Going Beyond Test-Taking Strategies: Building Self-Regulated Students and Teachers

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), July 2007, Volume 1, Number 1 (Stephanie G.
Davis
and Erika S. Gray)
Going Beyond Test-Taking Strategies:

Building Self-Regulated Students and Teachers
Stephanie G. Davis
Erika Swarts Gray
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Since the inception of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), standardized tests have been on the minds
of students, parents, and educators, who are consistently concerned with how to increase test
scores. In this article, the authors suggest that it is time to look beyond tests to enable willing,
focused, and persistent - that is self-regulated - students and teachers. Self-regulated students
and teachers take control of their learning, set goals, monitor progress, reflect on outcomes, are
intrinsically motivated to learn, and demonstrate higher levels of achievement (Harter, 1996;
Markman, 1979; Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006; Perry, Nordby, & VandeKamp, 2003;
Zimmerman, 2000, 2002). Supporting such self-regulation not only promotes more independent,
competent, and motivated students and teachers, but is also likely to raise test scores (Paris &
Paris, 2001). The authors suggest specific strategies for, and benefits of, the development of selfregulation in both students and teachers.
Introduction
Since the inception of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), standardized tests
have been on the minds of students, parents, and educators. A persistent
concern has been, What can we do to increase test scores? Unfortunately,
many schools turn to published test preparation material as the sole means to
increase test scores; however, we argue here for a broader outlook that also
includes developing students and teachers who are willing, focused, and
persistent.
Such students and teachers are self-regulated. They take control of their
learning. They set goals, monitor progress, reflect on outcomes, and are
intrinsically motivated to learn (Perry, et al., 2003; Zimmerman, 2002). Previous
research suggests that the ability to self-regulate ones learning is correlated to
higher levels of achievement (Harter, 1996; Markman, 1979; Mason et al., 2006;
Schunk, 2005; Zimmerman, 2000); therefore, helping students become selfregulated not only promotes more independent, competent, and motivated
students and teachers, but is also likely to raise test scores (Paris & Paris, 2001;
Schunk & Rice, 1991).
Role of High-Stakes Testing in Literacy Instruction
The focus on self-regulated motivation is extremely valuable in the area of
literacy. It is precisely self-regulated learning that sustains and deepens engaged
reading and consequent comprehension. That is, the motivational goals of
choice, effort, and persistence are significant aspects of self-regulation. Selfregulated tasks such as reading for pleasure, connecting to prior experiences,
and synthesizing ideas on ones own, are pivotal to nurturing the self-regulated
engagement that may actually contribute to improved test scores. Without such
http://www.joci.ecu.edu/
31
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), July 2007, Volume 1, Number 1 (Stephanie G. Davis
and Erika Gray)
motivation, students will be less likely to invest the effort it takes to comprehend
and achieve.
Because meaning making is at the heart of reading comprehension, we
must recognize and engage all that students bring with them to the task of
learning (Au, 1997). This means that we encourage students to use the language
they have to interpret texts, that they are encouraged to use their past
experiences to understand information, and that we accept their differences. Au
stresses the importance of students developing ownership of literacy, which
means students value literacy and are willing to make literacy a part of their
everyday lives. Galda and Guice (1997) state, As we read we call upon what we
know of the actual world to help us make meaning of the text (p. 312).
As we think about less mature readers and how they gain this type of skill,
we must take into account several factors. Some suggest that strategy instruction
leads to student motivation because it assists them in knowing how to interpret
texts; others say that motivation will lead to student engagement, which will lead
to students successful use of strategies during reading (Guthrie et al., 2004). No
matter how the mechanism that connects self-regulated motivation to reading is
understood, research demonstrates an important correlation between motivation
and comprehension of texts. We know that readers must use self-regulated
strategies to fully employ their ability to interpret or make meaning of texts.
Developing such self-regulated skill holds benefits for many educational tasks,
not the least of which is increased test scores (Mason, et al., 2006; Pintrich &
DeGroot, 1990).
Developing Self-Regulated Learners
Motivation and Goals
In school and in life, goals are what motivate, direct, or energize individual
performance (Ames, 1992). Because goals are significant to self-regulated
learning (Zimmerman, 2002), educators must understand which goal orientations
are most beneficial to student engagement and how to support those
orientations. Ames describes two main types of goals: mastery goals and
performance goals. Mastery goals focus on understanding, developing
competency, and achieving based on self-supporting standards. Students who
are driven by mastery goals are driven to understand what they are learning and
are willing to exert the effort needed to achieve their goal (Ames; Brophy, 1987).
For instance, a student who works on a task and is excited by new learning is
mastery oriented. As a result, these students spend more time engaged in
learning and are intrinsically motivated to learn. Thus, they are more likely to selfregulate and invest in their own learning (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990).
In contrast, performance goals are focused on competition with others and
success is tied to a students sense of self-worth. When students are driven by
32
and Erika Gray)
performance goals they want others to think they are competent. This goal
orientation is not wrong; however, these types of goals have shown short-term
results, including competition among peers and a tendency to avoid failure by not
taking academic risks (Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld, 1992; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973;
Harter, 1996; Kaplan & Maehr, 2002; Pintrich, 2000). These behaviors are
associated with extrinsic motivation. Too much extrinsic motivation can be
detrimental to self-regulated learning because outcomes are outside of students
control (Pintrich, 2000).
Goals driven by high-stakes testing are based on the need to perform,
rather than on an intention to master content or expand thinking. Unfortunately,
researchers have found a shift from a predominately intrinsic orientation to a
more extrinsic motivation orientation during the major testing years of students
lives (Harter, 1996; Midgley, Feldlaufer & Eccles, 1988). Moving beyond this
narrow focus provides greater opportunities for students to become more selfregulated (Paris & Paris, 2001).
Self-Regulation
Students who have autonomy and control over their reading have
opportunities to become self-regulated and exercise a focus on mastery goals.
Self-regulated readers monitor and adjust their behavior to support their
individual learning needs.
Zimmerman (2000, 2002) suggests a cyclical model of self-regulation
consisting of three phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection.
Students in the forethought phase use goal setting and strategic planning to selfregulate. For instance, students could create a plan to finish a chapter or a book.
During the performance phase self-regulated students show self-control through
self-instruction, imagery, focusing attention, and task strategies. During reading,
students in this phase use their background knowledge and selective strategies
to understand and comprehend the text. This could also include working with
others and having conversations to better understand texts. Finally, students
self-reflection brings them back to evaluate and understand their own
performance. That is, did they complete what they set out to accomplish and
what is the next step? As will be discussed, considering individual choice in
reading, open-ended reading tasks, and opportunities to evaluate ones work are
important strategies for teachers to employ when encouraging the development
of self-regulation among their students (Perry & VandeKamp, 2000). See Figure
1 for an example of a self-regulated students experience.
33
and Erika Gray)
Figure 1
Marie: A Self-Regulated Learner
Marie, a fourth grader, enters the classroom and notices her
class is going to read about animals in a state zoo. Marie loves
animals and wants to be a veterinarian. As her class moves to their
guided reading groups, Marie notices three sets of books on her
groups table. The group gets to choose among kangaroos, black
bears, and polar bears. Maries group enthusiastically chooses
polar bears and begins to discuss with their teacher what they plan
to learn by reading the book.
Maries teacher, Mrs. Smith, could give them a task that is
easy to achieve, or she could create a task with moderate challenge
that the students can complete with some support. If she wants to
expand Maries understanding of her learning process, she will
choose a moderately challenging task. Vygotsky (1978) refers to
appropriate challenge level as a students zone of proximal
development. The benefits of moderately challenging tasks have
been supported in research for over thirty years (Brophy, 1987;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Miller, 2003; Miller & Meece, 1999; Perry,
Philips, & Dowler, 2004; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Rohrkemper &
Corno, 1988).
Mrs. Smith gave students a moderately challenging task. At
the end of the week, even though she was confident Marie had
mastered the standard she was striving to teach, she felt an
assessment was needed. Since Mrs. Smith observed the
investment Marie put into the task, she felt including Marie in
designing the assessment was essential. Mrs. Smith elicited input
from her students to create a rubric. She wanted the students to use
this rubric as a guide while they completed the assignment. Again,
the appeal of being included in the decision-making process was
evident. Marie began their assignment immediately and was
focused as she wrote. As Mrs. Smith predicted, the assessment
confirmed that Marie learned the science objective while
incorporating many of the language arts objectives for their grade
level.
34
and Erika Gray)
Choice. Student interest is a key to developing student engagement. Hidi

and Baird (1988) define interest as a person reacting to a situation or information
of special personal significance. One way we can tap into student interest in our
classrooms is by providing students with choice. By allowing student choice in
the classroom environment, teachers are able to address students individual
interests (Randi & Corno, 2000). During reading, student interest is of particular
importance because students are expected to employ self-regulated strategies
independently. There is no possible way for teachers to tap into all students prior
knowledge and experiences. Allowing students autonomy and control over their
reading choices and learning enables this individual focus and engagement,
although such strategies should always be accompanied by support and
guidance from the teacher (Perry & Drummond, 2002).
This sense of autonomy, many researchers argue, is a necessary
component of student motivation and self-regulation (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman,
& Ryan, 1981). When students are not involved in the instructional decisions in
the classroom, they show less interest, which results in lowered motivation
(Harter, 1996). Research implies that teachers who guide choices and support
student decision making while addressing important curricular goals may be
more successful in promoting motivation for literacy (Turner, 1995, p. 417),
which in turn supports improved test scores.
High-challenge tasks. Educational tasks are at the heart of instruction in
the classroom. Students spend the majority of their school hours working on
tasks. Therefore, the message that these tasks send is significant. How do
educators create environments that support students? Research suggests
educators should offer high-challenge tasks that engage students over time
(Harter, 1996; Markman, 1979; Mason et al., 2006; Miller, 2003; Zimmerman,
2000). Miller and Meece (1997, 1999) define high-challenge tasks as ones that
are complex, extend over time, involve peer collaboration, and include student
choice.
Classroom settings that foster these aspects are likely to enhance flow
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), a satisfied state of consciousness associated with
intense concentration, effortless control, and deep enjoyment (Paris & Paris,
2001, p. 94). In order for flow to occur during reading, students must continually
monitor and adapt their understanding to successfully construct meaning from a
text. Students will, therefore, be more likely to achieve flow when they regulate
their reading. Environments that include these experiences have been shown to
foster increased engagement and learning (Ames, 1992; Harter, 1996). If we
want our students to be self-regulated learners, then we must establish
environments that embrace high-challenge tasks.
Students faced with complex tasks are required to meet challenges that
ask them to delve more deeply into their learning processes (Perry, et al., 2004).
Note that complexity doesnt mean the tasks should be overly difficult; instead, it
35
and Erika Gray)
is the task design that is complex. Complex tasks include multiple goals, large
chunks of content, various resources, and varied problem-solving situations.
High-challenge, complex tasks (Miller & Meece, 1999) also allow various
outcomes or products, which require students to integrate prior knowledge with
new learning (Ames, 1992; Miller, 2003; Perry, et al., 2004).
Self-evaluation. Assessments are necessary in schools; without test
results it would be impossible to identify students needs or to evaluate overall
progress. Due to the impact of No Child Left Behind, however, high-stakes tests
have become the focus of evaluation. In a systematic review, Harlen and Crick
(2000) found that an increased emphasis on testing has negative impacts on
both teachers and students. When students fail tests, especially ones without a
clear purpose, their perceptions of themselves suffer. Worse yet, when these
results are shared with others even implicitly (i.e., Oh, you should read with
Mark today, he made a 4 on his test.), damage is done. Not only do their own
perceptions of themselves as learners suffer, but this perception becomes
shared by their peers (Harlen & Crick, p. 171). Deci and Ryans (1985) review of
research suggests that students in environments driven by high-stakes tests do
not feel in control of their learning. Grolnick and Ryan (1990) demonstrated that
students learned less material when they were told its sole purpose was to
prepare for an assessment; therefore, standardized assessment should not drive
instruction. However, because the current test-driven policy is not likely to
change, teachers must try to ameliorate the negative impact by including
assessments that offer more positive effects. These assessments should include
student input. To aid students in evaluating their own learning, assessments
need to have a clear purpose and be connected in some way to personal goals
that students have set. These assessments must be seen as attempts to inform,
not judge (Ames, 1992).
Educators can conduct assessments in ways that create an environment
conducive to self-regulated motivation. For years, educators have used the idea
of allowing students to monitor their own progress as an effective behaviormodification intervention. For instance, having a student evaluate his behavior
using an hourly chart promotes self-regulation. These charts are typically not
posted or compared to others, but educators have found they have a positive
effect on behavior. Ames (1992) would deem this strategy effective because the
student is aware of the purpose of the chart. In addition, this strategy involves
the student in evaluating his or her own progress. Similarly, Paris and Winograd
(1990) suggest that students should chart evidence of cognitive growth. These
strategies provide students with the opportunity to see themselves as capable.
Activities such as the high-challenge tasks described in the section above, can
embed such self-evaluation opportunities in everyday learning experiences.
Offering tasks that include student responsibility to monitor their own progress is
a particularly effective strategy (Perry, 1998; Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006).
Similarly, assessments that evaluate learning in relation to students personal
goals positively impact perceptions of their competence (Zimmerman, 2000).
36
and Erika Gray)
Likewise, reflection and self-evaluation help determine if goals were met. This
informs judgments that can help guide further decisions, whether the decisions
are for the immediate future or long range planning.
Zimmerman (1998) emphasizes that students who evaluate their
performance are successful at self-regulating. Students who are unaware of the
need to self-evaluate tend to have difficulty in regulating their learning. Feedback
from teachers during this phase can help train students to determine appropriate
goals and future work (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). Fortunately,
during most of the year, educators have control over the assessments they give
children and can employ assessments that will help shape self-regulated
learners. Non-threatening evaluation practices that encourage students to focus
on personal progress and view errors as opportunities to learn are most
beneficial to enhancing self-regulation (Perry, et al., 2004). Self-assessment
involves the internalization of standards so students can regulate their own
learning (Turner, 1995, p. 27). Although we know that high-stakes testing is a
significant aspect of education today, it is the instruction that leads up to this that
matters and determines how students perform. What educators can do is provide
instructional situations that include feedback and are tied to student learning.
Developing Self-Regulated Learners
Because of the value of self-regulation for supporting student motivation
and achievement, it is crucial that effective paths for developing self-regulation
among students are identified. Social cognitive theory suggests a reciprocal
interaction between the environment, the person, and his or her behavior
(Bandura, 1986) as a significant influence on such student development. The
theory highlights student learning through modeling, making teachers abilities to
model and reflect self-regulated learning in their teaching important. The ability to
create students who are metacognitive and ultimately self-regulated during
reading comprehension is therefore tied to teachers self-regulation. It becomes
imperative that teachers develop skills of self-regulation for themselves.
Self-regulated teachers have the ability to become decision makers,
reflective practitioners, and independent learners (Randi, 2004). If the purpose of
professional development is to create teachers who are goal directed and
monitor their own behavior to adjust and solve problems, then we are striving to
create teachers who are self-regulated (Corno, 2001; Paris & Paris, 2001).
Teachers who have characteristics of self-regulated learners are open to gaining
different perspectives and seek support that will help them face instructional
challenges (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004). Instructional
challenges require a shift in conceptual knowledge, not just memorization of
procedures (Butler, et al.). In order for teachers to change their thinking and
beliefs, they must become more self-regulated. By so doing, they not only
achieve benefits for themselves, but they also provide the requisite model for
their students to learn the same skills.
37
and Erika Gray)
See Figure 2 for an example of how Maries teacher supports selfregulated learning and Figure 3 for an illustration of how both Marie and Mrs.
Smith reflect Zimmermans three phases in the cycle of developing selfregulatory skill (2000, 2002).
Figure 2
Mrs. Smith: A Self-Regulated Teacher
Mrs. Smith teaches fourth grade with 21 students in her class. Mrs.
Smith uses the fourth grade curriculum to plan for instruction. Although she
plans instruction appropriate for preparing her students to be successful on
end-of-grade tests, she also knows that she must address motivational
aspects of learning.
Mrs. Smith knows that one of her literacy objectives for the year is to
have students read a variety of genres, as indicated in the states required
course of study. The curriculum plays a large role in Mrs. Smiths goals for
herself and her students, but she also thinks about each child individually to
determine how she can work with each to reach full potential.
Mrs. Smith self-regulates by thinking of ways that she, as a teacher,
wants to grow. Last year Mrs. Smith set up guided reading groups and chose
books for students based on their levels. This year she is trying something
new with guided literature circles. By incorporating student choice and
collaboration, Mrs. Smith sets up activities that support high-challenge tasks.
She is implementing this new strategy with another fourth grade teacher
in a collaborative effort. In this effort, the two teachers have opportunities to
problem solve and gain differing perspectives. The teachers meet weekly to
discuss their difficulties and progress. Through these meetings Mrs. Smith is
evaluating her own progress as well as her students progress in becoming
more self-regulated.
38
and Erika Gray)
Figure 3
Marie and Mrs. Smith as Self-Regulated Learners
Zimmermans
Three Phases
Maries Task
Writes down prior
knowledge about polar
bears.
Forethought Phase
(Goal Setting &
Strategic Planning)
Uses at least two different

resources to determine
the validity of prior
knowledge.
Self-Reflection
Phase
(Self-evaluation of
performance)
Plans to implement new

ideas with literature circle
that incorporates highchallenge tasks, choice,
appropriately leveled text,
and collaboration with
fourth grade students.
Writes a paragraph
synthesizing prior
knowledge with any new
learning.
Collects professional
reading and resources to
support her efforts.
Participates for one hour a

day in literature circle
collaborative work.
Attends weekly
collaborative meetings
with another fourth grade
teacher to problem solve
and celebrate successes.
Uses metacognitive
strategies to monitor and
repair understanding
during reading.
Monitors and adjusts

teacher behavior and
initiatives as needed to
support student learning.
Collaborates with a
research partner to
discuss prior knowledge
and new knowledge, and
to construct a non-fiction
book page.
Participates in weekly
reflection time with
teacher partners.
Evaluates performance
and discusses with peers
understandings of texts
and assignments.
Reflects and sets new

goals for self and students
at various points in the
year.
Performance Phase
(Self-instruction,
imagery, attention
focusing, strategy
tasks)
Mrs. Smiths Tasks
39
and Erika Gray)
Professional Development Strategies that Develop Self-Regulation

Because of the central role of teacher self-regulation, experiences that
enable the development of this skill are essential considerations for professional
development. Perry, Walton, and Calder (1999) developed a model for teachers
to identify their needs and their students needs to encourage self-regulated
learning. The framework suggests the value of experiences that parallel the
needs students have for the development of self-regulation, including setting
goals, designing and implementing high-challenge activities, and monitoring and
evaluating progress.
Social constructivist theory emphasizes an essential component of such
professional development focusing on self-regulation. This perspective holds 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 who
work in isolation may not be aware of the need to make changes in their
instructional practices. Collaboration among teachers has been widely studied as
a remedy to the isolation that many teachers feel. Working with others creates a
professional learning community that holds members accountable while
sustaining momentum during inevitable challenges (Butler, et al., 2004).
Communication networks increase when staff members feel closely linked to
each other (Bakkenes, de Brabander, & Imants, 1999). Additionally, collaboration
reveals deeper reflection and inquiry (Huffman & Kalnin, 2003). Working together
allows for incremental changes in classroom instruction and provides support for
the challenges that teachers face with implementing new ideas and strategies;
therefore, designing professional development that involves such collaboration
can develop self-regulated teachers by providing more time, more talk, and
situations that are tied to individual teaching contexts (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy,
2000; Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman, Myhre, & Woolworth, 1998).
Researchers have suggested various models for such professional
development, including study groups, inquiry groups, lesson plan study, and
other collaborative initiatives. These types of collaborative initiatives involve
equity, mutual participation, and problem solving in pursuit of common goals
(Burbank & Kauchak, 2003; Butler, et al., 2004). Additionally, they provide
meaningful material and subject matter for teachers (Butler, et al.; Rock &
Wilson, 2005). These groups involve teachers bringing current issues to the table
for discussion and implementation. Instructional principles that acknowledge and
incorporate learners beliefs and knowledge are also embedded in the
constructivist theory (Florio-Ruane, Raphael, Highfield, & Berne, 2002; Scanlon,
Gallego, Duran, & Reyes, 2005). Lefever-Davis, Wilson, Moore, Kent, & Hopkins
(2003) support collaboration as an avenue to achieve meaningful inquiry.
Because study groups serve as a model for teachers to work
collaboratively, they may be especially effective at supporting self-regulated
40
and Erika Gray)
teachers. Recent research (Perry et al., 1999; Perry et al., 2004) reveals
teachers that work collaboratively in study groups are able to solve problems.
What appears essential is that such professional development experiences must
provide opportunities for teachers to become more self-regulated and drive their
own learning and motivation to constantly transform their instructional practices.
Future Research
Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found, in a study of 173 seventh graders, that
a students ability to self-regulate his or her learning was the most predictive
measure of performance; however, similar research is limited. Future research
regarding self-regulation is needed for both students and teachers. In this era of
high-stakes testing, further research is essential to convince administrators and
national, state and local policymakers that this type of educational environment is
just as important as, and potentially more productive than, cognitive test
preparation.
Much of the research on self-regulated learning has been conducted with
upper elementary-aged students (Perry & VandeKamp, 2000), yet students who
are able to read a text at any level are regulating their behavior to some degree
during reading. Additionally, building a foundation for mastery learning early and
having students enter the testing grades with a self-regulated learning orientation
may be another avenue to increasing test scores. Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, and
Milburn (1995) took a positive step in that direction when they found that four to
six year olds in child-centered classrooms demonstrated self-regulated learning
attitudes and behaviors. Similar to Miller and Meeces (1999) high-challenge
tasks, these rooms allowed for diverse tasks that were connected to childrens
prior experiences and included meaningful peer interaction.
Future research is needed to establish the effects of teacher selfregulation on instructional practices as well as student learning. Because of the
pivotal role played by self-regulation, it is essential that such research efforts are
expanded. Research is needed to better understand the relationship between
self-regulation and student achievement in reading. More specifically, effective
use of student goals, tasks, and assessments associated with self-regulation
must be better substantiated and made available to teachers, administrators, and
policymakers.
Conclusion
Clearly, educators want their students to achieve; however in the age of
high-stakes testing, educational goals have shifted to a teach to the test
mentality. Unfortunately, when teachers are pressured to define learning in terms
of test scores, it frequently results in a narrowing of the curriculum and difficulty
creating environments that foster self-regulation.
41
and Erika Gray)
Research has documented the evidence of intrinsic motivation in selfregulated students (Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006). They set goals, monitor
progress, and reflect on outcomes (Zimmerman, 2002). These benefits occur
when students are in an environment that helps to shape these behaviors (Ames,
1992; Blumenfeld, 1992; Zimmerman, 2000).
Self-regulation is not acquired; it is shaped and developed through
participation in environments that provide students and teachers with
opportunities to be in control of their own learning. When students and teachers
begin to take responsibility for planning, monitoring, and evaluating their own
learning processes, self-regulation is fostered, and all areas of schooling are
improved. Therefore, as educators we must look beyond the success of passing
a standardized test and strive to develop learning environments that support high
level thinking skills and self-regulation, which have rich and multiple benefits far
greater than test scores.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Anders, P., Hoffman, J., & Duffy, G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading:
Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. Kamil, R.
Barr, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III. (pp.
719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Au, K. H. (1997). A sociocultural model of reading instruction: The Kamehameha
Elementary Education Program. In S. Stahl & D. Hayes (Eds.),
Instructional models in reading (pp.181-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bakkenes, I., de Brabander, C., & Imants, J. (1999). Teacher isolation and
communication network analysis in primary schools. Education
Administration Quarterly, 35, 166-202.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and
expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272- 281.
Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. In D. Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.),
Talks to teachers (pp. 201-245). New York: Random House.
42
and Erika Gray)
Burbank, M., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional

development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19, 499-514.
Butler, D., Lauscher, H., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004).
Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435-455.
Corno, L. (2001). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B. Zimmerman
& D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theory, research, and practice, (Vol. II, 111-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The experience of
play in work and games. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New
York: Harper Collins.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument
to assess adults orientation toward control over autonomy with children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and
education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist,
26, 325-346.
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and
reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 25, 109-116.
Florio-Ruane, S., Raphael, T., Highfield, K., & Berne, J. (2002). Reengaging
youngsters with reading difficulties by means of innovative professional
development. In D. Strickland & M. Kamil (Eds.), Improving reading
achievement through professional development (pp. 129-148). Norwood:
Christopher-Gordon.
Galda, L., & Guice, S. (1997). Response-based reading instruction in the
elementary grades. In S. Stahl & D. Hayes (Eds.), Instructional models in
reading (pp.311-330). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43
and Erika Gray)
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and

adjustment in children with learning disabilities: A multiple group
comparison study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 177-184.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis,
M. et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement
through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational
Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2000). Testing and motivation for learning.
Assessments in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 10, 169-207.
Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motivation,
self-esteem, and level of voice in adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K. R.
Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding childrens school
adjustment (Chapter 2: 11-42). New York: Cambridge.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and
students recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465483.
Huffman, D., & Kalnin, J. (2003). Collaborative inquiry to make data based
decisions in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 569-580.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2002). Adolescents achievement goals: Situating
motivation in sociocultural contexts . In F. Frank Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 125-168). Connecticut,
Information Age Publishing.
Lefever-Davis, S., Wilson, C., Moore, E., Kent, A., & Hopkins, S. (2003). Teacher
study groups: A strategic approach to promoting students literacy
development. The Reading Teacher, 56, 782.
Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you dont understand: Elementary school
childrens awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655.
Mason, L. H., Snyder, K. H., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA +
PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine
fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69-89.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, S. (1988). The transition to junior high
school: Beliefs of pre- and posttransition teachers. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 17, 543-562.
44
and Erika Gray)
Miller, S. D. (2003). How high- and low-challenge tasks affect motivation and
learning: Implications for struggling learners. Reading and Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19, 39-57.
Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1997). Enhancing elementary students motivation
to read and write: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Educational
Research, 90, 286-299.
Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1999). Third graders motivational preferences for
reading and writing tasks. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 19-35.
Paris S. G., & Paris A. H. (2001). Classroom application of research on selfregulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Improving the assessment of literacy. The
Reading Teacher, 45, 108-117.
Perry, N. (1998). Young childrens self-regulated learning and the contexts that
support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715-729.
Perry, N., & Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students become selfregulated researchers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 56, 298-310.
Perry, N. E., Nordby, C. J., VandeKamp, K. O. (2003). Promoting self-regulated
reading and writing at home and school. The Elementary School Journal,
103, 317-338.
Perry, N., Philips, L, & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their
potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teacher College Record, 106,
1854-1878.
Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2006). Classroom contexts for
motivating learners. In P. Alexander & P. Winnie (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology: Second edition, p. 327-348. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perry, N., & VandeKamp, K. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support
young childrens development of self-regulated learning. International
Journal of Educational Research, 33, 821-843.
Perry, N., Walton, C., & Calder, K. (1999). Teachers developing assessments of
early literacy: A community of practice project. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 22, 218-233.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(451-501). New York: Academic Press.
45
and Erika Gray)
Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers College Record,
106,1825-1853.
Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 651-685). San Diego: Academic Press.
Rock, T., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 32, 77-92.
Rohrkemper, M., & Corno, L. (1988). Success and failure on classroom tasks:
Adaptive learning and classroom teaching. Elementary School Journal,
88, 297-312.
Scanlon, D., Gallego, M., Duran, G., & Reyes, E. (2005). Interactive staff
development supports collaboration when learning to teach. Teacher and
Teacher Education, 28, 40-51.
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Commentary on self-regulation in school contexts.
Learning & Instruction, 15, 173-177.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback
during reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior,
23, 351-364.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different
instructional approaches on young childrens achievement and motivation.
Child Development, 66, 209-223.
Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S. (1998). In
the company of colleagues: An interim report on the development of a
community of teacher learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 2132.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom context on young childrens
motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410-441.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46
and Erika Gray)
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal

skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73-86.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive
perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). New York: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Self-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.
Stephanie G. Davis is a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her
current research includes teachers decision making during reading instruction, teacher
development, and professional development. Before pursuing her doctorate full time, she worked
as a curriculum facilitator and taught second and third grade in Greensboro, NC.
Erika Swarts Gray is a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She is
a former reading specialist and fifth grade teacher. She is Nationally Board Certified in the area of
early and middle childhood literacy. Her current research agenda includes university reading
clinics, school-wide tutorial programs and more specifically the role of comprehension instruction
in those settings. She is an alumnus of East Carolina University.
47

Going Beyond Test-Taking Strategies: Building Self-Regulated Students and Teachers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Going Beyond Test-Taking Strategies: Building Self-Regulated Students and Teachers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Going Beyond Test-Taking Strategies: Building Self-Regulated Students and Teachers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), July 2007, Volume 1, Number 1 (Stephanie G.

Going Beyond Test-Taking Strategies:

Choice. Student interest is a key to developing student engagement. Hidi

Uses at least two different

Plans to implement new

Participates for one hour a

Monitors and adjusts

Reflects and sets new

Mrs. Smiths Tasks

Professional Development Strategies that Develop Self-Regulation

Burbank, M., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and

Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal

You might also like