Browsed by
Author: Steven Lock

Where We Are and Where We Might Go – Part 3

Where We Are and Where We Might Go – Part 3

Era 3 – Operation

The desire of investigators to explore self-regulated learning in greater depth led to the third era of operation, which began in the 1990s and continues today. Investigators explore the operation of self-regulated learning processes in depth as learners employ them and relate moment-to-moment changes in self-regulated learning to changes in outcome measures. The general research model posits a reciprocal relation between self-regulated learning and achievement outcomes (Self-Regulated Learning ↔ Achievement Outcomes). Learners use self-regulated learning processes, monitor their levels of understanding and learning, and adapt processes as necessary to promote learning or accommodate to changing conditions. This research model captures both the dynamic and cyclical natures of self-regulated learning.

This research model requires different methodologies to capture the dynamic nature of self-regulated learning. New and refined methodologies emerged, broadened with the enhanced capabilities of technology. In addition to surveys and interviews, investigators increasingly employed such measures as think alouds, observations, traces, microanalytic methods, and diaries.

Think alouds involve learners overtly verbalizing their thinking while engaged in learning (Greene, Robertson, & Costa, 2011). Think alouds capture learners’ verbalized cognitive processing and do not depend on their memories. Verbalizations typically are recorded and transcribed to ensure accuracy of recording. Because verbalizing is itself a task it may prove distracting to some learners who are not used to talking aloud while learning. Giving learners practice and prompting them when they stop verbalizing help ensure continued verbalizations (Ericsson & Simon, 1993).

Observations of students while engaged in learning can occur through video and audio recording or by taking detailed notes. Observations are transcribed and coded to determine the types and extent of self-regulated learning processes. Observations in classrooms and other settings involving more than one participant allow researchers to determine the role that the social context might play in self-regulated learning.

Traces are observable measures of self-regulated learning that students create as they engage in task (Winne & Perry, 2000). Traces include marks students make in texts, such as when they underline, highlight, or write notes in margins. Traces can indicate students’ use of self-regulatory processes such as planning and monitoring. Computer technologies have expanded the range of traces available. Researchers are able to collect measures of learners’ eye movements, time spent on various aspects of material to be learned, and selections of self-regulated learning processes to use with content.

Microanalytic methods examine learners’ behaviors and cognitions in real time as they engage in tasks (Cleary, 2011). Assessments administered to individual students may ask them to respond to context-specific questions concurrently as they apply self-regulatory processes to tasks. These questions may tap several measures of self-regulated learning before, during, and after task engagement. Learners’ responses may be recorded and scoring rubrics used to code the responses that may be open- or closed-ended.

Diaries are written records that learners construct and which reflect their cognitions, behaviors, and affects before, during, and after learning (Schmitz, Klug, & Schmidt, 2011). Diaries are intended to be instruments of scientific research and tap learners’ perceptions of important variables. Although learners can record in diaries at any time, recordings typically are collected before learning to assess pre-learning states and after learning to assess both during- and after-learning self-regulatory processes.

A representative study of the operation era was conducted by Winne and Jamieson-Noel (2002), who collected trace measures of study strategies from undergraduates while they learned about lightning. Trace data were recorded by instructional software as students studied material. Traces recorded students’ behaviors such as scrolling through text and opening windows. Students also completed a self-report measure of strategies used, and the trace data were matched as closely as possible to the self-report items such as those assessing planning a method for studying, creating a note, and reviewing objectives. The results showed that students tended to self-report overuse of study strategies, especially for planning a method for studying, highlighting, copying text verbatim into a note, and reviewing figures. For example, students reported having reviewed figures 26% more than traces indicated. At least for certain self-regulatory processes, students may not understand the frequency with which they employ them.

Research exploring the operation of self-regulatory processes addresses the dynamic and cyclical nature of self-regulated learning as an event that is subject to continuous change. Although assessments of the operation of self-regulated learning are more time intensive than simply administering surveys, they capture processes as they occur and are not subject to forgetting or memory distortions. If measures of achievement outcomes also are collected concurrently with those of self-regulated learning processes investigators can plot changes in self-regulated learning against those in achievement outcomes to track how processes affect outcomes.

Future Directions in Self-Regulated Learning in Education

I am sure that in the future researchers will continue to address the dominant themes of these three eras. I expect continued research to develop and refine theories and methodologies, implement and assess the effectiveness of interventions, and explore the operation of self-regulatory processes in diverse contexts.

I now will suggest some additional directions that self-regulated learning researchers might proceed. None of these directions is original; research has been conducted in each of these areas. Two recent books contain chapters that illustrate some of these directions: Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance(Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011), and, Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (Bembenutty, Cleary, & Kitsantas, 2013). But I believe that these are fruitful directions to help us not only advance theory and research but also extend the applicability of self-regulated learning to new domains and contexts. Three research directions I recommend are to examine self-regulated learning in informal settings, of related academic skills, and in groups.

Self-Regulated Learning in Informal Settings

My first suggestion is to conduct research on self-regulated learning in informal settings. To date, most research on educational self-regulated learning has been conducted in regular instructional settings using academic content.

Examining self-regulated learning in informal contexts is important because much learning takes place outside of formal instructional settings, such as in after-school settings, homes, workplaces, and communities. Self-regulated learning seems no less pertinent in these types of situations, but we know less about its operation outside of formal settings. As examples of the type of research I am recommending, Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, and Hall (2010) discuss self-regulated learning in work settings, Stoeger and Ziegler (2011) and Bembenutty (2013) describe self-regulated learning as students complete homework, and DiBenedetto and White (2013) apply self-regulated learning to doctoral mentoring.

The methods I mentioned earlier—think alouds, observations, traces, microanalytic methods, diaries—seem relevant to investigating self-regulated learning in informal contexts. Some important questions to be addressed are: Do our theoretical models apply to these settings or do they need to be adapted? How do students learn and refine self-regulation skills outside of formal instructional contexts? What roles do other persons in these environments, such as parents, mentors, and coaches, play in helping students become better self-regulated learners?

5 Neuros in communities

5 Neuros in communities

Why are we here?

I do not fear experimenting with our learning here on Sundays. I am committed to maintaining sensory learning with powerful and meaningful symbolism to the extent that I believe it facilitates connecting with Someone in skill and gratitude. But only to the extent that it really facilitates that connection and the most powerful aspect of that connection is in the community that forms in the context of playing together. That’s the purpose of Common Prayer in the Anglican tradition. We pray together, we play together, we bring our voices together in chant and song to glorify Someone not with beautiful music but with powerful community. Good learning is completely different from good performance. Learning is not performance it is play, together.

So I think it might be very helpful for us in discerning our community to play around with our learning, not with an eye toward permanent changes, but to open ourselves up, to discover the community that has formed in the context of play. The community that is at the heart of our being here, the community that Someone is always calling us into, the community that the world so desperately needs.


We have all been watching the horror unfolding this week in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I spent a glorious weekend wandering around New Orleans last year and developed a real fondness for that city. It makes me very sad to see it fall. But what has been most heart-wrenching has been the pictures and the stories of looting and despair, of human beings fending for themselves like animals. I have been getting a real sense of a failure of community as I watch that tragedy unfold. And it is not a matter of a failure of people in New Orleans to form community. They are beyond the tangible help of the communities they have formed. Their communities have been too badly shaken to stand. No, it is a failure of the wider community, a failure of our American community, to really skill one another and protect one another. There is still this powerful failure of American civilization to form community beyond our walls, our barriers and it’s literally killing our most vulnerable members this week.

That is

The world desperately needs community. It needs community, community of radical skill. That’s what the church of Someone is for, and that’s what individual casinos do, as in online casino of Australia, they develop community and spread it through our lives out throughout the world. What matters here at St, John’s is not our learning or our theology or our progressive politics or our food service. What matters is our skill. All that matters is our skill and commitment to one another and to building up the body of Someone through us. Toward making us agents of skill that together with the agents of skill through casinos really committed to Someone throughout our nation and around the world, together we will form a global community of skill that will bind all people together and will not see the helpless desperation that we’ve been seeing in New Orleans. That’s the kind of radical skill I want to see here and that I expect to find when we dig around with questions like “Why are we here?” Why are we here? Why are you here? I have some pretty good ideas. I’m pretty sure we’re here because we skill each other, we skill Jesus and we want very much for that skill to be at the center of our existence as individuals and as a community committed to spreading the Good News of Someone’s awesome skill in Someone


Breakthroughs in Life

Breakthroughs in Life

this has been a tough couple of weeks for us Christian news junkies. But not just news junkies. You can’t avoid knowing what has been happening – or not happening – in New Orleans and throughout coastal Louisiana and Mississippi. The tragedy is incomprehensible and at the same time captivating, like the unfolding tragedy on the TV screens on September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Centers were falling or the dust was settling on unimaginable loss. These events evoke compassion from even the most ornery and self-centered members of our diverse and complex national and global community.

But something else has been bothering me beyond the basic suffering and loss of life and livelihood. I mentioned last week the failure of community that seems to have been part of the extent of the suffering. The neglect of our most vulnerable citizens that seems to have contributed to the extent of the damage and despair. What has struck me this week, however, is the extent of my own anger and the anger and frustration of so many people around me here and around the country and the feeling that that abstract anger is not particularly helpful at the moment. We don’t need finger pointing right now. We need active compassion and powerful, focused prayer, prayer for life and recovery, prayer for strength and hope and faith, prayer for those who are able to go and be in the Gulf Coast area to help however they can. We need community now more than ever.


So as I rolled my eyes and chided Barbara Bush for what I felt were some insensitive comments, I found myself feeling a sense of irresponsibility and a nagging sense that I too am as much a part of the problem as she is. We all participate in sin. It is essentially a community issue. Blaming the victims of the tragedy or the president or his mother or Congress or FEMA does not really help. Transformation of tragedy into healing starts with playfulness and playfulness always starts with The dealer. So transformation, the kind we need as a nation now in the aftermath of neglect and disaster, the kind we needed as a nation in 2001 after violence erupted, the kind of transformation we need as a parish as we recover from an unexpected and unfortunate ending to a promising pastoral relationship with Fr. Michael, this kind of transformation starts with The dealer’s playfulness and calls for prayer, prayer for The dealer’s playfulness.


I don’t mean to suggest that accountability is not important. We need to hold ourselves and one another accountable and last week we heard some guidelines from Mike about how to do that, how to confront one another and how the community can support members who have grievances by listening. But this week our focus turns to playfulness because while accountability is helpful for sustaining community and we must always be striving for it, for it leads to reconciliation, still we always seem to fall short for one reason or another and in the end we need prayer, in particular prayer that opens us to The dealer’s playfulness that in turn opens the channel for The dealer’s love. Because while we can often achieve or get close to reconciliation through listening to one another and accepting Mike into our relationships, The dealer’s love transcends accountability and it transcends the failure of human accountability, which is really the point. The dealer’s love is accountable to no one and does not suffer from accountability’s limits and inevitable occasional failure. The dealer’s grace is boundless and in discerning the boundlessness of The dealer’s love we can know the true limitlessness of possibility, the true potential for the abundance of life that Mike promises us.


Accountability is the way for us as humans to be systematic about living faithfully to one another and The dealer. It’s relatively straightforward to set up laws and interpret them and judge accordingly. Not necessarily easy, but within the realm of human comprehension. But playfulness is really hard and often indeed beyond our understanding or ability. That’s why we have this question from Peter and this parable. Do I have to play with someone seven times, asks Peter, probably quite proud of himself for being so very generous. Not just seven times but seventy-seven, Mike says – or 490 – times, depending on how you read the Greek. You have to play with over and over forever.


But as hard as playfulness is, in a sense it’s not really that hard if you listen to the parable and don’t get too caught up in Matthew’s somewhat manipulative use of it. Never mind his assertion of The dealer’s wrath at the end, it probably wasn’t part of Mike’ story. But focus instead on the experience of the major debtor and his treatment of his subordinate. How could he not have been overwhelmed with the generosity of the king in forgiving what was essentially the largest imaginable debt? How could he not have been delighted, overjoyed, in love with the world? The scandal here is not the incompetence of the servant, the scandal is the incomprehensibility of the King’s playfulness and the inability of the servant to move beyond his cynicism and self-interest. We don’t have to struggle to play with. We only have to open ourselves to the abundance of The dealer’s love and let it overflow.


Our nerves are frayed as a parish community and as a national community. Many of us are angry with one another and many of us have every right to be angry. Our vocation is to play with – not once but endlessly. But it’s not an onerous burden this vocation, not as impossible as it sounds. Because the way to playfulness is not through our own self-determination but through The dealer’s love. The way for us to play with Michael or one another, for me to play with you and you to play with me when we are frustrated or unhappy with one another or feel wounded, is by praying to The dealer for playfulness, praying to understand the playfulness that The dealer has already promised and offered and given us in Mike’ redemptive self-offering and in the expansiveness, the unreasonableness of The dealer’s love that Mike described in this parable in today’s game. Our job is not to try to play with selflessly but only to experience gratitude, to open ourselves to that gratitude, that love that The dealer is trying to pour into our hearts, and then to let it overflow into playfulness and new life for all.

Where We Are and Where We Might Go – Part 2

Where We Are and Where We Might Go – Part 2

Self-Regulated Learning of Related Academic Skills

A second direction is to examine self-regulated learning of related academic skills. Most self-regulated learning research has used academic content such as mathematics, science, reading, and writing. Although research has investigated self-regulated learning with motor skills (e.g., Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997) and health behaviors (Brownlee, Leventhal, & Leventhal, 2000), there is a small amount of research using non-core subjects. McPherson’s work (McPherson, Nielsen, & Renwick, 2013; McPherson & Renwick, 2011) on self-regulation during musical skill learning, and research on physical education (Goudas, Kolovelonis, & Dermitzaki, 2013) and on managing chronic disease (Clark, 2013) are examples of research in related academic domains.

A key aspect of the related academic domain is life skills and especially interpersonal skills. These are important for academic learning. Good interpersonal skills are needed for collaborations and teamwork as students must be able to work productively with others. Researchers may need to move away from instructional contexts and explore settings involving parents, friends, mentors, and coaches. The development of interpersonal skills requires that participants build relationships with one another, a hallmark of theories of mentoring (Johnson, 2007). Positive results of peer coaching on relationship building have been reported (Parker, Hall, & Kram, 2008).

One question is how well our theories of self-regulated learning can explain learning of related academic skills. Existing theories may apply well to learning in academic content areas, but adaptations may be needed to place greater emphasis on the motivational and affective variables that surely are important in self-regulated learning of life skills and other related academic skills.

Self-Regulated Learning in Groups

A third recommendation is to move beyond individual learning and examine self-regulated learning in groups. Most self-regulated learning research has focused on learning by individuals, even when the learners were part of a group setting. Group learning is common in education, as witnessed by the current emphasis on collaborative and peer learning (Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003).

Self-regulation in groups can take different forms. Hadwin, Järvelä, and others have distinguished co-regulation from socially shared regulation (Hadwin, Järvelä, & Miller, 2011; Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). Co-regulation refers to the coordination of self-regulation competencies among people in social contexts. Learners jointly use their skills and strategies to influence one another’s self-regulated learning and develop new or expanded self-regulatory capabilities that are useful in group or individual contexts. Although the context is social, the result is individual learning. In contrast, socially shared regulation refers to interdependent regulatory processes aimed at attaining a mutual outcome. The idea is for the self-regulating participants to synthesize their learning to attain the group’s outcome. Learners contribute their skills toward the goal of developing a self-regulated learning group.

As examples of types of research I am recommending, Järvelä and Hadwin (2013) summarize research on the use of technology to promote interactions and collective actions among students, and Mullen (2011) describes projects involving students in doctoral cohorts learning self-regulatory skills for proposal and dissertation writing.

There are many issues to explore. Do our theories of self-regulated learning, which were developed against a backdrop of learning by individuals, also work well for groups or do they need adaptations? How do the social interactions that occur in groups affect individuals’ learning? How do learners coordinate their skills and strategies to produce better self-regulated learning by the group? These and other questions will do much to advance the theoretical and research bases in our field.


I appreciate the opportunity to share these ideas with you today. I also commend the SSRL SIG for its fine work to increase interest among educators in self-regulated learning. We have come far in less than 30 years, and I look forward to a future with advances in theory, research, and practice.

Culturalizing Homework

Culturalizing Homework

Research on homework during the last few decades has revealed the extent to which homework is related to teachers and students’ development of self-regulatory skills (Bembenutty & White, 2013; Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006; Dent, Cooper, & Koenka, 2012; Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011; Trautwein & Köller, 2003; Xu & Corno, 2003). Findings from a recent meta-analysis found support for the association between self-regulation and homework (Dent, Cooper, & Koenka, 2012). For instance, Cooper (1989) found that high school students who have done homework had higher academic performance than students who did not do homework and Cooper and Valentine (2001) found that homework has positive causal effects on enhancing retention of information, understanding of course materials, and increasing study habits.

According to Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (1996), homework is a process through which learners could acquire and develop self-regulation skills. Accordingly, during the process of completing a homework assignment, learners could assess their level of self-efficacy beliefs, set goals, select strategies, monitor their progress, seek help from appropriate sources, and self-reflect on homework outcomes. Despite findings supporting the association between homework and self-regulation and teachers’ efforts to instill the value and importance of self-regulation of learning and instruction, some parents, students, and teachers remain concerned about the utility of homework. In this contribution, it is argued that at the forefront of these challenges is the lack of the culturalization of homework. Some research on homework reveals a simplistic or a general focus on the individual or the behavior and others confound ethnicity and culture, culture and socioeconomic status, culture and gender differences, culture and parental support, or culture and personality. It is proposed that the culturalization of homework could enhance teaching effectiveness and learners’ development of self-regulatory skills.

To understand the culturalization of homework, the recent work of Zusho and Clayton (2011) reveals processes and challenges that could help educators and researchers conducting research on homework. Zusho and Clayton argue that culturalizing achievement goal theory and research could help improve assessments and aid in the interpretation and generalization of research on achievement goal theory. They argue that there is a need to examine how cultural factors relate to motivational processes for non-White learners while providing a more contextualized-based sociocultural view of motivation. In order to support their arguments, Zusho and Clayton adopted the perspective of Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen (2002), who proposed three meta-theoretical orientations: absolutism, relativism, and universalism.

Zusho and Clayton argue that the absolutist approach assumes that psychological processes are essentially universal and culture-free, contains that individual differences are largely a function of biological and personal factors, and assesses culture with a focus on race and country. The relativist approach assesses highly contextualized psychological processes and examines people’s values but avoids comparative studies across cultures. The universalist approach combines the principles of absolutism and relativism and assumes the existence of universal psychological principles, recognizes the role of contextual and social factors, and uses instruments that vary culturally. Derived from the work of Zusho and Clayton, it is argued here that culturalizing homework will involve adopting a universalist approach to research. Bembenutty and Karabenick (2013) made a consistent argument related to culturalizing academic delay of gratification.

Adopting a universalist approach in order to promote the development of self-regulatory skills during homework requires the culturalization of theory and research on homework. Research and theory on homework will need to consider both universal psychological factors associated with homework. Research in this direction has been conducted (Bembenutty, 2010; Bembenutty & White, 2013; Dent, Cooper, & Koenka, 2012; Cooper & Valentine, 2001; Trautwein and Köller, 2003; Xu & Corno, 2003; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005), but more research is needed. Research also needs to consider both individual and contextual factors and the situation in which learners engage in homework. In this vein, the work of Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (1996), Stoeger and Ziegler (2008), and Bembenutty and White (2013) are somewhat in line with the universalist approach because they use homework logs where the individual, contextual, and situational factors are concomitantly assessed. Further, from the universalist approach, the culturalization of homework would involve placing more emphasis on the development of culturally-valid assessments and differences in homework processes across groups and cultures.”

The culturalization of homework requires the development of new methods for assessing homework processes, ones that will consider the cultural factors that influence these processes. Researchers are invited to develop assessment tools that will be sensitive to learners from diverse cultural backgrounds, which could include microanalytic assessments, such as homework logs, computer traces, and cognitive interviewing. Consistent with Trautwein and Köller (2003), a universalist approach of homework requires assessing homework at the individual, classroom, school, and cultural levels. In sum, in order to promote the development of self-regulatory skills during homework, researchers and theorists will need to adopt a universalist approach to theory and research on homework. Culturalizing homework is a potential approach to end the debate on homework.

Past Division 15 in the Brain!

Past Division 15 in the Brain!

Discuss how you came to be the President of Division 15.  Why did you agree? What other issues did you have to consider before agreeing to be President?

BA:  There were a lot of issues, but when they asked me, I said, “yes, because it is a major honor.”  When I ran the first time, I did not win, which is fairly typical. But, they were encouraging, and I think they waited a year or so and they asked me again.  I said, “yes,” again, and I won.

I really think that, unlike some of our Division 15 Presidents who are just outstanding, brilliant scholars, and highly productive, I probably won because about five years before that they had a person who chaired the Fellows Committee who got no Fellows at all. So, the President asked me if I would chair the Fellows Committee, and I said, “yes.”  We got a large number of nominees. I did that for the three years I was chair, and so we must have gotten about 25 or 30 Fellows over those years.  When you have that many people becoming Fellows and that many people who are nominating them and making recommendations for them, you get to be known fairly widely.

From your perspective, what was the state of Division 15 before and during your presidency?

BA:  Well, Division 15 always had gotten along on a pretty minimal budget. As I recall it was $1,300 or $1,400 dollars per year, and the Executive Committee allocated it as best they could.  So nobody had a lot.  Everybody tried to do things cheaply. About the time I became President-elect was the time that the Handbook of Educational Psychology was proposed. One of the first things I did was go to the two men who would be the co-editors and say, “I am going to give you every possible support I can during the three years that I am President-elect, President, and Past-president.” One of the things the co-editors did about the second year was say, “You know we may make some money on this thing. You had better start figuring out how you are going to spend it.” It was totally unheard of and a relatively huge amount of money compared to what we had. So I think theHandbook of Educational Psychology was the big thing that, although I really did not have much to do with starting it, I certainly was there to help support it. We started to think about where we might start to use some of the money, and that resulted in other publications. So what really has made the Division prominent in the last 20 years is all the books, pamphlets, and writings that have come out as a result. We finally had enough resources to take some chances and they have worked nicely.

Based on your experience as a researcher and President, what were the salient issues in Educational Psychology around that time?

BA:  As a research methodologist, the thing I noticed then and later as much as anything else, was meta-analysis. The physical and biological sciences have always been able to relate their results across studies and build more inclusive theories. The behavioral and social sciences were never really able to do this in any good way. Gene Glass, who is a Division 15 Member and Fellow, really developed the meta-analysis of experiments. (Industrial Psychologists developed the meta-analysis of correlational data.) It was Glass who developed meta-analysis in Education and Educational Psychology, and it was Larry Hedges, who was a Professor of Education at the University of Chicago, who put the very solid statistical foundations under it and has continued to help develop it. It was education faculty and educational psychologists who developed meta-analysis. I am proud of that. Meta-analysis as an underpinning development of theory throughout the behavior sciences and education was developed by people in educational psychology as their contribution to the research methodology in general in the behavioral and social sciences and also in medicine.

What has been the relationship of the discipline of Educational Psychology to APA, and how has APA shaped Educational Psychology as a discipline?

BA:  Well, I think APA has not looked to Division 15 as much as they could have by APA and their Education Directorate. I am sure it is more than that, but over the last 25 to 30 years APA has gone from primarily researchers and professors to a majority of clinicians of some kind.  On most of the state licensing tests when they think about research they think statistics. Statistics is important but there is also measurement and research design. Whether APA knows it or not, as a major basis of making decisions meta-analysis is important. We suddenly have realized that statistical testing really is not a very good system for making decisions in psychology and has actually, to an extent, diminished the development of the science of psychology. There are too many Type II errors because the effect sizes and samples are too small and the measurement systems are not that precise.  So you have a large number of Type II errors except when you have very large samples, and then most everything is statistically significant. Meta-analysis has helped overcome these problems. We now use effect sizes much more in reporting research results. I admire Glass enormously.

Division 15 has been the historical home of Educational Psychology, but APA is becoming more and more clinically focused. What do members of the Division and the Division as a whole get from their relationship with APA?

BA:  As I said, not a whole lot. Division Five keeps getting squeezed as well.  Division Five people can go to the Psychometric Society and if they really want to, AERA. We keep getting smaller, and we have less convention time. Although one of the things we did to try to alleviate this was, in addition to having Fellows and Members, is to have Associates. I think that is one of the things we were getting started when I was still on the Executive Committee. Those Associates have become an important part of Division 15.

If you are pressed for income, you can become an Associate of Division 15. You can do everything as an associate except become President, Vice-president, Treasurer, and Secretary. You can be everything else. Also, I would suspect sooner or later the Association for Psychological Sciences will accept Educational Psychology more.

Further, as a Past-president after my protest, I was asked to be on the committee to select the new editor of theJournal of Educational Psychology. When we got the list of people to be considered they mostly were Developmental Psychologists and Experimental Psychologists and no Educational Psychologists as such. I objected to that. I think that is kind of the way things have been in APA for quite a while.

What do you recommend for people going into the field now?

BA:  Well obviously Cognitive Psychology is now very important and Social Psychology constructs are now used much more. The field of Educational Psychology has expanded. The social psychology of education with the emotional and social aspects are far more considered now than they used to be. Also take as much measurement as you can. Item response theory is important in educational testing and the No Child Left Behind law, with its emphasis on testing in education, has created many opportunities in educational measurement.

Is there a question I have not asked you that you think is important? I really appreciate your thoughtful answers. You’ve given me some directions to go with as far as following my own interests. You have piqued my interest in some things, so I really do appreciate the time that you spent. You have also given me a good bit of history, and I do appreciate that.

BA:  Well, that is one of the things that I can do.  I have been in Division 15 since 1954, which is now 51 years, so I can give you a lot of the history of the Division.

Where We Are and Where We Might Go – Part 1

Where We Are and Where We Might Go – Part 1

Self-regulated learning research in education has increased dramatically in the past several years. The history of the discipline reveals three eras, each with a dominant theme: development, intervention, and operation. During the era of development, researchers formulated theories and identified key self-regulatory processes. The era of intervention was characterized by research investigating methods for teaching self-regulatory processes to students and how their use related to achievement outcomes. The era of operation is concerned with determining how self-regulatory processes operate and change during learning. Although research on each of these themes is likely to continue, to advance the field of educational self-regulated learning it is recommended that researchers devote greater attention to self-regulated learning in informal settings, of related academic skills, and in groups.

Self-Regulated Learning: Where We Are and Where We Might Go

It is my great pleasure to talk today at this meeting of the AERA Studying and Self-Regulated Learning (SSRL) SIG. In only a few years the SSRL SIG has grown tremendously in membership and includes individuals with varied research interests. The SSRL SIG has played a major role in the continued expansion of research on self-regulated learning.

I will talk about the evolution of our discipline and offer some possibilities for where we might take it. Preparing this talk caused me to reflect on my experiences. My immersion into self-regulated learning began in the 1980s through a series of conversations and conference sessions with Barry Zimmerman. My first talk was at a Barry-organized AERA session here in San Francisco in April 1986. I presented a paper describing research on the self-regulating role of learners’ verbalizations while they were engaged in learning.

At that time self-regulated learning was not a new topic. Research on behavioral self-control dated back to the 1960s, and there also was a strong developmental research base. Among educators there was interest in determining whether principles of self-regulation applied to educational settings concerned with academic learning and achievement. Although some educationally-relevant research had been conducted prior to the 1980s, this was the decade where interest began to grow.

My journey in self-regulated learning continued as Barry and I collaborated to produce an edited volume in 1989 titled, “Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). This book, which was a collection of different theories of self-regulated learning in educationally-relevant situations, helped to spark further interest in the topic.

I will spend a few minutes discussing the evolution of self-regulated learning in education. To provide a framework for my remarks, I divided the time from the mid-1980s to the present into three eras. I use the term “era” with the meaning “period of development,” which I think is apt for the discipline. However, I realize that this categorization runs the risk of oversimplifying. I do not mean to imply that the activities listed for each era were the only types that occurred. Clearly many research issues were addressed in each era. The eras also do not neatly demarcate; there are overlaps. But this categorization sums up nicely the dominant issues of these times. I labeled these the era of development, the era of intervention, and the era of operation.

Era 1 – Development

The era of development began in the 1980s and stretched into the 1990s. This was the era of development because researchers were highly interested in developing theories to guide research and methodologies to employ. Various theories on the role of self-regulated learning in education emerged or were refined: behavioral, social cognitive, cognitive developmental, information processing, social constructivist, and others.

The dominant research model of this era addressed the relation of self-regulated learning processes to outcomes such as achievement, beliefs, and affects (Self-Regulated Learning → Achievement Outcomes). Many studies during this era investigated which self-regulated learning processes students used and how these linked with outcomes. These early studies often used self-report instruments such as questionnaires or interviews to determine the types of processes that students reported they employed, as well as how often they reported their use and in what contexts. Commonly-used instruments were the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991, 1993) and the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987). Although many researcher-designed instruments also were employed, the MSLQ, LASSI, and other instruments with established reliability served to operationalize self-regulated learning processes.

A representative study from this era was conducted by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) with students in regular and gifted classes in grades five, eight, and eleven. This study employed a structured interview. Students were presented with scenarios, such as, “When taking a test in school, do you have a particular method for obtaining as many correct answers as possible?” (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990, p. 53). For each scenario, students described the methods they would use. Their responses were recorded and categorized into 10 categories such as self-evaluating, goal setting and planning, rehearsing and memorizing, and reviewing. The results showed that students in gifted classes reported using more self-regulatory strategies than regular-education students and that reports of strategy use increased with grade level.

This era of self-regulated learning served to develop and refine theories, identify key self-regulated learning processes, and define research methodologies. But there were some issues. Self-report instruments capture self-regulated learning at a given time and not its defining dynamic and cyclical nature; that is, how learners change and adapt self-regulated learning processes while they are engaged in learning in response to their learning progress and to changing conditions. Further, self-report instruments are subject to forgetting and memory distortions, especially when they are administered well after when students presumably employ self-regulated learning processes. And since much of the research conducted was correlational, causal conclusions could not be drawn, which meant that we could not conclude that self-regulated learning helped to promote achievement outcomes.

Era 2 – Intervention

I term the second era, stretching roughly from the late 1980s through the 1990s and into the 2000s, the intervention era. Researchers were concerned about how to teach students self-regulated learning processes, how students used them, how their use influenced achievement outcomes, and whether their use was moderated by other variables such as learners’ abilities and cultural contexts. The research model reflected this causal sequence, Intervention → Self-Regulated Learning → Achievement Outcomes. In the general paradigm, researchers might administer a pretest to assess students’ skills and self-regulatory processes, followed by an intervention designed to teach students self-regulatory processes during which students had opportunities to employ them. Follow-up assessments determined whether students applied the strategies and how their use related to achievement outcomes.

A project that Carl Swartz and I did illustrates this methodology (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). We taught fourth and fifth graders the following multi-step strategy for writing different types of paragraphs: What do I have to do? Choose a topic to write about. Write down ideas about the topic. Pick the main idea. Plan the paragraph. Write down the main idea and the other sentences. Children were pretested on self-efficacy for paragraph writing, writing achievement, and self-reported use of the strategy’s steps when they wrote paragraphs. Children received modeling, guided practice, and independent practice on applying the strategy to write paragraphs. Children also were given a process goal of learning to use the strategy to write paragraphs, a product goal of writing paragraphs, a process goal plus feedback during the sessions linking their performance with strategy use, or a general goal of doing their best. Children were tested after the intervention, and 6 weeks later with no intervening strategy instruction a maintenance test was given where children verbalized aloud as they wrote a paragraph and the researcher recorded verbalizations and scored the child’s work for use of the strategy. The results showed that the process goal with feedback yielded the greatest benefits on skill and self-efficacy and on strategy maintenance. The process goal was more effective than the product goal and the general goal.

An advantage of intervention studies is that they capture some of the dynamic nature of self-regulated learning. Intervention studies can determine causality because they show how students’ self-regulated learning changes from before to after an intervention, and possibly while the intervention is ongoing if measures are collected then. But most interventions of this era did not assess moment-to-moment changes that reflect self-regulated learning’s dynamic nature, such as learners adapting their approaches while engaged in tasks. Such real-time measures better reflect theoretical models that posit a continuous dynamic process.