Instructional Principles for Self-Regulation

E KVth+r , LeyV

D O'. I 5. B YoI r

The purpose of this article is to suggestprinciples]for embedding support ininstruction tofacilitate self-regulation (SR) inless expert learners. The principles are basedon an analysis of the growing body of researchon the distinctive self-regulation dierencesbetween higher and lower achieving learners.The analysis revealed four instructionalprinciples that desi.gners should consider toprovide supportfor self-regulation. Eachprinciple is supported by research andinstructional examples are included.

An individual's ability to self-regulate con-tributes to motivation and learning. SeIf-regula-tion (SR) may be broadly defined as the effortput forth bv students to deepen, monitor,manipulate, and improve their own learning(Como & Mandinach, 1983). SR includes factorssuch as resource management, goal setting, suc-cess expectations, and deep cognitive involve-ment (Trawick & Corno, 1995). Durmng the SRprocess, expert learners "identify what the cur-rent task requires in terms of cognitive, motiva-tional, and environmental strategies anddetermine if their personal resources are ade-quate to effectively accom plish the task" (Ertmer& Newby, 1996, p. 18). Self-awareness, self-mon-itoring, and self-evaluation are critical to effec-tive SR and performance (McCombs, 1989).Some have suggested that SR is synonymouswith metacognition (Brown, Hedberg, &Harper, 1994) or metacognitive adjustments bylearners in response to feedback on errors(Brown, Bransford, Ferrra, & Carnpione, 1983).

According to Osman and Hannafin (1992),research has "provided concrete evidence that[self] regulation strategies may be embeddedwithin instruction" (p. 88). McCombs (1989) hasindicated that instructional interventions canhelp enhance or supplant existing capacities andskills for leamers who have difficulties with SR.

Several recent approaches to embedding SRinto instruction offer systematic principles andguidelines to facilitate their design. Designguidelines have been derived from a synthesis ofresearch on SR components such as monitoring,

self-efficacy, and metacognition (Shin, 1998).These guidelines suggest embedding SR train-ing into instruction by modeling SR, usingcognitive apprenticeships, and providing attri-butional feedback to identify appropriate strate-gies, among other strategies. More recently,

ETR&D. Vol. 49, No 2, 200G, pp. 93-103 ISSN 1042-' 629 93

9.RI&D-o. Vo. 49. No. 2

Como and Randi (1999) presented a theorv forclassroom instruction to "foster self-regulatedlearning among students and teachers" (p. 294).

Several SR interventions classified as exem-plarv by Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) havebeen tailored to specific content, students, ormedia SR interventions have been suggested forwriting (Graham, Harris, & Troia, 1998), readingcomprehension (Pressley, EI-Dinary, Wharton-McDonald, & Brown, 1998), and mathematics(Schunk, 1998). Others have described SR inter-ventions incorporated into college learning-to-learn courses (Hofer, Yu, & Pintrich, 1998;Weinstein, 1994) or in computer-mediatedinstruction (Winne & Stockley, 1998). Someapproaches have been directed toward specificpopulations such as children (Biemiller, Shany,Inglis, & Michenbaum, 1998; Corno, 1995), ado-lescents (Belfiore & Hornyak, 1998), and learn-ing disabled students (Butler, 1998).

INSTRUCTIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR SR

The purpose of the current article is to suggestprinciples for ernbedding SR support in instruc-tion to facilitate regulation in less expert learn-ers. Instruction that includes these principlesmay ameliorate learner SR deficiencies in variedinstructional contexts. The principles suggestedin this article can be embedded in instruction to

support SR regardless of content, media, or aspecific population. They can be systematicallyemployed in diverse contexts such as print-based or instructor-led instruction as well assynchronous or asynchronous Web-basedinstruction.

The principles are based on research litera-ture that supports SR and identifies SR compo-nents that may be deficient in some learners.Each principle meets two criteria: (a) It is sup-ported by research results suggesting a positiveinfluence on learning, and (b) it addresses aneed-an SR gap associated with achieverment.The principles are designed to address the com-ponents that research evidence suggests exertthe greatest influence on achievement.

The four main principles described below arederived from research. on six SR comrponents-(a) goal-setting, (b) preparing a place to stoudy,'c) organizing materials, (d) monitoring learn-ing, (e) evaluating progress and effectiveness,and (f') reviewing tests. These four principles arean attempt to embody both effective and flexibleguidance for embedding SR into instruction:

1. Guide learners to prepare and structure aneffective learning environment.

2. Organize instruction and activities to facili-tate cognitive and metacognitive processes.

3. Use instructional goals and feedback to pres-ent student monitoring opportunities.

able I Li instructional Principies to Support Self-regulction

Reguilating activity Definitiorn Insiructional support exam pEe

Preparing andstructuring leamingenvironment

Select or arrange the physical settingto make learning easier

Advise students how to arrangephysical environments and cope withdistractions

Organizing and Overt or covert rearrangement of Give students partial outline that theytransforming instructional materials to improve completeinstructional materials learning

Keeping records &rmonitonng progress

Record events or results Instruct student to keep a progressreport recording completed activities

Evaluating Evaluate completed work aualitv; Review exar. responses with student('s)performance against reread tests to prepare for class or item by item, why response correct ora standard further testing how to correct response

94

INSTRUCTIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR SELF-REGUJLAT ION9

4. Provide learners with continuous evaluationinformation and occasions to self evaluate.

Principle 1: Guide learners to prepare andstructure an effective learning env'ironimewt

instruction should encourage and guide learn-ers to prepare appropriate learning environ-ments. Successful learners make "efforts todetermine or arrange where a task is to be com-pleted" (Trawick & Corno, 1995, p. 62). Structur-ing the environment relates to a learner's abilityto cope effectively with disturbances, a crucialpart of SR (Corno, 1994). A confirmatory factoranalysis on data from 100 college students val i-dated managing distractions as a first-order factorcontributing to SR (Orange, 1999).

Environmental structuring enables learnersto eliminate or decrease distractions and toattend to learning, an essential first instructionalevent (Gagns, 1985). Before learners can payattention they must have an environpment thatallows., if not encourages, them. to focus atten-tion on the learning task at hand. Expert learnershave knowledge about the "optimal study con-ditions for meeting the demands of the task"(Ertmer & Newby, 1996, p. 8); expert learnersask themselves, "When and where do I studybest? How supportive is the learning environ-ment?" (p. 20). Self-regulated learners arrangeelements in an instructional environment so thatlearning goals successfully compete wsith othergoals for attention and other cognitive resources(Como., 1994).

Although there have been few investigationsof environ-mental structuring comparing its rela-tive influence to other SR components. thestrength of the evidence in these studies maywarrant consideration. Evidence from studies inwhich learners have recalled their usual studypractices suggests that academically strongerleamers use environmental structuring moreoften than do academicallv weaker learners(Lan, 1998; Ley & Young, 1998). When environ-mental structuring has been analyzed simulta-neously with other components to determine itsrelative contribution to SR, evidence supportsthe relative importance of environ-nental struc-turing in discriminating between higher andlower achievement. A discriminant function

analysis with 14 SR activities indicated thatarranging the physical setting was the secondstrongest predictor for scoring above or belowthe minimum score for college admission (Ley &Young, 1998). Furthermore, environmentalstructuring was the strongest differencebetween college students who used an instruc-tional self-monitoring protocol and those whodid not (Lan, 1996). In Lan's study, learners whorecorded their study behaviors with a protocolreported significantly more environmentalstructuring and earned significantly higherexam scores than either those who recordedinstructor behaviors or those who did no record-

ing.

Effective instruction requires creating andmaintaining motivating and engaging environ-ments (Beifiore & Hornyak, 1998). Instruction tofoster SR should ernbed suggestions for estab-lishing a study area that is quiet, comfortable,and without distractions. Environmental struc-turing methods bring the learner's attention toenvironmental preparation and, to be moreeffective, require learner participation (Gamer,1990). The approaches vary in labor intensive-ness for the learner.

One of the less labor-intensive techniquesrequires learners to complete an environmentalstructuring checklist that establishes tlhe charac-teristics of an effective distraction-free studyenvironment. Detailed strategies for teacher-led,

synchronous environments (see Corno, 1994, p.246) nmay be adaptable to asynchronous Web-based instruction. For example, Web learnersmight identify their potential distractions from a

list and choose from among activities that elimri-

nate the distraction. The instruction would offereffective methods for eliminating or decreasingthe distraction impact.

Some activities to encourage environmental

structuring require minimal but continuouslearner effort. Recording study time on a form-may increase the learner's attention to environ-mental structuring. Instruction could require

learners to record time spent studying in anappropriately structured learning environmentand submit the record (see Belfiore & Hornyak,1998, p. 193). Encouraging learners to sustain aquiet, comfortable, and distraction-free studyenvironment can require combining activities to

95

E7ETR&D. Voi.. 4No. 2

establish an appropriately structured environ-ment with recording the time spent studying init.

Other techniques could depend on thelearner's developing an environmental structur-ing plan. lnstruction might present learners withenvironmental structuring advice such as howto eliminate specific distractions. The advicecould be integrated into text procedures orinstructions for cornmpleting the initial assign.-ment. Learners rmight first select or list thethreats to structuring a supportive learningenvironment and then choose environmentalstructuring activities to develop a plan. To suc-cessfully complete a plan, some learners mightrequire a catalog of distraction-coping strategies.More labor-intensive plans might require learr.-ers to analyze how and when to effectively con-trol distractions (Corno, 12994). This strategyencourages learners to reflect on how preparedthey are to st-uLdy and might culminate in a writ-ten environrmental structuring plan. However.learners who tvpicallv use ineffective strategiesmay be unable to suggest effective strategieswithout additional support.

To provide more support, instruction canprornpt learners and offer them enviror-nentalstructuring options. Prompting learners whoseirntial performance indicates that thev mav havedifficulty structuring their environment mayhelp those who have higher SR needs. For exam-pie, in a distance course, learners who do poorlyon the first assignment could be asked to followa series of proced-ures for structuring their learn-ing environment. Providino a list of strategieswill assist less self-regulating learners to planeffective strategies since thev often use familiarbut ineffective strategies (Gamer, 1990).

Principle 2: Organize instruction and

actiz?tzes to facilitate ccgitive and

metacognitize processes

Organizing is an important study activity (DiVesta & Moreno, 1993) and a key component ofSR (Hagen & Weinstein, 1995; Zi-mmerman &Paulsen, 1995). Organizing materials may bebroadly defined as transforming and "rearrang-ing instructional materials to improve learning,for example, 'I make an outline before I write mny

paper"' (Zirmlnerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, p.618). Learner statements may best exemplifv thisself-reguiated learning component that Corno(1986) referred to as encoding control: "Write itone way then another [and] write the parts of aproblern and look at it" (p. 341).

Organizational strategies, such as outlinigcontent or relating concepts wi-tin content, areamong the cognitive learning strategies that indi-viduals use to seLf-regulate and that usually resultin a deeper understanding of the material (Hofer etal., 1998, p. 67). Strategies that organize content,such as concept mapping, schematizing. and strac-tured overviewin.g have boosted achievement inseveral studies investigating the relationshipbetween instruction and stractural knowledge(Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993). Furtherrnore 'com-prehension has significantly improved w-ith theuse of visual organizers such as concept maps"(Simpson & Randall, 2000, p. 55).

Organizing was strongiv associated withachievement in three studies that investigatedthe relative strength of SR strategies (Ley &Young, 1998; Zimmerman & Martine7-Pons,1986; 1988). Research has indicated that organiz-ing and transforrming strategies are used by midd-dle school students more than most other SRstrategies (Zirmerman & Marinez-Pons, 1988)and are more strongly related to achievementthan most SR strategies (Ley & Young, 1998;Zimmerman & Martinez-Ponis, 1986). In addi-tion, organizing and transforming strategies arestrong contributors in explaining the differencebetween advanced track and low er track highschool students (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons,1986) and in predicting regular adrmission andunderprepared college student group classifica-tion (Le' & Young, 1998).

These studies credibly reinforce the notionthat effort expended organizing learning mrateri-als influences achievement. All three studies col-lected data on the same 14 SR strategies. In thetwo studies with distinct achievernent groupsLey & Young, 1998; Zimmerman & Martinez-

Pons, 1986), the acadenically stronger groupschose more organizing strategies and used themmore frequently than did the academicallyweaker groups; both studies collected data andclassified self-regulating behaaviors with thesame interview protocol and analysis technique,

96

INSTRUCT IONAL PRINCIPLES FOR SELF-REGULATION

lending further support to the relative impor-tance of organizing strategies when compared toalternatives.

Different arrangements of the learning mate-rials within the instruction may facilitate learn-ing and the use of cognitive and metacognirivestrategies. Metacognitive strategies ma' bedefined as the "the ability to think about one'sown thinking and to actively select appropriatestrategies for various learning situations"(Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1994., p. 243). Provenorganizing strategies suggested for instructorsinclude advance or graphic organizers, conceptmapping, and previews (Driscoll, 2000; Nist &Holschuh. 2000). Graphic organizers, a learner-generated version of advance organizers, arehierarchically arranged tree diagrams of a text'skey terms and concepts (Driscoll). Previews aredetailed narratives about a text that should beread in advance to activate knowledge and aidorganization and reading comprehension (Nist& Holschuh). Concept maps are visual represen-tations of information (Hadwin & Winne, 1.996)that could introduce or summarize concept rela-tionships within a module or chapter (seeDriscoll). Some instructional software facilitatesthe learner by "structuring of a task... organi-zation of information, or manipulation of data"without an instructor (Brown et al., 1994, p. 11).

Each of these techniques may be embeddedin instruction to help learners self-regulate.Although learner-generated versions of graphicorganizers have been more effective thaninstructionally provided ones, some studentsmay not be able to create then, if thev lack time,knowledge, or willingness to do so. Examples ofembedded strategies that support SR includeheadings, subheadings, chapter su-mmaries, les-son overviews, and explicit orientirng activities(Osman & Hannafin, 1992). An embedded strat-egy may include graphi.c organizers or conceptmapping. Content previews may be combinedwith an organizing activity that engages learn-ers and increases deeper processing (Nist &Holschuh, 2000). Learners may complete partialconcept maps or fill in missing concepts on anoutline. The content outlines, class outlines, oradvance organizers structure the learningsequence and identify important concepts forlearners.

Principle 3: Ulse instructional goals andfeedback to present the learner weithmonitoring opporrtlnities

"Monitoring is an important component of self-regulated learring" (Zimmerman & Paulsen,1995, p. 13). Monitoring is the cognitive processthat assesses the state of progress relative togoals and generates feedback that can guide fur-ther action; it is pivotal in self-regulated learning(Butler & Winne, 1995). A confirmatory factoranalysis on an SR inventory complet;ed by col-lege students validated monitoring as a first-order factor (Orange, 1999).

Monitoring depends on two other criticalself-regulating components: feedback and goalsetting (Butler & Winne, 1995). Feedback andgoal setting enable monitoring; the two compo-nents interact to promote SR. Self-regulators useexternal and internal feedback to monitor howwell they are meeting learning goals, how effec-tive their learning strategies and tactics are, andthe quality of their learning outcomes (Butler &Winne). A meta-analysis of 131 feedback studiesled researchers to conclude that goal setting aug-mented the effects of feedback interventions(Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Conversely, feedbackmay also influence how learners set sequentialgoals (Butler & Winne). To monitor and controllearning-goal attainment, learners must under-stand tasks and desired outcomes (Weinstein,1994). They self-regulate by systematically acti-vating and sustaining behaviors and cognitionsto attain learning goals (Schunk, 1990).

Monitoring instructional interventions withand without explicit goal setting have improvedperformance. Girls who recorded their progresswhile learning to throw darts erhanced effectsof both process and product goal setting andachievement when compared to girls who didnot monitor (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997).When prompted during instruction, they pro-vided their own feedback by attending to andrecording their progress. Learners who recordedtheir learning activities on a self-monitoring pro-tocol scored higher on examinations than didlearners who recorded teacher activities or whodid no recording (Lan, 1996). The self-monitor-ing learners provided their own additional feed-back over the other groups, which may have ledto their improved learning outcomes. Successful

97

ETR&D, Vod. 49. No. 2

learners remember to monitor their progress

and know how to correct their errors. First yearveterinarv students who reported using seIf-reg-

ulating behaviors more often than other stu-dents were able to identify goals, implementalternative strategies, and become aware of howlearning occurred while completing case studies(Ertmer, Newby, & MacDougall, 1996). Learnerswho have received monitoring instruction orguidance or strategy advice about effectiveinstructional choices learned more than whenthey did not (Kinzie, 1990).

Monitoring has been associated withF achieve-ment. Younger students and poor learners use

very few monitoring strategies (Puntarmbekar,1995). Extensive evidence indicates "thatprompting students to keep records affects theirlearning, motivation, and self efficacy" (Zim-merman, 1989, p. 333). Keeping records andmonitoring frequency was one of five signifi-cantly discrinminating self-regulating differencesbetween students who scored above and thosewho scored below the rninimum standardizedtest score for college adrmission eligibilitv (Ley &Young, 1998). Keeping records and monitoringfrequency was the second strongest predictorfor discriminating self-regulating differencesbetween eighth grade students frorr higher andlower achievem ent tracks (Zimmerman &Martinez-Pons. 1986).

Monitoring may be the cornerstone of self-

regulated learning although "when learners donot need to act on instructions or descriptions,thev are unlikely to monitor ... rigorously"(Garner, 1990, p. 519). Therefore instruction thatsupports SR. may prompt the learner to monitor.Self-monitoring maay take the form of students(a) observing and recording whether or not theyhave done something, or (bi) observing andrecording behaviors so as to monitor if their per-formance has met a set criteria (Belfiore &Hornyak, 1998). In the latter case, specified cri-teria become goals when learners embrace themas attainable performance standards. Goals mayenhance feelings of competence and interest ifthey can be attained in a short period of time andframed as specific actions (Meece. 1994). Fur-thermore, guiding learners to establish preciseand attainable goals can enhance metacognitivemonitoring "Winne & Stockley, 1998),

Instruction could prompt leamers to observeand record whether or not they have completedinterim activities required to produce a morecomplex assignment. Instruction could alsoinclude a form for monitoring learning activitiesand require the learner to record time spent onlearning activities such as taking notes, readingthe text, attending a lecture, working problems,and so forth (see Lan, 1998). In the process ofcompleting an assignmnent, a learner might berequired to track progress comnpleting prepara-tory assignments that culmninate in a produ ctincorporating elements of the preparatoryassignments. Instruction might also requireexplicit interim process and product assignmentsthat are the occasion for feedback and that guidestudent efforts to attain desired learning goals.

An instructional. process may also provide

external (instructor or other instruction gener-ated) frequent and systematic feedback. Aninstructor or facilitator might acknowxrledge orverify learner monitoring records or, in com-puter-mediated instruction, send a notice to thelearner if an on-line monitoring formn is notmaintained. Some Web-based instructionalshelis such as -WebC-TM provide feedbackthrough computer-generated exams and scoringthat do not require an instructor or facilitator toprovide feedback.

Extenia' feedback on interim, process, or par-tial assignments may encourage monitoring. Ifthe learning outcome is a technical report,instruction rnay require learners to submit andreceive feedback on whether or not they havesubmitted notes for the report. then for a draft,and, finally for the report. SR support couldincorporate feedback to learners on man-y, if notmost, of the comnponent activities that culmninatein a more comprehensive, complex assignment.When learners begin or are prompted to com-pare their performance to a standard the processbecomes self-evaluation, a related b-ut separateSR process.

Principle 4: Provide learnters with

continuous evaluation intormation and

occasions to self evaluate

Definitions of both moritoring and evaluationoften include a comparison between thelearner's ow-n performance to a standard, but for

98

INSTRUCTIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR SELF-REGULATION

the purposes of this article, such comparisonsare used to distinguish evaluation from moni-toring. Self-evaluation "involves the compara-

tive outcome between some component ofperformance and the set standard" (Belfiore &

Homyak, 1998, p. 190) or setting standards andusing them for self-judgment (Zirnmerman,

1998, p. 78). Monitoring is limited to trackingand recording one's own performance withoutcomparing effort to outcomes. Setting evalua-tion standards and goals is a noted characteristic

of self-regulated learners (Ertmer et al., 1996)and "comparing one's performance with stan-dards informs one of goal progress" (Schunk,1990, p. 73). The distinction betveen monitoringand evaluation may not be clear in practice butthe distinction establishes a unique instructionalpurpose for each principle.

Evaluation judgments close an SR loop inwhich students monitor the effectiveness of theirleaming methods or strategies in reachnlg their

goals and react to this feedback (Zimmerman &Kitsantas, 1997). Expert learners know how toevaluate their learning strategies and modifytheir learning strategies on a timely basis(Weinstein, 1994). Self-regulated learners evalu-ate their learning strategies to determine if thestrategies are effectively advancing them towardtheir goals (Weinstein). They have an implicit ifnot explicit performance standard. evaluatetheir performance against the standard, identify

strategy problems, and know how to correct

strategies. Learners may not be able to accu-rately monitor and detect failure if they do notunderstand how to evaluate their learning (Gar-ner, 1990). Some learners may need help withself-evaluation before they can develop skills forSR (McCombs, 1989).

Evaluating performance is a key SR compo-nent. Cornparing current performance to goalperformance to gauge progress was one of three

items that loaded as a self-evaluation factor inthe confirmatory factor analysis reported byOrange (1999). Ornly study strategy use

exceeded self-evaluation in strength of its contri-bution to SR among seven first-order factors.

Self-evaluation processes have significantlydiffered between lower-achievement track highschool students (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons.1990), lower-scoring college statistics students

(Lan, 1996), college students w-ho did not score

at or above the minimurn standardized testscore required for college admission (Ley &Young, 1}998) and their higher-achieving or scor-

ing counterparts. Evidence suggests that higher-

achieving students mav use past performance to

evaluate learning and identify deficits more fre-quently than do lower-achieving students.Higher-achieving college students in two stud-ies reviewed previous tests significantly more

than did lower-achieving college students (Lan;Lev & Young). Reviewing tests to identify cor-rect and incorrect responses may enable evalua-tion. Self-regulated learners may compare pastlearning outcomes to desirable ones, identify

their learning gaps, and renew efforts to repairspecific performance gaps.

Monitoring may stimulate self-evaluation.

College statistics students who recorded their

study behaviors subsequently reported review-ing previous tests significantly more often thandid those who did no recording or who recorded

instructor behaviors (Lan, 1998). The instructor

did not explicitly advise or teach learners how orwhat to study but only asked them to record

weekly their study behaviors. Following learn-ing goals had a positive influence on the SR of

college men and women (Bouffard, Boisvert,

Vezeau, & LaRouche, 1995). On the other hand,less self-regulating learners may be less able toevaluate and to select strategies than more self-

regulating learners, Embedded appropriate

learning strategies, (seiection, sequence, viewingpace, and review of instructional events in com-

puter-based instruction) closed a significant per-formance gap between self-identified lowerself-regulators and higher self-regulators whenboth groups were allowed to control their strate-gies (Young, 1996).

Guiding students through tasks, deliveringcorrective feedback that helps a learner seewhere he has gone wrong, and providing hints

about how to correct the problem "can be veryhelpful as students try to become self-regulated

learners" (Pintrich, 1995, p.11). Embedded eval-

uation strategies may provide students withexplicit feedback that relates effort to learning so

that students can determine how well their strat-

egy is working. Feedback mav include observa-

tions about a learner's effort and, when

99

TJET&D. 3Vo 4Q. No. 2

appropriate, irmprovement over time (Hagen &Weinstein, E1995i) Feedback should indicateprogress toward learning goais, that is, mastervand what the learner should know or be able todo; on the other hand, feedback on performancegoals, that is, scores, grades, or relative standingmay be counterproductive (Hagen & Weinst-ein). Therefore feedback that includes scoresshould reflect degree of mastery, not relativestanding in a group of learners. When feedbackencourages learners to compare their work to astandard or a goal and reflect on the quality oftheir performance compared to the standard orthe goa'l the learners engage the SR process ofevaluating their learning outcomes.

SR "recuires the development of both self-monitoring and self-evaluation processes"(McCombs, 1989, p. 72). Requiring "learners to

interact with others, describe their learning pro-cesses, evaluate their performance, and providefeedback to each other" encourages metacogni-tive processes hiat accornpany SR (Osman &Hannafin, 1992, p. 96). On the other hand, anyinstructional intervention incorporating peerevaluations should operate with the caveat thatinaccurate or misleading peer evaluations arenonpunitively corrected quickly for both theevaluator and the evaluated.

Computer-based instruction that promptsstudents to use learning processes encouragesSR (Winne & Stocklev. 1998). Feedback may beprovided through a display that automaticallyreports cumulauive unit completion and mas-tery. Progress reports could indicate cumulativeassignments with grades throughout instruc-tion. Cormputer-based instruction that tests aiearner frequently and provides the learner withexplicit feedback on correct and incorrectresponses supports self-evaluation and compeisthe learner to review the test items andresponses.

Instruction may embed evaluation with testreviews or individual assignments. Learnersmay be required to follow frequent graded orungraded tests with a review of the test and cor-rective feedback, Instruction could requirelearners to suggest how they might improve atest response or an assignment based on externalevaluation. Another technique especiallv adapt-able to distance learning might have learners use

assignment evaluation criteria as a qualityv con-trol checklist during assignment preparationand then receive their assignment evaluationsbased on the same criteria. The process encour-ages learners to compare their work to a set ofstandards during and after completion; (a) pro-vide the learner w-ith a set of mneasurabl]e criteriafor a product or process in a checklist format, (b)instruct the learner how to use the criteria as aqualitv control checklist when preparing theactivity or completing the product, and (ci pro-vide the learner with feedback on the quality ofcompleted process or product using the sarnecriteria checklist (Lev, 1999). Learners can. com-pare their self-evaluations to an external evalua-tion conducted by the instructor orcomputer-mediated instruction and then deter-mine their self-evaluation effectiv-eness.

DISCUSSION

Embedded SR support may be more importantfor some learners than others. According toZimnmerman (1989), "'all learners try to self-regu-late their academic learning and performance insome way, but there are dramatic differences inmethods and self-beliefs among students" (p. 6).Evidence suggests that some learners may beless inclined or able to self-regulate than others(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Severaldistinct activities and cognitive processes com-prise SR but a select few apparently are associ-ated with achievement levels, Lessself-regulated leamers may benefit from inter-ventions that guide how, what, and where tostudv, (McCombs, 1989) and depend less onineffectiv'e and inefficient learning approachesthey know and use (Garner, 1990). EmbeddedSR support may be able to guide them througheffective preparation, organization, monitoringand evaluation processes. Assuring that thesefew components are structured into the learningexperience may help those who need it most.

Lower-achieving learners do far better wvhentheir instructional choices are limrited by highstructure (Kulik & Kulik, 1991). But how muchstructure is necessary? The answer depends onthe learner's current SR skill. A comiplementaryrelationship between external and internal "reg-

100

INSTRUCTIONAL. PRINCIPLES FOR SELF-REGULAT1ON

ulation mechanisms .. . may provide a powerfulbalance among available alternatives' (Osman& Hannafin, 1992, p. 89). Since better learnersprobably employ strategies associated with SRto compensate for cognitive deficiencies (DiVesta & Moreno, 1993), increased SR supportmight compensate for weak SR. instruction maybe embedded with information and activities tocompensate for SR weaknesses in less self-regu-lated learners without adverselv affecting moreself-regulated learners. lncluding SR has not

decreased achievement in more self-regulatingstudents but has closed the achievement gapbetween more and less self-regulating students(Yoimg, 1996).

Providing support for SR mnay have someadvantages over teaching study skills or tryingto teach the more specific SR strategies, First, thedesigner does not have to develop instruction toteach strategies, a time-consuming process thatmay not be needed by all learners and may havelimited transferability (Hadwin & Winne, 1996).Second, instructional designers and instructorsmay be able to create instruction that supportsmore lower-achieving and often less self-regu-lating learners regardless of the media, content,or population for whom it is intended. Specificmedia or instructional format or populationhave been suggested as options, not require-ments.

CONCLUSION

Although some educators advise against allow-ing learners to rely solely on external prompts(Brown et aL., 1994) others advise the use ofinstructional interventions that support thelearner's metacognitive activities (McCombs,1989; Puntambekar, 1995). Most researchersagree that some students may only developlearning strategies that support SR when givenexplicit instruction (Ertmer & Newby, 1996).Some students require support to help them

become masters of their own learning by acquir-ing the capability to self-regulate learning(Lebow, 1993).

This article has proposed four principles forembedding instructional SR to address deficien-cies often associated with less self-regulated,

lower-achieving learners-(a) guide learners toprepare and structure an effective learning envi-ronment, (D) organize instruction and activitiesto facilitate cognitive and metacognitive pro-cesses, (c) use instructional goals and feedbackto present student monitoring opportunities,and (d.) provide learners with continuous evalu-ation information and occasions to self-evaluate.These four principles should guide embeddingSR support in a wide variety of instructionalmedia and contexts. The principles guide but donot guarantee better learning. Tne true test ofdesign principles is their usefulness, effective-ness, and efficiency. This test should be the nextstep in determining their value to instructionaldesigners and learners. E.

Kathryn Ley is with the Department of InstructionalTechnology, Universitv of Houston Clear Lake. Shecan be reached at ley@cl.uh.edu.

Dawn B. Young is with the Department ofBehavioral Sciences at Bossier Parish CommunityCollege.

The authors thank Peggy Ertmer, GayleDavidson-Shivers, and Jim Klein for greatlyimproving the manuscript with their insightfulrecommendations.

REFERENCES

Belfiore, P.J., & Hornyak, R.S. (1998). Operant theoryand application to self-monitoring in adolescents. InD.FH. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman, (Eds.) Self-regulatedlearning; from teachr:ng to sef-reflective practice (pp.184-202). New York: The Guilford Press.

Biemiller, A., Shany, M., inglis, A., & Michenbaum, D.(1998). Factors influencing children's acquisitionand demonstration of self-regulation on academictasks. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman, (Eds.) Self-regulated learning; from teaching to self-reflective prac-tice (pp. 203-224)>. New York: The Guilford Press.

Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & LaRouche, C.(1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regula-tion and performance among college students. Brit-ish Journa1 of Edzucational Psychology, 65, 317-329.

Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., &Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering andunderstanding. In P.H. Mussen, (Ed.) Handbook ofpsychology (Vol. II1, pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.

Brown, C., lIedberg, J., & Harper, B. (1994).Metacognition as a basis for learning support soft-ware. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(2), 3-26.

Butler, D. (1998). A strategic content learning approachto promoting self-regulated learning by students

101

E'T2&-D Vo). 49, Nc, 2

with learning disabilities. In D.H. Schurk & B.jZimmnerman, (Eds.) Self-regulated learnzng from teach-ing to self-reflective practice (pp: 160-183). New York;The Guilford Press.

Butler, D., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical svnthesis. Review o,fEducational FResearch, 65, 245-282.

Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control compo-nents of self-regulated learning. Contempoorar Educa-tional Psycholog; 1}, 333-346.

Corno, L. f1994). Student volition and education: Out-comes, influences, and practices. In D.H. Schunk &B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.J, Self-reguilation fllearning andperforrmancc: iss-ues and eduecational appiications (pp.229-254). Hillsdaie NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, Publishers.

Corno, L. (1995). Comments on Winne: Analytic andsystemic research are both needed. Educational Psy-chologist, 30, 201-206.

Corno, L. & Mandinach, E.B3 (1983). The role of cogni-tive engagement in classroom learning and motiva-tion. Educational Psycholcotgisf, ir, 88-108.

Corno, L & Randi, L. ( 1999). A desigrn theory for class-room instruction. Ln C.R. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instruc-tional desigen theories and modlels: A neow paradigr of

usEtrettionalzth teort , Vol. ii (pp. 293-318). HltllsdaleNI: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates. Publishers.

Di Vesta, F.j., &. Moreno, V. (993). Cognitive controlfunctions of studv activities; A compensation model.Contemporary Edu cational Psychology. 18. 47-65.

Driscoll, M.P. (2l)0"3 Psychology, of learning for instruc-tio, Boston: Alyn and Bacor..

Ertmer, P.A. & Newby T .(1'996i The expert learner:Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. InstructionalScience, 24., 1-24

Ertme.: P.A., Newvby, TJ., & MacDougali, M. (1996).Students' responses and approaches to case-basedinstruction: The roie of reflective self-regulation.Amnerican Eaucationai Research iourrnal, 33, 71 9- 52.

Gagne0 R.M. M (1985, The conai7aons ofhoearning (4th ed.).Nesw York: Holt, Rinehart & Wins'or

Garner, R. u990 . When childrer and adu,its dc not uselearnvi-g strategies: Toward a theorv of settings.Reziezw or Educa. ional Researci, 61 5 M /7- 529.

G'-ahamn S., Harris, K.R., & Troia, G.A. (.1998). Writingand seli-regulation: Cases frow the self-regulatedst'ategy development model. In D.H Schunk & B. -Zimmerman, (Eds.) Seif'reguiated iearni' -ow teacii-inv to self e,Iect-ive practice (pp 20-41,. New York:The CGuiford Press.

F-adwsin A.F., & Winne, P.H. (1996), Study strategieshasve meager support; a review with rec omnmenca-

tions for implementaton. Journal otHighea Eiucation,6e7 692-7' 5.

Hagen, A.S., & Weinstein. C.E. (.1995). Achievementgoals, self-regulated learning and the roie of class-room context. In P.R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understandinigself-regulated learning (pp. 43-56). San Francisco:Jossev Bass.

Hofer, B.K., Yu' S.L., & Pintrich, P.R., (1998), In. D.H.

Schunk & B].. Zimmerman, (Eds.,) Self;reguiatedlearning-from, teachinig to self-reflectizve practice (pp. 57-85). New York: The Guilford Press,

Jonassen. D.H., & Grabowski, B.IL. (1993). Handbook ofindividual ditfferences, leiarnirg., and inistruction. NewYork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kinzie, M. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effec-tive interactive instruction: Learner control, self-reg-ulation, and continuing motivation. EducationalTechnology Researcsh and Dezvelo-)pmrent 3S. 1) ,5-21,.

Kluger, A. & DeNisi. A. (1996). The effects of feedbackinterventions on performance; a historical review, ameta analysis, and. a preliminary feedback interven-tion theory. Psyrhoiogical Bulletin, 119(2) 254-284.

Kulik, JA. & Kulik, C.C. '1991). Deveiopmentalinstruc-tion: an analysis of tshe research. Appalachian StateCniversit.: National Center for Developmental

Education.Lan, W.Y. (1996). The effects of self-monitoring on

students' course perforr,mance. use of learning strate-gies, attitude, self-judgment ability, and knowledgerepresentation. Journal of Exverime taTf Education, 64,101-115.

Lan, W.Y. (1998). Teaching self-monitoring skills instatistics. In D.H. Schunk & B]. Zimmerman, (Eds.)Self-regulated learninrg from reaching to sefl-reslectivepractice (86-105). New York: The Guilford Press.

Lebow. ID. 11993). Constructivist -alues for instruc-tional systems design: Five principles toward a newmindset. Ediucational Tecnnology Researubh andl Devel-ovment, 42. 4-16.

Lev, K.L. (1999). Prosviding feedback to distant stu-dents. Campus W4lide inirrmation

Systems, 16(2) 63-69.

Ley. K, & Young, D.B., (1998). Self-reguiation behav-iors in tnderprepared (developmental) and regularadmissioni college students, Corztenporary Ehica-tional Psychology 23, 42-64.

McCombs. B.L. (1989). Self-regulated learning and aca-demic achievement: A phenomenological view.. InB.J. Zimrmermran & D.i. Schunk (.Eds.). Self regulatediearnmng and acad.izic acievement Theorv, research.andpspractice (pp. 5 82). New' York: Spr'nger Verlag,Publishers,

Meece, J.L. (10994,. The role of motivahton in seli-regu-lated learing. In D.H Schatnk and BP L Ztimerman(Eds.), Setrregulation of learning an 0 perirornaonce, (pp.25-44). l-lisdAle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nist, S.L & lioischuh, J.L,(2OiXJ) CornpreNensionstrategies at the college level. Ln R.f. FLippo & D.C.Caverly (Eds.), Hlandbook; of college reading and studoistrategies (pp. 75-104). Mahwah. NJ: LawremnceErlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Orange, C. (1999). Using peer modeling to teach self-regulation. Journal of Experimnteal Eduication, 68 (121-39.

Osman. M.E. & Hannafin, h.J. (1992). Metacogntiionresearch and theory: Analysis and implications foTinstructional design. Edu.cational Technology Researchand Development, 40(2). 83-99.

102

103INS,TRUCTIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR SELF-R-CGULATION

Pintrich, P.R. (1995). Understanding self-regulatedlearning. In P.R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Wharton-McDonald, R.,& Brown, R.(1998). Transactional instruction of com-prehension strategies in the elementary grades. In

D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman, (Eds., Self-regulatedlearning;from teaching to self-ref lecthve prac.ce (pp. 42-56). New York: The Guilford Press.

Puntambekar, 5. (1995). Helping students learn 'howto learn' from texts: Towards an ITS for developingcognition. Instructional Science 23. 163-182.

Schunk, D. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacv duringself-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25,

71-86.Schunk, D. (1998). Teaching elementary students to

self-regulate practice of mathematical skilis withmodeling. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman, (Eds.'Self-regulated learning; from teaching to self-reflectivepractice (pp. 137-159). New York: Thie GuilfordPress.

Schunk, D., & Zim-merman, B. (Eds.). (IO99P Self-regu-lated learning;_from teaching to sebf-retlnectine practice.New York: Guilford Press

Shin, M. (3998). Promoting students' self-regulationability: Guidelines for instructional design. Educa-tional Technology, 38(1), 38-44.

Simpson, M., & Randall, (2000). Vocabulary develop-ment at the college level. Ir. R.F. Flippo &. D.C. Cay-erly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study

strategies (pp. 43-74). Mahwvah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Trawick, L., & Corno, L. (1995). Expanding the voli-tional resources of urban community college stu-dents. New Directions for Teaching and LAarning, 63,5,-70,

Weinstein, C.E. (1994), Strategic learning/strategicteaching: Flip sides of a coin, In P.R. Pintrich, D.R.Brown, & C.E. Weinstein, (Eds.), Student motivation,cognition, and learning. (257,-274). Hillsdale; NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum.

Winne, P.H., & Stockley, D.B. (1998). Computing tech-nologies as sites for developing self-regulated leam-

ing. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zirnmerman, (Eds.) Self-regulated learning;,from teaching to self-re,flective prac-tice (pp. 106-1]36). New York: The Guilford Press.

Young, I.D. (1996). The effect of self-regulated learningstrategies on performance in learner controlled com-puter based instruction. Educational TechnologyResearch, and Development 44(2), 17-28.

Zinmmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view ofself-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educa-tional Psychoiogy, 81, 329-339.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Academic studying and thedevelopment of personal skill: A self-regulatory per-spective. Educational Psychologist, 33 (203), 73-86.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Kitsantas, A. (I1997). Developmen-tal phases in self-regulation: Shiftin.g from processgoals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psy-chology 89, 29-36.

Zimrnerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Devel-opment of a structured interview for assessing stu-dent use of self-regulated learning strategies.American Educational Research journal, 23. 614-628.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Con-struct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,80, 284-290.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Studentdifferences in self-regulated learning: Relatinggrade, sex and giftedness to self-efficacy and strat-egy use. Journal of Educationial Psychology, 82, (1 ) 51-59.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Paulsen, A.S. (1995). Self-monitor-ing during collegiate studying: An invaluable toolfor academic self-regulation. In P.R. Pintrich (Ed.),Understanding sel, reguliated learning (pp. 13-28). San

Francisco: jossey Bass.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Risemberg, R. (1994). Investigat-ing self-regulatory processes and perceptions of self-efficacy in writing bv college students. In P.R.Pintrich, D.R. Brown, & C.E. Weinstein, (Eds.), Stu-dent motivation, cognirion, and learning (pp. 239-256).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Instructional principles for self-regulationSOURCE: Educational Technology Research and Development 49

no2 2001WN: 0100203447006

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2001 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.