Boekaerts 1996

European
Psychologist
V
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.100 - Saturday, August 25, 2018 4:14:56 PM - Universität Frankfurt IP Address:141.2.140.67
Self-regulated Learning at the Junction

of Cognition and Motivation
Monique Boekaerts
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Self-regulated learning has emerged as a powerful new learning theory stood. The purpose of this paper is to examine the theoretical underpin-
that is able to promote the transfer of knowledge and skills to real-life nings of two strongly related aspects of self-regulated learning that have,
situations and make students more independent of their teachers in ex- until recently, been studied in a relatively isolated fashion. The concep-
tending and updating their knowledge base. In recent years, many re- tual framework that is presented in this paper highlights the parallel and
searchers have shown an interest in developing a theory of self-regulated reciprocal relationships between components of the cognitive and moti-
learning. Considerable research has been generated, but the concept is vational repertoire and centers on three levels of these repertoires: do-
still too broadly defined and its basic foundations remain poorly under- main-specific knowledge, strategy use, and goals.
Keywords: Cognition, Metacognition, Motivation, Control, Strategies.
Educational Psychology: time, it means that the social and cultural environment
in which learning processes take place is reciprocally af-
A New Perspective fected by students' actions.
By adopting the "situated learning" or contextual
Studying Learning "in Context" approach, educational psychologists changed their fo-
cus away from studying students' learning abilities and
Wittrock (1992) argued that, traditionally, research in learning outcome to (1) students' capacity to regulate
educational psychology has been conducted from two their own learning, and (2) to teachers' skills to create
perspectives. Research set up from the first perspective appropriate learning environments. This shift in re-
is practice oriented, whereas research designed from the search focus reflects the belief that learning is essentially
second perspective applies principles from general psy- a goal-directed process, and that how this process is de-
chology in an attempt to understand the phenomena of scribed and explained will be closely tied to our under-
learning and instruction. But, as Resnick (1987) ex- standing of what learning in different contexts entails.
plained, most educational psychologists no longer see This new perspective on research in educational psy-
their field as an application of mainstream psychology. chology challenged the traditional equilibrium between
They set up fundamental research on the processes of
learning and instruction and conduct this research in ac-
tual classrooms, rather than in the psychological labora-
tory. The reason for this change in perspectives is that Monique Boekaerts is an educational psychologist involved in the
area of learning and instruction. Her main interests are motivation,
educational psychologists want to study learning pro- self-regulated learning, and stress in youngsters. She is the supervisor
cesses "in context." They have come to realize that stu- of a research program on behavioral change in students and their
dents' perceptions, cognitions, and actions are highly teachers at Leiden University.
situated. This implies that students' conceptual struc- Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
tures and their cognitive strategies are influenced by the Monique Boekaerts at the Center for the Study of Education and
environment in which they have been acquired (see Instruction, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, NL-2300 RB Leiden, The
Netherlands (tel.+31 71 5273400 or 5273398, fax+31 71 5273619,
Boekaerts, 1995b; Mischell & Shoda, 1995). At the same e-mail [email protected]).
European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 100-112

100 © 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Self-regulated Learning at the Junction of Cognition and Motivation
students and teachers, as actors in the teaching-learning learning, and showed that self-regulated learners rely on
process. Indeed, adequate teaching is no longer seen as different types of prior knowledge, including:
transferring information to the learners' memory, and • Domain-specific knowledge and skills,
adequate learning is no longer equated with having high • Cognitive strategies that can be applied to these do-
results in school examinations. Rather, many researchers mains,
currently defend the view that a major goal of formal • Metacognitive knowledge and skills, and
education should be to equip students with self-regula- • Metamotivational knowledge and skills.
tory skills. These skills are viewed as vital, not only to
guide one's own learning during formal schooling, but
In previous papers, I gave a brief description of the basic
also to educate oneself and up-date one's knowledge
constructs of goal-directed learning and the relation-
after leaving school. To this end, students should be mo-
ships between these constructs. However, no clear
tivated to actively participate in the teaching-learning
guidelines were provided to distinguish and foster cog-
process, constructing their own knowledge, and, in do-
nitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies. Yet,
ing so, becoming gradually independent of their teach-
this information is essential to derive instructional im-
ers. In parallel, teachers should create powerful learning
plications from the hierarchy. It is the purpose of this
environments in which students can learn to steer and
paper to extend the model and to show the benefits of
direct their learning, control their effort expenditure,
using the extended model in research on self-regulated
and manage their emotions. Together these aspects of
learning.
learning have been referred to by the term "self-regu-
lated learning" (see Pintrich, 1995).
Today, there is a general agreement among re- Self-regulated Learning
searchers that, in schools, most students are not learning
by understanding, simply because many learning situ- As a construct, self-regulated learning (SRL) is difficult
ations are suboptimal. For example, most teachers still to define. Most researchers will agree that an essential
believe that learning has been achieved when students aspect of SRL is its goal directedness. Other personal
can retrieve or use information sometime after it has attributes that emphasize SRL have been identified, in-
been read, heard, or discussed. Also, they are convinced cluding a sense of self-efficacy, willingness to practice,
that knowledge which has been transmitted to students commitment, time management, metacognitive aware-
is easily accessible later on, and facilitates the acquisition ness, and efficient strategy use. In contrast, personal at-
of new knowledge. Yet it has become apparent that tributes that have been associated with poor SRL and
many students experience difficulties in applying the underachievement are impulsiveness, low academic
knowledge and skills acquired in the classroom to eve- goals, low self-efficacy, low control, and avoidance be-
ryday situations. havior (Borkowski & Thorp, 1994).
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt Although researchers and practitioners in educa-
(1990) demonstrated that this is largely due to learning tional psychology have actively pursued programs with
facts that are isolated from the contexts from which they SRL as a central concept, and a considerable number of
derive meaning. They advocated that learning is a results are available, the emerging picture is still rather
constructive and active process (see also Spiro, Fel- complex. We are not yet in a position to describe the
tovitch, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). Students not only process through which SRL develops, and we are still
perceive and appraise the new information, they ac- largely ignorant as to why some students become will-
tively construct it on the basis of activated prior knowl- ing and able to take responsibility for self-regulating
edge. Constructive learning has been defined as a natu- their own learning, whereas others fail to do so. In the
ral by-product of experiences encountered within con- past decade, some research groups have invested a lot of
texts in which the-knowledge-to-be-learned is energy in trying to unravel the mechanisms through
embedded in a natural way (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, which metacognitive knowledge and skills develop out
1989; De Corte, 1995). of cognition. In doing so they put a heavy emphasis on
Elsewhere, I have argued that the learning process the learning process per se, and on the way students
of self-regulated learners is inherently constructive and attempt to regulate their own learning. It was docu-
goal-directed (Boekaerts, 1992,1995 a, b). I made an at- mented that students' domain-specific knowledge, their
tempt to describe the key dimensions of active, construc- use of cognitive strategies, and self-regulation jointly
tive learning in my hierarchical model of goal-directed influence academic learning to a considerable extent
© 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers 101
Monique Boekaerts
(Alexander & Judy, 1988; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; skills, mainly addition and substraction. Moreover,
Winne, 1995). they could also apply these skills to solve context prob-
Many researchers and practitioners agree that self- lems of the type: "Pete has five apples and he eats two,
regulated learners are students who are (meta)cogni- how many has he got left?" The supervisor remarked
tively and (meta)motivationally aware of what they are that she was inclined to disagree with this explanation.
doing and what needs to be done to successfully attain Granted, she had also observed that most students
self-defined or set goals. Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) were able to solve the 3 context problems, but that by
defined SRL as "the process whereby students activate itself is no proof of SRL. She explained to her students
and sustain cognitions, behaviors, and affects, which are that she had noticed that the problems given to the stu-
systematically oriented toward attainment of their dents were highly similar to the ones that they had
goals" (p. 309). Elsewhere, I defended the view practiced on "the-road-to-automaticity," and that such
(Boekaerts, 1995 a) that students who can regulate their applications are like "smooth driving on the motorway
own learning are those who have the capacity (1) to exert on a sunday afternoon." Hardly any self-regulation is
control over different dimensions of the learning pro- required to produce the desired learning outcome. A
cess, including the selection, combination, and coordi- more compelling demonstration of SRL would, in her
nation of cognitive strategies in a context-sensitive way, opinion, be that these students could use the computa-
and (2) to allocate resources to the different aspects of tional skills to solve complex, or less similar, context
the learning process, without too much distortion of problems. Such problems require that students gener-
well-being. ate solution strategies at the point of application, rather
At the descriptive level, researchers and teachers than activate and apply stored rules.
agree what is understood when they refer to self-regu-
Another explanation for the obstinate nature of the con-
lated learners. Reviews, lectures, and articles often begin
struct of SRL is that it is situated at the junction of several
with a description of the performance of a self-regulated
research fields, and that researchers working in these
student (e. g., Winne, 1995). Zimmerman and Martinez-
different areas make use of widely different conceptual
Pons (1988) demonstrated that teachers do not have dif-
frameworks to describe and explain their results. As a
ficulties in identifying self-regulated students. They can
consequence, many of the constructs overlap conceptu-
describe their attributes quite well, and contrast them to
ally. Examples include self-regulation, (meta)cognition,
those of students who are less capable of regulating their
conceptual change, (meta)motivation, control, volition,
learning. These attributes include effective strategy use,
planning, and goal-directed behavior. This complicates
initiative, persistence, confidence, resourcefulness, self-
communication across disciplinary divides and renders
reactivity to task performance outcomes. It was also re-
the process of comparing research findings and integrat-
ported that teachers' judgments of aspects of SRL were
ing them into a more comprehensive theory of SRL very
quite consistent with students' self-reports of their aca-
difficult. Indeed, if researchers want to convince their
demic attributes (see, e. g., Weinstein & Mayer, 1986)
fellow researchers who are currently conducting more
This agreement at the descriptive level between re- traditional learning research that the SRL conceptual
searchers, teachers, and students contrasts greatly with framework is superior, they have to be able to describe
the explanatory level. Researchers have problems distin- the underlying processes of SRL, even when that proves
guishing the constructs used in SRL from those em- to be extremely difficult. In their retrospective on the
ployed in more traditional cognitive theories, such as different chapters in their edited book on SRL, Schunk
acquisition of knowledge and procedural skills, efficient and Zimmerman (1994) stated explicitly that the field of
strategy use, and transfer. Indeed, it is complicated to SRL would benefit from greater conceptual clarity.
disentangle process variables and outcome variables, as
the following example illustrates:
Two Different Conceptual Frameworks
A student teacher stated in her report that the second
graders in the class she had taught became more self- Research on two basic mechanisms of SRL, namely cog-
regulative. After having read her report, her supervisor nitive self-regulation and motivational self-regulation,
confronted her with the question: "How can you tell has developed in a relatively isolated fashion. In my six-
that these students became more self-regulative?" She component model of SRL, I conceptualized two parallel,
responded that the students had become more skillful but strongly interrelated regulatory systems, namely the
and more self-efficacious in the use of computational cognitive information processing system and the moti-
Self-regulation
Cognitive Self-regulation Motivational Self-regulation
cognitive regulatory strategies motivational regulatory strategies

mental representation of learning - mental representation of behavioral

goals intention
design of action plan - linking behavioral intention to action plan
monitoring progress and Goals - maintaining action plan in the face of
evaluating goal achievement obstacles and competing action
tendencies
- disengaging action plan and behavioral
intention
cognitive strategies motivation strategies
selective attention - create a learning intention

decoding - coping processes to alter stressors and
• rehearsal Strategy to reduce negative emotion
• elaboration use - prospective and retrospective attributions
• structuring - effort avoidance
• generating questions - using social resources
• activation of rule(s) + application
• re-apply a rule
L
search for a new rule
1
decide that no rule is available
- proceduralize a skill
content domain /meta-cognitive knowledge and motivational beliefs/
- conceptual - beliefs, attitudes and values related to

knowledge Domain- tasks within the domain
- procedural Specific - strategy beliefs
Knowledge - capacity beliefs
- misconceptions - goal orientation
- inert knowledfge
Figure 1. A six-component model of self-regulated learning.

Monique Boekaerts
vational-emotional system. Before presenting this mod- task, selecting from their strategies the one that seems
el, let me address the complementary nature of cognitive most appropriate for her.
and motivational regulatory strategies in students' at-
This example illustrates that cognitive and motivation
tempts at SRL:
strategies are intertwined aspects of self-regulation. A
casual observer, or a researcher who is not familiar with
Imagine a high school student, Theresa, who has to
the complementary models, may easily confuse these

prepare for an important history exam. Theresa has
strategies. Moreover, they may not be aware that these
some idea about the self-regulatory activities that will
strategies refer to different underlying mechanisms that
help her pass the exam. She begins by orienting herself
have emerged from the interaction between different
on the type of material she has to study. She organizes
components of the self-regulating system. I will now de-
the material in several meaningful sets, and allocates
scribe the combined aspects of SRL as two sides of the
time to the study of each set, taking account of the
same coin. One side of the coin refers to cognitive self-
quantity of the material in each set. Next, she begins
regulation, the other side to motivational self-regula-
reading through the material included in the first set,
tion. I will use the six components visualized in Figure
identifying the major points and writing them down in
1 as a reference point. This model differs from more com-
her scrap book. After reading through all the material
mon approaches in metacognition, motivation, and SRL
included in the first set, she inspects the major points
in several ways. First, it consists of two parallel regula-
in her scrap book and tries to organize the material in
tory systems, as pictured in the left and right halves of
such a way that she can easily revise it when she has
Figure 1. Second, the different components of the cogni-
completed the other sets. Sometimes she prefers to
tive and motivation repertoire are positioned at three
summarize the material in the form of a flow chart, a
interacting levels, namely the levels of domain-specific
table or a diagram. At other times, she gives preference
knowledge, strategy use, and goals. Third, it is assumed
to a verbal summary, incorporating the examples the
that prior knowledge located at each of these levels is
teacher gave in class, or the ones she picked up from
differentially effective for new learning to occur. Con-
television. When the material is conceptually clear, she
versely, various aspects of the overall learning experi-
saves time and effort by simply listing the major points
ence are considered of differential importance in the
in her own order. Theresa feels motivated to continue
elaboration and extension of prior knowledge described
the learning activities, when she observes steady prog-
in each of the six components. It is important to note at
ress. At the point, when she detects some difficulty in
this point that the six-component model of SRL is a heu-
mastering the material, she does not feel discouraged.
ristic device and not a summary of empirical findings,
Rather, she then attempts to represent the material in
which at present would not entirely support such a
different ways, selecting the representation that she
structure. In the rest of this paper, the six components are
thinks will help her most when she has to review the
defined and explained in separate sections. Neverthe-
material the day before the exam. When Theresa has
less, they are designed to build upon one another in a
the impression that she cannot master the learning ma-
complex, interacting manner. The intended result is a
terial, which is often the case in mathematics and phys-
rich, coherent framework that, I hope, will be of consid-
ics, she feels her anxiety mount. She is aware that feel-
erable practical utility for guiding research and educa-
ing anxious has a negative effect on her motivation and
tional implementation.
will make her forget about self-regulation. Her teachers
have recently coached her in self-regulation. Theresa
now knows how to prepare for difficult exams, and she
realizes that anxiety is part and parcel of such prepara- Toward a Theory of Self-Regulated
tions for most of her fellow-students too. Now that she
knows which actions to take, she feels less anxious for
Learning
most school subjects. Also, she no longer seeks to re-
(Meta)cognitive Self-regulation: One Side of the Coin
duce her anxiety while attempting to solve the problem
that elicited it. Rather, she turns to an easier task or The concept of metacognition (cognizing about cogni-
problem, making a mental note to revert to the problem tion) can be dated back to Flavell's (1979) influential pa-
that caused anxiety, when she has successfully com- per. Almost 10 years later, Brown (1987) argued that
pleted the other task(s). In nonexam situations, she pre- early metacognitive theories drew on four theoretical
fers to ask her fellow students how they handled the sources, stemming from widely different research lines,
including psychological theories of executive control, conceptual and procedural knowledge. Several authors
theories of the use of verbal reports as data, the Piagetian pointed out that not all new knowledge is learned in a
theory of self-regulation, and the Vygotskian theory de- purposeful and meaningful way. For example, Brown
scribing the shift of external regulation to self-regula- and Campione (1984) demonstrated that, in school, a lot
tion. Brown explained that it had proved difficult to in- of "inert" knowledge is acquired, which implies that stu-
tegrate these conceptual frameworks into a comprehen- dents have not extended their conceptual knowledge
sive theory of metacognition and that this eventually led base. The information they have newly acquired has been
to a split of metacognition into a theory of mind and encapsulated, and it can not be retrieved unless an explic-
self-regulation. The former refers to the knowledge com- it cue to its activation is given.
ponent. It entails information about the conditions of Vosniadou (1992) provided evidence that students
effective and ineffective strategy use with respect to spe- may have "entrenched beliefs" about reality which may
cific tasks and content domains. The latter refers to the obstruct the development of more valid conceptualiza-
skill component; it involves various regulatory strate- tions. She collected data from students attending pre-
gies including orienting, planning, monitoring, self-test- school, elementary school, high school, and college in
ing, and repair. Despite this split, many authors contin- different countries, including Greece, Samao, India, and
ued using the term metacognition in an overinclusive the United States in order to understand the conceptual
way, including multiple aspects of cognizing about cog- knowledge they have about astronomy. Vosniadou dis-
nition, learning, and behavior, as well as self-regulation. covered that students construct different explanatory
This broad-spectrum approach caused conceptual con- frameworks on the basis of their phenomenal experi-
fusion in descriptive as well as intervention studies on ence. Radical restructuring of these intuitive models is
SRL. In summary, highly varied forms of students' often necessary, and this implies that students should
(meta)cognitive self-regulation have been studied in a have the capacity (components 2 and 3) and the inclina-
wide range of educational settings. These research find- tion (components 4, 5, and 6) to question their intuitive
ings diverge in many ways, including their theoretical beliefs, identify misconceptions, and replace them with
framework and methodology, but they share interesting a new explanatory framework that is more useful in ex-
similarities as well. Drawing on the available results, I plaining relevant empirical observations. The domain-
suggest that competent metacognitive performance specific restructuring view has received wide support
within a domain of study is characterized by the inter- from educational psychologists working in different
action of prior knowledge, located at different levels of content areas (for review, see Dochy, 1996). This evi-
the cognitive repertoire. This interaction is necessary to dence should not, however, be interpreted in the sense
make an adequate representation of learning goals, gen- that all our knowledge is domain-specific. Alexander
erate (alternative) action plans, and select the most ap- and Judy (1988) and Shuell (1986), for example, have
propriate cognitive strategies in function of the learning argued that domain-specific knowledge is stored in
goal, its context, and the available domain-specific infor- memory alongside domain-transcending knowledge,
mation. and that both these forms are essential for learning to
take place.
Component 1: Domain-Specific Knowledge and Skills
Component 2: Cognitive Strategies
There is a vast body of literature documenting the bene-
ficial effect of prior domain-specific knowledge on new Having access to and being able to reproduce declara-
learning (Dochy, 1996). Accumulating evidence indicates tive or procedural knowledge does not automatically
that learning is more domain-specific than originally imply understanding it. The point being made is that
conceived. For example, Shuell (1986) and Resnick (1987) students may also have naive models at the level of cog-
showed that students learn better from direct experiences nitive strategies. For example, some students may use
in concrete and authentic learning situations. In the same elaboration when they are prompted by explicit instruc-
vein, Schneider, Korkel and Weinert (1988) showed that tion, but feel at a loss when they have to extend or up-
domain-specific knowledge has a stronger association date their knowledge outside class. The reason for this
with information-processing components in a specific failing may be that they are not aware of why, or when,
subject-matter domain than general cognitive ability, and they should use this cognitive strategy.
can even compensate for low overall aptitude. As can be The term "cognitive strategy" is used to refer to cog-
seen from Figure 1, domain-specific knowledge entails nitive processes and behavior that students use during
European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 19%, pp. 100-112
Monique Boekaerts
actual learning experiences to complete an assignment or It is also noteworthy that cognitive strategies that
to accomplish a goal implied by the academic task. Some have become part of a learner's habitual cognitive rep-
of these strategies are performed automatically, whereas ertoire will not fit flawlessly in new learning situations.
others are under the control of the learner. Different types Learners must be able to detect this mismatch and adapt
of cognitive strategies have been discussed in the litera- their cognitive strategies to new contexts. Salomon,
ture (see, e.g., Kirby, 1988; Weinstein and Mayer, 1986), Perkins, and Globerson (1991) pointed out that in order
including selective attention, rehearsal, elaboration, to take a strategy or skill from one domain to another, it
structuring, summarization, and generating questions. is essential that students are mindful of the transfer. If
Some cognitive strategies have not received much atten- students do not make a deliberate effort to transfer a
tion in the literature on academic learning (e. g., decision strategy from one domain to another, it remains inert, or
making) while others have traditionally been listed with strictly bound to the context in which it has been ac-
metacognitive strategies (e. g., repair). quired. Such context-bound strategies must be decon-
Glaser, Lesgold, and Lajoie (1987) demonstrated textualized or freed in order to be purposeful, and an-
that individuals who are expert in a specific domain of chored to many feasible real-world contexts (cf. Brown,
study are not only more accurate than novices, but that Collins, & Duguid, 1989; The Cognition and Technology
they are also more efficient in their strategy use. That is, Group at Vanderbilt, 1990).
they are able to select and combine strategies and to per- Several authors argued that complex skills, embrac-
form them in less time and with fewer steps than nov- ing different cognitive strategies as well as self-regula-
ices. All aspects of their information processing seem to tory strategies, are the result of long effortful accom-
be affected by prior conceptual knowledge (component plishment in a domain of study (e. g., Pressley, 1995), and
1) and by cognitive strategies that relate to that knowl- that skilled performance continues to improve long after
edge (component 2), such as awareness of and selective errorless performance has been achieved.
attention to cues in the physical and social environment,
encoding and depth of processing of new information,
Component 3: Cognitive Self-regulatory Strategies
activation of relevant stored information (cf. Alexander,
Schallert, & Hare, 1991; Pintrich, Cross, Kozma, & As students get older, the cognitive strategies in their
McKeachie, 1986). In the same vein, Winne (1995) sug- repertoire increase in number, and become more tailored
gested that experts perform better than novices, because to everyday demands. This implies that they have access
they have access to many proceduralized skills. Such to many proceduralized skills, but also that they can
skills refer to a set of cognitive strategies that are specifi- take steps to adapt their cognitive strategies in situations
cally adapted to fit the conceptual and procedural where they detect a misfit between cognitive strategies
knowledge in a content domain and are ready to be used activated from their cognitive repertoire and situational
without much conscious control. He further assumed demands. In the past decade, such regulatory processes
that running off such skills takes less cognitive resources have been referred to with the term "metacognitive
than to consult multiple propositions, strung together skills" and there is evidence that students who possess
by a declaratively encoded rule (component 1). these skills have better grades (Zimmerman & Martinez-
Research further indicated that students who have Pons, 1988). In my opinion, the conceptual distinction
had strategy training are not inclined to continuously between cognitive strategies and metacognitive skills is
use the newly acquired strategies. They may automati- still obscure, despite the fact that many different dimen-
cally revert to old strategies, simply because they are sions of metacognitive activity have been studied, and
more familiar to them. However, when deficits become several successful training programs have been de-
obvious, or when they are prompted by the teacher, the signed to foster metacognitive skills. Hence, there is a
text, or their peers, they may remember to use the new need for a clear conceptual distinction.
strategy. Hatano (1995) and De Corte (1995) indicated Indeed, most researchers who have studied meta-
that teachers who want their students to use a newly cognitive skills have focused on the strategic knowledge
acquired skill as a tool have to create learning environ- that students possess and have access to when prompted,
ments in which students learn more about a domain by: and not on the skills students actually use to regulate
(1) extending their conceptual knowledge, thus integrat- their own learning. Thus, most of the results were ob-
ing old knowledge with new knowledge, and (2) devel- tained in a context where teachers formulated the learn-
oping better cognitive strategies to structure that knowl- ing goals, designed the curriculum, and prompted stu-
edge and to work with it. dents to improve their learning. I would suggest, that a
shift in emphasis is necessary. We ought to study stu- are not readily available, they should orient themselves
dents' capacity to assemble specific contents (compo- on the types of cognitive strategies that are necessary
nent 1) and cognitive strategies (component 2) in a con- and sufficient to reach the goal. For example, most stu-
text-specific way, as well as their self-regulatory skills to dents know that reading an informative text requires a
adapt cognitive strategies when misfits occur (compo- different action plan than reading a narrative text. They
nent 3). The point being made is that cognitive self-reg- should use this knowledge (component 4) to design an
ulation is goal-directed behavior and should be studied action plan, and this involves decision making, a cogni-
as such. tive strategy that has been heavily neglected in the
Henceforth, I will use the term "cognitive self-reg- school curriculum.
ulatory strategies" to refer to cognitive processes and Goal-oriented behavior also necessitates monitor-
behavior that are especially geared toward accomplish- ing. Students should realize that the learning process is
ing self-set (or adopted) goals, and toward regulating not an event, but an unfolding process. The action plan
one's activities in order to accomplish these goals. Such that they initially designed may not be adequate, be-
regulatory strategies embrace three highly complex cause task demands or personal resources were under-
skills. The first skill refers to the student's capability to or overestimated. Monitoring entails the ability to evalu-
form a clear mental representation of the learning goal ate the strength and weakness of one's action plan as the
and to re-define it when necessary. The second denotes learning process unfolds, replacing or extending the
the capacity to device a plan of action and to extend or cognitive strategies that prove to be inadequate. Space
revise it, when appropriate. The third skill involves the does not permit to elaborate on these important aspects
ability to monitor one's behavior, to detect mismatches, of SRL. The interested reader is referred to Pintrich
and to determine progress toward the (learning) goal. (1995).
Teachers do not always give their students the opportu-
nity to practice these three intertwined self-regulatory (Meta)Motivational Self-regulation: The Other Side of
skills. What they do most of the time is communicate one
the Coin
or more learning goals to their students (sometimes this
stage is even omitted), provide an action plan, and moni- Let us now turn the coin and look at motivational self-
tor the students' progress. In such an externally regu- regulation. Several authors have pointed out that stu-
lated learning environment, their is not much room for dents can be expected to demonstrate SRL within a spe-
self-regulation to develop. cific domain only when they have worked in learning
In order to train cognitive regulatory skills, teachers environments where they applied both metacognitive
should, at first, explicitly communicate the learning and motivational knowledge and skills. In their recent
goals to their students, prompting them to make a men- book Self-regulation of learning and performance, Schunk
tal representation of these goals. Also, they should check and Zimmerman (1994) argued that the construct of SRL
whether the adopted goal is identical to the one that was is reciprocally related to motivation. They defined the
communicated. For example, when the instruction is to former construct as "the process whereby students acti-
comprehend the information in foreign language text, vate and sustain cognitions, behaviors, and affects,
students may look up the new words in a dictionary in which are systematically oriented toward attainment of
order to grasp the meaning of the text. They may not, their goals," and the latter as "the process whereby goal-
however, make any deliberate attempt to learn the new directed activities are instigated and sustained" (p. 309).
words, since their learning goal was "comprehension" They notified that researchers need to be sensitive to dis-
and not "acquisition of new words." Likewise, when tinctions among these two constructs as well as pay heed
teachers expect students to learn from their direct expe- to their interdependence.
riences during groupwork, they should communicate to I hope that the distinction I have made between the
the students what the learning goals are, including so- three levels of cognitive self-regulation and the three lev-
cially oriented goals, and make sure that the students els of motivational self-regulation will be helpful in
have access to (or can design) a plan of action to attain comparing and contrasting these related phenomena. In
the goals. my opinion, cognitive self-regulation refers to the regu-
Designing an action plan signifies that students can lation of the learning process per se, whereas motiva-
reflect on the nature of the learning goal, in terms of the tional self-regulation has to do with other aspects of be-
assembling of content (component 1) and cognitive havior, such as inclination, sensitivity, choice, level and
strategies (component 2). When proceduralized skills time of involvement, and effort expenditure.
Monique Boekaerts
Researchers working within the motivational ular subject-matter area (components 1 and 2), as well as
framework have introduced many overlapping con- his or her subjective knowledge about motivation strat-
structs that refer to the knowledge that students have egies, including effort expenditure and access to social
about themselves and about tasks, assignments, and support (component 5). Examples of such self-refer-
learning situations. These models include the attribu- enced cognitions are: "In order to be a good reader you
tion theory (e. g., Weiner, 1986), achievement motivation must be able to swiftly summarize the material read and
(e. g., Heckhausen, 1980), intrinsic motivation (e. g., Deci have a good memory" or "If you do not spend more than
& Ryan, 1985), goal orientation (e.g., Nicholls, 1984), an hour [or another indication of effort] on such a task,
and self-efficacy theory (e.g., Bandura, 1993). It is ex- your score will be low."
tremely difficult to discern the underlying mechanism The third category may include strategy beliefs, but
of some motivational constructs. Broad as they are, some also mere judgments about one's own capacity. Exam-
of these constructs encompass the self-beliefs that a stu- ples are: "I am no good in mathematics, since I always
dent has, as well as their goals and plans of action. Such feel anxious when doing math exams" (capacity in rela-
conceptualizations make it extremely difficult to study tion to a skill situated in component 5), "I do not have
the separate and joint effects of students' beliefs and the skill to learn a foreign language properly, since I can-
strategy use on actual performance and achievement. In not recall grammatical rules" (capacity in relation to a
analogy to the description of cognitive self-regulation, I skill located in component 2), "You will never be able to
found it useful to cast motivational self-regulation into work on your own because you cannot design a plan of
three levels (see Figure 1). action" (capacity in relation to component 3), "John is
unable to finish a task because he is too volatile" (capac-
ity judgment in relation to component 6).
Component 4: Motivational Beliefs and Theory of Mind
Despite the wide variety of constructs and theoret-
It has become evident that learning builds upon theories ical models, there is wide agreement that self-referenced
of mind and theories of self. Such theories pervade the cognitions, particularly perceived control, can be seen as
process through the interaction of person variables with strong motivators or inhibitors of behavior in general,
specific learning situations and subject-matter domains. and learning in particular (Bandura, 1993; Boekaerts,
It is important to note that at a specific moment in time 1995 a; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). They influence the
only a subset of these theories is active, thus influencing students' appraisals, and their cognitive and motiva-
the learning process. In Figure 1, a domain-specific sub- tional self-regulation, by giving meaning and valence to
set is visualized. As can be seen, this subset includes (1) learning tasks and situations.
beliefs, attitudes, and values related to curricular tasks
and subject-matter areas, (2) strategy beliefs related to a Component 5: Motivation Strategies
domain, (3) beliefs, judgments, and values related to
one's capacity in relation to a domain of study, and (4) Research has indicated that students who are interested
goal orientations (for more information, see Boekaerts, in the contents, are intrinsically motivated, or feel com-
1995 a; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). Examples of the fortable in a learning situation are prepared to expend
first category are "I do not like history because you have more effort than students who feel uncomfortable, or are
to learn facts, dates and stories by heart," or "I am inter- anxious, sad, or extrinsically motivated. The former
ested in history because you learn about the way people types of students seem to have the capacity to elicit
lived and behaved at different times." These self-refer- positive cognitions and emotions with respect to a task
enced cognitions reflect students' beliefs and values in or learning activity in actual learning situations, where-
relation to a domain (attitudes, interest in content, pro- as the latter types of students lack this capacity. Some
cedures, and strategies), as well as past and future selves would consider these affectively laden processes
in relation to that content area. personality traits, albeit transient ones. Elsewhere
The second category involves beliefs or knowledge (Boekaerts, 1995 a), I made a distinction between person-
about what it takes to do well in a particular content ality traits that represent students' inclination to engage
domain, and about the causes of success and failure in in scholastic learning, and students' selective sensitivity,
that domain. These self-referential cognitions involve or momentary readiness, to specific learning situations.
the students' subjective knowledge (often referred to as I assumed that selective sensitivity, mindfulness, and
"metacognitive knowledge" or "theory of mind"), as it willingness to do what is necessary to achieve mastery,
relates to cognitive strategies used in relation to a partic- complete a learning task, or accomplish a learning goal

would be the outcome of motivation strategies applied in the view that external control limits the possibility of
actual learning situations. Hence, I introduced the term developing motivational awareness and motivational
"motivation strategies," in analogy to cognitive strate- regulatory strategies. They argued that in situations
gies. where external control or social pressure is not present,
In Figure 1, motivation strategies are located at the as in homework situations or where students are offered
a choice between working on an assignment or doing
same level as cognitive strategies (component 5). This

position symbolizes how motivation strategies operate something else, volition control is revealed. In such
directly on knowledge at the domain-specific level choice situations, there is a logical need to regulate one's
(component 4), and at the same time act as a repertoire motivation.
of strategies from which students can select one or more
strategies and adapt them in a context-sensitive way Component 6: Motivational Self-regulatory Strategies
(link with component 6). Hence, motivation strategies
should not be equated with beliefs about possible ac- As students grow older, it is assumed that the motiva-
tions and control within a specific content area (mental tion strategies in their repertoire become more differen-
connection between actions and outcomes). Instead, tiated. They will have encountered misfits between their
component 5 consists of a combination of skills that op- motivation strategies and situational demands, and
erate on the content of component 4. Like cognitive strat- have come across situations where there was minimal or
egies, motivation strategies are used by students during maximal external control. Negative feelings may have
actual learning experiences. Unlike cognitive strategies, been elicited in these situations (see Patrick, Skinner, &
they are not concerned with processing the content of Connell, 1993).
the learning process, but are considered to be attempts The point being made here is that the extent to
on the part of the student to produce favorable states of which students close skill-demand gaps depends not
mind and positive outcomes, or prevent undesired only on their ability to amend shortcomings, but also on
events and unfavorable outcomes. In parallel to cogni- their willingness to use their resources to bridge these
tive strategies, motivation strategies may also be auto- gaps. In other words, the students' ability to accomplish
matic or under the control of the learner. learning goals (components 1, 2, 3) should be distin-
Different types of motivational strategies have been guished from their willingness to use their personal re-
discussed in the literature, including appraisal processes sources (components 4, 5) and their capacity to execute
to create a learning intention (Boekaerts, 1995 a; Seegers their intentions (component 6). Kuhl (1984, 1994) used
& Boekaerts, 1993), prospective and retrospective attri- the term "action control" to refer to the skill to form a
butions (Weiner, 1986), effort avoidance (Rollett, 1987), behavioral intention, and to the capacity to protect it
and coping strategies to alter stressors and to reduce ne- from competing action tendencies till a goal is accom-
gative emotions (e. g., danger control, anxiety control, plished.
see Boekaerts, 1995 c for review). Existing data reveal In earlier publications, I used the term "metamoti-
that motivation strategies can be either domain-specific vational skills" to refer to these skills, but, in order to
or domain-transcending (Pintrich, Garcia, & De Groot, ensure conceptual clarity, I shall henceforth call these
1994). Furthermore, just like the other components of the skills "motivational self-regulatory strategies." They
model of SRL, students may have naive models at the embrace at least four highly complex skills. The first skill
level of motivation strategies. For example, some stu- refers to the student's capability to form a clear mental
dents may be highly motivated to start a learning activ- representation of his or her behavioral intention. Kuhl
ity when it is associated with fun, pleasant outcomes, or (1994) explained that individuals who confound their
rewards. When the same students are faced with com- own goal-related beliefs with those of others will pre-
plex, ambiguous, or solo tasks, they may not want to dominantly behave according to an external control pat-
expend much effort. What they then need (and often get) tern, encoding the wishes and expectations of others as
to boost their motivation is some form of external regu- obligations. Students who do not have access to motiva-
lation. The teacher or a parent prompts them to put in tional self-regulatory skills are characterized by a rigid,
more effort, and courts or coaxes them to work (Corno, context-insensitive reliance on the goals, standards,
1995). wishes, and expectations of others. Such "other-related"
Several authors (see Boekaerts, 1994; Boggiano et commitments induce cognitions, emotions, and affects
al., 1989; Corno, 1995; Patrick, Skinner, & Connell, 1993; that are counterproductive for self-regulation. The sec-
Weinert, Schrader, & Helmke, 1989) have propounded ond skill refers to the capacity to link a behavioral inten-
Monique Boekaerts
tion (component 6) to a plan of action (outcome of com- In the meantime, educators should be aware that in
ponent 3) involving the chosen cognitive and motiva- classrooms, where the teacher is steering and guiding
tion strategies. The third skill involves the ability to the learning process, students do not have much need
monitor one's behavioral intention, protecting and en- for cognitive or motivational self-regulatory skills. What
acting it once it has taken shape, and allocating resources they are expected to do most of the time is to apply
(time and effort) to the different aspects of the learning knowledge that the teacher has presented, has made
process, without too much distortion of well-being. available, or has advised them to use. Under such con-
Kuhl (1984, 1994) revealed debilitating effects on indi- ditions, there is not much opportunity to represent goals
viduals' volitional abilities to plan, initiate, and com- and behavioral intentions, and neither is there a need to
plete intended actions. Volet (in press) and Boekaerts experiment with alternative cognitive and motivation
(1994) have illuminated the links between motivation strategies. In other words, most tasks set to students in
strategies and motivational regulatory strategies. They formal schooling can be characterized as "outcome-
demonstrated that the effort expended on a task or based accomplishments" in which there is no logical
course is jointly determined by action control (compo- need for experimenting with and reflecting on new strat-
nent 6) and the skill to elicit positive appraisals before egies. Indeed, after having followed adequate instruc-
starting with a task or course (component 5). tion, most students will be successful in activating or
generating the cognitive strategies that will produce a
satisfactory solution in the time allotted by the teacher.
Yet students must learn to rely on SRL in situations
Conclusions and Implications for where the activated cognitive strategies fail to yield a
Teaching satisfactory next step, and they should have faith in their
motivational regulatory strategies when they are learn-
In the literature on learning and instruction there is fre- ing solo. A fully developed componential model of SRL
quent reference to the potential of SRL to serve as a ve- should explicate the links between the various compo-
hicle for promoting the transfer of knowledge and skills nents of the model, and also describe how they build
to real-life situations, and for making students inde- upon one another. It is for future research to specify
pendent of their teachers in extending and updating these relations.
their knowledge base. Despite the fact that considerable
research has been generated, the foundations of SRL re-
main poorly understood. I argued that the field is in
need of greater conceptual clarity and proposed my heu- References
ristic model of SRL. It highlights the parallel and recip-
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J.E. (1988). The interaction of domain-spe-
rocal relationships between components of the cognitive
cific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Re-
and motivational repertoire and centers on three levels view of Educational Research, 58, 375-404.
of these repertoires: domain-specific knowledge, strate- Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L., & Hare, V.C. (1991). Coming to
gy use, and goals. terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about
In examining the theoretical bases of cognitive and knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315-343.
motivational self-regulation, it became evident that SRL Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive develop-
consists of several types of prior knowledge, and that ment and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
awareness of and access to this knowledge, as well as the Boekaerts, M. (1992). The adaptable learning process: Initiating
capacity to extend it on the basis of direct and indirect and maintaining behavioural change. Applied Psychology: An
experiences, are key elements of SRL. There is also in- International Review, 42(4), 377-397.
creasing evidence that motivational self-regulation op- Boekaerts, M. (1994). Action control: How relevant is it for class-
room learning? In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and
erates in concert with cognitive self-regulation and in-
personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 427-433). Gottin-
fluences effort allocation, performance, and achieve- gen/Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
ment. However, more longitudinal research is needed to Boekaerts, M. (1995 a). The interface between intelligence and per-
unravel the intricate relations between cognitive and sonality as determinants of classroom learning. In D.H. Sak-
motivational self-regulation and various outcome vari- lofske &'M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of personality and intelli-
ables. I hope that the six-component model of SRL that gence (pp. 161-183). New York: Plenum.
I proposed in this paper will inspire researchers to meet Boekaerts, M. (1995b). Teaching students self-regulated learning: A
this challenge. major success in applied research. In J. Georgas, M. Manthouli, E.

Besevegis, & A. Kokkevi (Eds.), Contemporary psychology in Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and
Europe (pp. 245-259). Gottingen/Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of ac-
Boekaerts, M. (1995 c). Coping with stress in childhood and ado- tion control. In B.A. Maher & W.B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in
lescence. In M. Zeidner & N.S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping experimental personality research (Vol. 13, pp.9 9-171). New York:
(pp. 452-484). New York: Wiley. Academic Press.
Boggiano, A.K., Main, D.S., Flink, C , Barrett, M., Silvern, L., & Kuhl, J. (1994). A theory of action and state orientations. In J. Kuhl
Katz, P.A. (1989). A model of achievement in children: The role & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state
of controlling strategies in helplessness and affect. In R. orientation (pp.9-46). Gottingen/Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
Schwarzer, H.M. van der Ploeg & CD. Spielberger (Eds.), Ad- Mischell, W, & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system the-
vances in test anxiety research (Vol.6, pp. 13-26). Amsterdam: ory and personality. Reconceptualizing situations, disposi-
Swets & Zeitlinger. tions, dynamics and invariance in personality structure. Psy-
Borkowski, J.G., & Thorp, P.K. (1994). Self-regulation and motiva- chological Review, 102, 246-268.
tion: A life-span perspective on underachievement. In D.H. Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of abil-
Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and ity, subjective experience', task choice, and performance. Psy-
performance (pp. 45-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. chological Review, 91, 328-348.
Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regula- Patrick, B.C., Skinner, E.A., & Connell, J.P. (1993). What motivates
tion, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In RE. Weinert children's behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived
& R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and under- control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Per-
standing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. sonality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 781-791.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1984). Three faces of transfer: Impli- Pintrich, P. (Ed.). (1995). New directions in self-regulated learning
cations for early competence, individual differences and instruc- (Special issue). Educational Psychologist, 30(4).
tion. In M.E. Lamb, A.L. Brown & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in Pintrich, P.R., Cross, D.R., Kozma, R.B., & McKeachie, W.J. (1986).
developmental psychology (pp. 143-192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Instructional Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37,
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition 611-651.
and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-A2. Pintrich, PR., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold con-
Corno, L. (1995). Comments on Winne: Analytic and systematic ceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom
research are both needed. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review
201-206. of Educational Research, 63,167-199.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self deter- Pintrich, PR., Garcia, T, & De Groot, E. (1994). The role ofself-sche-
mination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. mas in self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the 23rd Inter-
De Corte, E. (1995). Fostering cognitive growth: A perspective national Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid, Spain.
from research on mathematics learning and instruction. Edu- Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regula-
cational Psychologist, 30(1), 37-46. tion: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social. Educational
Dochy, F.J.R.C. (1996). Assessment of domain-specific and do- Psychologist, 30(4), 207-212.
main-transcending prior knowledge. In M. Birenbaum & Resnick, L.B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Re-
F.J.R.C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, seacher, 16(9), 13-20.
learning processes and prior knowledge (pp.227-264). Boston: Rollett, B.A. (1987). Effort avoidance and learning. In E. De Corte,
Kluwer. H. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and in-
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In struction. European research in an international context. (Vol.1,
L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp.231-235). pp. 147-157). Oxford: Leuven University Press and Pergamon
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Press.
Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Lajoie, S.P. (1987). Toward a cognitive Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in
theory for the measurement of achievement. In R. Ronning, J. cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent tech-
Glover, J.C. Conoley & J.C. Witt (Eds)., The influence of cognitive nologies. Educational Researchers, 20(3), 2-9.
psychology on testing, Bums/Nebraska symposium on measure- Schneider, W., Korkel, J., & Weinert, RE. (1988). Expert knowledge,
ment: Volume 3 (pp. 41-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. general abilities and text processing. Paper presented at the Work-
Hatano, G. (1995, August). Conceptual change: A bridging notion be- shop on Interactions Among Aptitudes, Strategies, and
tween cognitive development and instructional research. Invited Knowledge in Cognitive Performance, Munich, Germany.
address at the 6th European Conference for Research on Learn- Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Self-regulation in edu-
ing and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. cation: Retrospect and prospect. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zim-
Heckhausen, H. (1980). Motivation und Handeln. Lehrbuch der Mo- merman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance.
tivationspsychologie. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kirby, J. (1988). Style, strategy and skill in reading. In R. Schmeck Seegers, G., & Boekaerts, M. (1993). Task motivation and mathe-
(Ed.), Learning, strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum matics achievement in actual task situations. Learning and In-
Press. struction, 3,133-150.
Monique Boekaerts
Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion.
Educational Research, 56,411-436. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovitch, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1991). Weinert, F.E., Schrader, F.W., & Helmke, A. (1989). Quality of in-
Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random struction and achievement outcomes. International Journal of
access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill- Educational Psychology, 13(8), 895-912.
structured domains. Educational Technology, 31, 24-33. Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning
The Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). An- strategies. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teach-
chored instruction and its relation to situated cognition. Edu- ing (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
cational Researcher, 19, 2-10. Winne, P. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Edu-
Volet, S.E. (in press). Cognitive and affective variables in academic cational Psychologist, 30(4), 173-187.
learning: The significance of direction and effort in students' Wittrock, M.C. (1992). An empowering conception of educational
goals. Learning and Instruction. psychology. Educational Psychologist, 27,129-141.
Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct valida-
change. Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 41, tion of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning.
347-357. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.


Boekaerts 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boekaerts 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Boekaerts 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European

Self-regulated Learning at the Junction

Keywords: Cognition, Metacognition, Motivation, Control, Strategies.

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 100-112

cognitive regulatory strategies motivational regulatory strategies

mental representation of learning - mental representation of behavioral

cognitive strategies motivation strategies

selective attention - create a learning intention

content domain /meta-cognitive knowledge and motivational beliefs/

- conceptual - beliefs, attitudes and values related to

Figure 1. A six-component model of self-regulated learning.

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 100-112

the complementary models, may easily confuse these

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 100-112

same level as cognitive strategies (component 5). This

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 100-112

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 100-112

You might also like