traditional settings and

are implemented to nontraditional settings

like distance education and online learning

where personal and self-factors more than

social and contextual factors play a

definitive role in prompting academic

achievement (Azevedo and Seibert 2004;

Susimesta, 2006).

In addition, many studies on self-

regulated learning have been done in the

domain of foreign language learning.

English learning skills also have been

subject of inquiry in terms of exploitation of

self-regulated learning strategies. Usefulness

of self-regulation as a strategy for

productive learning in second language

learning and acquisition discipline is being

endorsed by several studies (Harrison and

Prain, 2009). Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt

(2006) evinced the transferability of self-

regulation construct from educational

psychology into the field of second language

acquisition by examining self-regulatory

capacity for vocabulary learning strategies

of Taiwanese university and high school

students.

However it should be noted that,

very few studies exist that systematically

delve into how far elements of self-

regulation differ by gender (Zimmerman and

Martinez-Pons, 1990), or by characteristics

of the family such as socio-economic

background. Leutwyler and Merki (2009)

found that that gender played no role in the

deployment of self-efficacy and persistence.

Gender was stabilized to explain no

variances in cognitive and metacognitive

self-regulation (ibid).





November 2015


9. CONCLUSION

Taking into account the relevant theories,

research, reviews, and meta-analytical

studies of the self-regulation literature, it is

generally agreed that the findings about the

organization of self-regulation and its strong

relationship with performance and success

are highly reliable (Pintrich and Schunk,

1996). The literature elucidated the value of

self-regulated learning and constructive role

of learning and teaching environment in its

burgeoning and fostering.

With self-regulation skill training

programs being incorporated as separate

courses in most disciplines in addition to

content knowledge teaching programs in

today’s education, magnitude of this skill in

enabling effective learning is being

conveyed. Helping students to reach the

point that they have the capacity to regulate

their own learning is advised to equip

learners to advance their learning. By the

same token, other- regulation and co-

regulation is a way of propelling learners

into self-regulation.

However, trickling learners into

academic self-regulation and dispensing

gradually with other regulation and co-

regulation with teachers and peers seeks a

supporting learning environment. Transition

from other regulation by teachers and co-

regulation by peers to self regulation seeks a

fostering learning environment which

provides skill and will for self-regulated

learning. Paris & Paris (2001) assert that

helping students to become self-regulated

not only promotes more sui juris, competent,

and determined learners, but is also likely to

elevate test scores. A supporting and

empowering environment is required to be

designed and implemented by teachers and

educators to motivate learners to deploy

self-regulatory strategies. However, despite

this strong advocacy of the value of this

capacity, teachers still struggle and hesitate

to provide learning experiences that support

this learning capacity in students (Prain,

2008).

As literature enlightened how

cognition, motivation, affect and context are

closely intertwined in promoting self-

regulation, attending to all these elements in

conjunction with teaching of strategies and

skills elevates higher achievement and

wellbeing of learners. The review made it

clear how the enrichment of self-regulatory

capacities in the forms of perceptions and

beliefs assists learners to attain success. It

commands attentions of learners and

teachers at collegiate levels and beyond and

even more importantly those serving at basic

levels of education and primary school to

heed more attention to this skill since the

development of this capacity appeared to be

incremental developing faster and faster

after the initial stages of schooling.

The aforesaid studies accentuating the

interplay between self-regulation

phenomenon and success encourage learners

to mull once again over self-regulatory

strategies and put this fruitful skill into use.

The concrete data also remind practitioners

and educators to rehash and review their

content delivery methods, interaction with

students, apprehension of self-regulatory

behavior of college language learners and

thorough insight into learners’ perceptions

of motivational beliefs. The evidence

provided prevails on educators and

curriculum developers to cogitate more on

modifying and revising learning and

teaching environment. With contextual

factors, directly and indirectly, affecting

development of this skill more practice en

route to enhancing self-regulated learning,

which eventually, result in deep learning is

suggested.

The literature likewise spur curriculum

developers and syllabus designers to revise





November 2015


their materials for incorporating more

problem solving tasks and group working

activities, intervention programs, strategy

training courses for bolstering self-regulated

learning which has been shown to be the

cornerstone of constructivist learning.

References

[1] [1] Al-Harthy, I. S, & Was, C.A.

(2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive

self-regulation. International Journal of

Education. 2010, Vol.2, No.1.

[2] [2] Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms;

Goals, structures, and student motivation.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,

261-271.

[3] [3] Azevedo, R. Cromley, J. G., &

Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive

scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to

regulate their learning with hypermedia?

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29,

3.

[4] [4] Bandura, A. (1986). Social

foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

[5] [5] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-

efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:

Freeman.

[6] [6] Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K. D.

(2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female

resource for social

a. exchange in heterosexual

interactions. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 8,339 – 363.

[7] [7] Boekaerts, M., Maes, S. &

Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulation across

domains of applied psychology:Is there an

emerging consensus? Applied Psychology,

54(2), 149-154.

[8] [8] Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M

Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation

(pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic.

[9] [9] Boekaerts, M., Maes, S., &

Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the

classroom: A perspective on assessment and

intervention. Applied Psychology, 54, 267–

99.

[10] [10] Brockett, R. G. & Hiemstra, R

(1991). Self-Direction in adult learning:

Perspectives on theory, research, and

practice. New York: Routledge.

[11] [11] Bryan, C. L. (2006). Self-

Determination in physical education:

Designing class environents to promote

active lifestyles. A dissertation Submitted to

the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State

University and Agricultural and Mechanical

College in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy. Retrieved Novemeber 4, 2010,

from http://www. etd.lsu.edu.

[12] [12] Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H.

(1995). Feedback and self-regulated

learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of

Educational Research, 65, 245-281.

[13] [13] Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N.,

Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B.

(2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in

teachers’ professional development.

Teaching and Teacher Education , 20 (5),

435-455.

[14] [14] Cleary, T. J. & Zimmerman, B.

J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment

program: A school-based program to

enhance self-regulated and Self-motivated

cycles of student learning. Psychology in

the Schools, Vol. 41(5), 2004.

[15] [15] Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J.,

Pelletier, L.G. and Ryan, R.M. (1991).

Motivation in education: The self-

determination perspective. Educational

Psychologist, 26, 325- 346.

[16] [16] Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P.

A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the

conceptual lens on metacognition, self-

regulation, and self-regulated learning.

Educational Psychology





November 2015


a. Review, 20, pp.391-401.

[17] [17] Duckworth, K., Akerman, R.,

MacGregor A., Salter, E., & Vorhaus ,

J.(2009). Self-regulated learning: A

literature review .London: Published by

Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits

of Learning (WBL), Institute of Education.

[18] [18] Elliot, A. J., (1999). Approach

and avoidance motivation goals.

Educational Psychologist, 34(3), pp.169-

189.

[19] [19] Driver, R. (1988) Theory into

practice II: A constructivist approach to

curriculum development.

[02] In P. Fensham (ed), Development and

Dilemmas in Science Education (London:

Falmer).

[21] [

20] Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition

and cognitive monitoring: A new area

of cognitive- developmental inquiry.

American Psychologist, 34, 906}911.

[22] [

21] Harrison, S. and Prain, Vaughan. (2009).

Self-regulated learning in junior secondary

English. Issues in Educational Research,

19(3), 2009.

[23] [22] Hong, E. & O’Neil, Jr. H. F. (

2001). Construct validation of a trait self-

regulation model. International Journal of

psychology, 2001, 36 (3), 186–194.

[24] [23]

Leutwyler, B. & Merki, M.K. ( 2009).

School effects on students' self-regulated

learning .Journal for Educational Research

Online .Volume 1 (2009), No. 1, 197–223.

[25] [24] Lin, Xi-Zhe ( 2004). Successful

EFL learners and their self-regulation: A

case study of students in advanced English

program in one university motivation. A

dissertation submitted to university of Ming

Chuan in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of

Arts in applied linguistics. Retrieved August

7, 2010, from

http://www.ethesys.lib.mcu.edu.tw

[26] [25] Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich,

P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for

academic success. School Psychology

Review, 31(3).

[27] [26] Liu, H. H.(2008). Scale

development and causal-effect studies of

self-regulation in English language learning.

Retrieved October 12, 2010, from

http://www.

tc.academia.edu/heidihtliu/Papers/1586951/

DissertationAbstractsInternational-Abstract.

[28] [27] Magno Carlo (2010). Assessing

academic self-regulated learning among

Filipino college students: The Factor

Structure and Item Fit .The International

Journal of educational and psychological

assessment. Vol. 5.

[29] [28] Paris, S. G. & Paris, A. H.

(2001).Classroom application of research on

self-regulated learning. Educational

Psychologist, 36, 89-101.

[30] [

29] Pintrich, P. & De Groot, E. (1990).

Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic

performance. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 33-40.

[31] [

30] Pintrich, P. & De Groot, E. (1990).

Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic

performance. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 33-40.

[32] [31] Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role

of goal orientation in self-regulated learning.

In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M

Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation

(pp. 451-502). San Diego: Academic.

[33] [33] Pintrich, P. R. & Smith, D. A.

F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A

Manual for the Use of the Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire





November 2015


(MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: NCRIPTAL,The

University of Michigan, 1991: 3.

[34] [34] Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H.

(1996). Motivation in education: Theory,

research, and applications. Englewood

Cli!s, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.

[35] [35] Pintrich, and Zeidner, M. (Eds.).

Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502).

San Diego: Academic.

[36] [36] Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C.

(1990). Predicting achievement early and

late in the semester: The role of motivation

and use of learning strategies. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82, 41-50.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.41

[37] [37] Prain, V. (2008). A case study

of self-regulated learning in junior

secondary English. Paper presented at the

Australian Association for Research in

Education Conference, Brisbane, November

30-December 4, 2008. Issues in Educational

Research, 19(3), 2009.

[38] [38] Pratontep, C. & Chinwonno, A.

(2008). Self-regulated learning by Thai

university students in an EFL extensive

reading program.MANUSYA: Journal of

Humanities, 11.2, 2008.

[39] [39] Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L.

(2006). Self-regulation and the problem of

human autonomy: Does psychology need

choice, self-determination, and will? .

Journal of Personality, 74(6), pp. 1557-

1585.

[40] [40] Schmeichel, B. J. and

Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Self-regulatory

strength. In: Baumeister, R. F., and Vohs,

K.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation.

Research, Theory and Applications,

Guilford Press, New York, pp. 84-98.

[41] [41] Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-

efficacy and education and instruction. In J.

E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation,

and adjustment: Theory, research, and

application (pp. 281–303). New York:

Plenum.

[42] [42] Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social

cognitive theory and self-regulated learning.

In B. J. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 1-10.

[43] [43] Schunk, D. H. (2005).

Commentary on self-regulation in school

contexts. Learning and Instruction , (15)

173-177.

[44] [44] Schunk, D. H, & Zimmerman,

B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From

teaching to self-reflective practice. New

York: The Guilford Press.

[45] [45] Sungur, S. & Gungoren,

S.(2009).The role of classroom environment

perceptions in self-regulated learning and

science achievement. Elementary Education

Online, 8(3), 883-900, 2009. Retrieved July

17, 2010, from http://ilkogretim-

online.org.tr/pdf

[46] [46] Susimesta, M. (2006).Motivated

and self-regulated learning of adult learners

in a collective online environment. A

dissertation presented in university of

Tampere in research center for professional

and vocational education. Retrieved July 7,

2011, from, http://www.acta.uta.fi/pdf [47] [47] Thomas, J. W & Rohwer, W. D.,

Jr. (1993). Proficient autonomous learning:

problems and prospects. In M. Rabinowitz

(Ed.) Cognitive science foundations of

instruction, (pp.1-32). Hillsdale, NJ:

Earlbaum.

[48] [48] Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z.,

Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to

assessing strategic learning: the case of self-

regulation in vocabulary acquisition.

Applied Linguistics, 78-102.learning: the

case of self-regulation in vocabulary

acquisition. Applied Linguistic 78-102.

[49] [49] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in

society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

[50] [50] Weinstein, C. E. (1987).

Learning and study strategies inventory



http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.41



November 2015


(LASSI). Clearwater, F: H & H Publishing

Company.

[51] [

51] Winne, P.H. and Perry, N.E. (2000)

Measuring self-regulated learning. In P.

Pintrich, M. Boekaerts and M. Zeidner (eds)

Handbook of self-regulation. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press.

[52] [52] Wolters, C. (2010). Self-

regulated learning and the 21st

Century

Competencies. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from,

http://www.hewlett.org/pdf

[53] [53] Young, M.R. (2005).The

motivational effects of the classroom

environment in facilitating self-regulated

learning. Journal of Marketing Education ,

April 2005; Vol 27; 25. No1 24-40.

[54] [54] Yen, L. Ng. M. (2007).

Exploring children's self regulated learning

skills. International Conference on

Educational Reform, November 9-11, 2007,

Mahasarakham University, Thailand.

[55] [55] Yen Lee Ng, et al., (2005).Self-

Regulated Learning in Malaysian Smart

Schools: International Education Journal,

2005, 6(3), 343-353.ISSN 1443-1475 ©

2005 Shannon Research

Press.http://iej.cjb.net.

[56] [56] Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A

social cognitive view of self-regulated

academic learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology 81 (3): 329-39.

[57] [57] Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-

regulated learning and academic

achievement :An overview. Journal of

Educational psychology, 25(1), 3-7.


regulation involves more than

metacognition: A social cognitive

perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30

(4), 217-221.

[59] [59] Zimmerman, B. J. (1997).

Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social

cognitive perspective. Contemporary


[60] [60] Zimmerman, B. J. (2000).

Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive

perspective. In M. 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



regulation, achieving self-regulation: The

trial and triumph of adolescence. In F. Frank

Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic

motivation of adolescents (pp. 1-28).

Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

[62] [62] Zimmerman, B. J., and M.

Martinez-Pons (1986). Development of a

structured interview for assessing student

use of self-regulated learning strategies.

American Educational Research Journal,

23:614-28.

[63] [63] Zimmerman & Schunk, D. H.

(1989). Self-regulated learning and

academic achievement. Theory, research

and practice (S. 83-110). New York:

Springer-Verlag.

