Social Cognitive Theory (Self-Regulation)

The tenets of social cognitive theory have been extensively applied to the matter of self-regulation (Bandura, 1997, 2001; Pintrich, 2004; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; B. Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004). From a social cognitive perspective, self-regulation doth necessitate learner choice (Zimmerman, 1994, 1998, 2000). This is not to suggest that learners shall invariably avail themselves of the choices presented, particularly when beset by uncertainty and compelled to seek guidance from the pedagogue. Yet, when all aspects of a task are subject to meticulous control, it is indeed accurate to describe achievement behaviour as being “externally controlled” or “controlled by others.” Such a state doth arise when a teacher doth grant students no latitude in methods, outcomes, or other pertinent conditions. The potential for self-regulation doth thus vary in accordance with the choices available to the discerning learner.

The aforementioned table, entitled 'Learner Choices and Self-Regulatory Processes,' doth delineate the choices potentially accessible to learners, alongside certain corresponding self-regulatory processes. One such choice is the decision to partake in the task at hand, a decision predicated upon processes such as the learner's goals, values, and self-efficacy. Furthermore, learners may exercise discretion in the methods employed whilst executing the task; for instance, the selection of strategies and relaxation techniques to mitigate anxiety. A third species of choice pertaineth to outcomes: What outcomes do learners earnestly desire? As they apply themselves to the task, they scrupulously monitor their performances and render judgments as to whether their efforts are conducive to the attainment of said outcomes. Finally, learners may be afforded the opportunity to select the social and physical milieus in which they undertake their endeavours, potentially necessitating the structuring of their environments to foster learning and the seeking of assistance when required.

In certain scholastic environments, the scope for self-regulation may be circumscribed. Consider a scenario wherein a teacher doth instruct students to compose a ten-page, typewritten, double-spaced treatise on an assigned topic, incorporating no fewer than ten references, to be completed within a period of three weeks, and executed individually within the confines of the media centre and at home. Assuming that the teacher doth further stipulate the format of the paper, it is evident that the teacher is exerting considerable direction over the assignment.

Conversely, let us posit that a certain Jim doth aspire to master the art of guitar playing. He doth elect to engage in this pursuit. The method he doth embrace is to partake of lessons from a qualified instructor, attending one forty-five-minute session per week and dedicating one hour per diem to practice. His objective is to attain sufficient proficiency to perform at social gatherings, thereby enabling others to partake in communal song. He doth diligently practice the guitar at his abode in the evenings. In addition to his teacher, he doth enlist the assistance of a friend who is adept at guitar playing, posing technical queries regarding finger positions and tuning. Jim doth possess near-complete command over the situation, thus facilitating maximal self-regulation.

Many a situation doth lie betwixt these poles. Teachers may assign a term paper, yet grant students the latitude to select from a range of topics. Students may also be empowered to determine the resources they employ, the locations in which they write, and the length to which the paper shall extend. Senior graduation projects within the hallowed halls of high school typically prescribe certain elements (e.g., research paper, oral presentation), whilst affording students choices with respect to others (e.g., topic, props). Hence, it is more judicious to inquire as to the degree to which one doth engage in self-regulation, rather than whether one is merely self-regulated.

Interventions conceived to augment self-regulation in students frequently centre upon one or more self-regulatory processes, furnishing students with instruction and practice in those self-regulatory processess. A wealth of evidence doth attest that self-regulatory competencies may be enhanced via educational interventions (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998, 2008).

Early applications of social cognitive theoretical principles appertaining to self-regulation involved an investigation into the operation of three sub-processes: self-observation (or self-monitoring), self-judgment, and self-reaction (Bandura, 1986; Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986; Schunk, 1994; Zimmerman, 1990; vide Table 'Processes of self-regulation'). Note the similarity of these processes to the three sub-processes espoused by behavioral theory: self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement.

Students embark upon learning activities with such objectives as acquiring knowledge and problem-solving strategies, completing workbook pages, and conducting experiments. With these objectives in mind, students observe, judge, and react to their perceived progress. These processes are not mutually exclusive, but rather interact one with another.

Self-Observation

Self-observation involves judging observed aspects of one’s behaviour against established standards and reacting in a positive or negative manner. People’s evaluations and reactions set the stage for additional observations of the same behavioural aspects or others. These processes also do not operate independently of the environment (Zimmerman, 1986, 1989, 1990, 2000). Students who judge their learning progress as inadequate may react by soliciting assistance from the teacher, which thereby alters their environment. In turn, teachers may instruct students in a more efficient strategy, which students may then employ to advance their learning. The capacity of environmental influences (e.g., teachers) to assist in the development of self-regulation is of considerable import, inasmuch as educators advocate that students be taught self-regulatory skills (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998, 2008).

Self-observation bears conceptual similarity to self-monitoring and is commonly taught as a component of self-regulatory instruction (Lan, 1998; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996); however, by itself, self-observation is usually insufficient to self-regulate behaviour over time. Standards of goal attainment and criteria in assessing goal progress are thus necessary.

Self-Judgment

Self-judgment doth allude to the comparison of one's present performance level with one's established aim. Self-judgments are contingent upon the nature of self-evaluative standards employed, attributes of the goal, import of goal attainment, and attributions ascribed.

Self-evaluative standards may be absolute or normative in character. Absolute standards are fixed, whilst normative standards are predicated upon the performances of others. Students whose objective is to peruse six pages of a workbook within a span of thirty minutes assess their advancement against this absolute standard. Grading systems oft reflect absolute standards (e.g., , .

Normative standards are frequently acquired through the observation of models (Bandura, 1986). Socially comparing one's performances with those of others constitutes an important means by which to ascertain the appropriateness of behaviours and self-evaluate performances. Social comparisons become more probable when absolute standards are nonexistent or ambiguous (Festinger, 1954). Students are afforded numerous opportunities to compare their work with that of their peers. Absolute and normative standards are oft employed in concert, as when students have thirty minutes to peruse six pages and compare their advancement with peers to gauge who shall be the first to finish.

Standards inform and motivate. Comparison of performance with standards doth indicate goal progress. Students who peruse three pages in ten minutes realise they have finished half of the work in less than half of the allotted time. The conviction that they are making progress doth enhance their self-efficacy, which sustains their motivation to complete the task. Similar others, rather than those greatly superior or inferior in ability, offer the most efficacious basis for comparison, inasmuch as students are apt to believe that should others succeed, so too shall they (Schunk, 1987).

Schunk (1983b) compared the effects of social comparative information with those of goal setting during a division training programme. One half of the children were assigned performance goals during each instructional session; the other half were counselled to work productively. Within each goal condition, one half of the students were apprised of the number of problems other similar children had completed (which matched the session goal) to convey that goals were attainable; the other half were not furnished with comparative information. Goals enhanced self-efficacy; comparative information promoted motivation. Children who received both goals and comparative information demonstrated the highest degree of skill acquisition.

An important means of acquiring self-evaluative standards is through observation of models. Bandura and Kupers (1964) exposed children to a peer or adult demonstrating stringent or lenient standards whilst engaged in a bowling game. Children exposed to high-standard models were more inclined to reward themselves for high scores and less inclined to reward themselves for lower scores compared with those assigned to the low-standard condition. Adult models produced more pronounced effects than peers. Davidson and Smith (1982) had children observe a superior adult, an equal peer, or an inferior younger child set stringent or lenient task standards. Children who observed a lenient model rewarded themselves more oft for lower scores than those who observed a stringent model. Children’s self-reward standards were lower than those of the adult, equal to those of the peer, and higher than those of the younger child. Model–observer similarity in age might have led children to believe that what was appropriate for the peer was appropriate for them.

Observation of models affects self-efficacy and achievement behaviours. Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) exposed children to an adult model who unsuccessfully attempted to solve a wire puzzle for an extended or abbreviated period and who verbalised stateents of confidence or pessimism. Children who observed a pessimistic model persist for an extended duration lowered their efficacy judgments. Perceived similarity to models is especially influential when observers experience difficulties and possess self-doubts concerning their capacity to perform well (Schunk & Hanson, 1985; Schunk et al., 1987).

Goal properties—specificity, proximity, difficulty—are especially influential with long-term tasks (Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991; Chapter 4). Teachers can assist students who harbour doubts concerning the composition of a good term paper by dividing the task into short-term goals (e.g., selecting a topic, conducting background research, writing an outline). Learners are apt to believe they can accomplish the subtasks, and completion of each subtask doth develop their self-efficacy for producing a good term paper.

Allowing students to set goals for learning doth enhance goal commitment (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002) and promotes self-efficacy (Schunk, 1990). Schunk (1985) found support for this in a study involving children with learning disabilities. Some children set mathematical subtraction problem-solving goals for themselves each session, others were assigned comparable goals by a teacher, and still others received instruction but no goals. Self-set goals led to higher expectancies of goal attainment compared with goals set by others. Relative to the other two conditions, self-set goals produced the highest self-efficacy and greatest skill acquisition.

Self-judgments reflect, in part, the import of goal attainment. When individuals care little concerning how they perform, they may not assess their performance or expend effort to improve it (Bandura, 1986). Persons judge their progress in learning for goals they value. Sometimes goals that initially hold little value become more important when persons receive feedback indicating they are becoming skillful. Thus, novice piano players initially may hold ill-defined goals for themselves (e.g., play better). As their skill develops, persons begin to set specific goals (e.g., learn to play a particular piece) and judge progress relative to these goals.

Attributions (perceived causes of outcomes; Chapter 8), along with goal progress judgments, can affect self-efficacy, motivation, achievement, and affective reactions (Schunk, 2001, 2008). Students who believe they are not making satisfactory progress toward their goals may attribute their performances to low ability, which negatively impacts expectancies and behaviours. Students who attribute poor progress to lackadaisical effort or an inadequate learning strategy may believe they shall perform better should they work harder or switch to a different strategy (Schunk, 2008). With respect to affective reactions, persons take greater pride in their accomplishments when they attribute them to ability and effort than to external causes (Weiner, 1985). Persons are more self-critical when they believe they failed due to personal reasons rather than to circumstances beyond their control.

Attributional feedback can enhance self-regulated learning (Schunk, 2008). Being told that one can achieve better results through harder work can motivate one to do so, inasmuch as the feedback conveys that one is capable (Andrews & Debus, 1978; Dweck, 1975; Schunk, 2008). Providing effort feedback for prior successes supports students’ perceptions of their progress, sustains their motivation, and increases their efficacy for further learning (Schunk, 1982a; Schunk & Cox, 1986).

The timing of attributional feedback may be of import. Early task successes constitute a prominent cue for forming ability attributions. Feedback linking early successes with ability (e.g., “That’s correct; you’re good at this”) should enhance learning efficacy. Oftentimes, however, effort feedback for early successes is more credible, inasmuch as when students lack skills they must expend effort to succeed. As students develop skills, ability feedback better enhances self-efficacy (Schunk, 1983a).

Self-Reaction

Self-reactions consequent to advancements towards a pre-ordained objective serve to galvanise behaviour (Bandura, 1986; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004). The conviction that one is achieving satisfactory advancement, coupled with the anticipated gratification of accomplishing the objective, enhances self-efficacy and sustains motivation. Negative evaluations do not necessarily diminish motivation, contingent upon individuals believing in their inherent capacity for amelioration (Schunk, 1995). Should students harbour the sentiment that they have hitherto been lackadaisical, yet possess the potential for advancement through augmented effort, they are apt to feel efficacious and redouble their endeavours. Motivation does not improve if students believe they lack the requisite ability and will not succeed irrespective of the quantum of effort expended (Schunk, 1982a, 2008).

Instructions imparted to individuals, enjoining them to respond evaluatively to their performances, serve to promote motivation; individuals who entertain the notion that they are capable of superior performance demonstrate greater tenacity and expend augmented effort (Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986). Perceived advancement is relative to one's objectives; the self-same level of performance may be evaluated diversely. Certain students are content with a 'B' grade in a given course of study, whilst others may be dissatisfied with a 'B' grade, owing to their aspiration for an 'A'. Assuming that individuals feel capable of improvement, loftier objectives precipitate greater effort and persistence than their lower counterparts (Bandura & Cervone, 1983).

Individuals habitually reward themselves tangibly with work intermissions, new habiliments, and nocturnal sojourns with friends, contingent upon their demonstrable advancements towards goal attainment. Social cognitive theory postulates that the anticipated sequelae of behaviour, rather than the actual sequelae, serve to enhance motivation (Bandura, 1986). Grades are conferred at the culmination of courses, yet students typically establish sub-goals for the consummation of their work and reward and penalise themselves accordingly.

Tangible sequelae also exert influence upon self-efficacy. External rewards that are conferred based upon actual accomplishments augment self-efficacy. Imparting to students that they shall earn rewards predicated upon their tangible accomplishments instils a sense of self-efficacy apropos to learning (Schunk, 1995). Self-efficacy is validated as students engage with a given task, meticulously noting their attendant progress. The receipt of the reward further validates self-efficacy, by virtue of its symbolic representation of progress. Rewards not intrinsically tied to tangible performances (e.g., those conferred merely for expending time upon a given task, irrespective of the quantum of accomplishment) may potentially convey negative self-efficacy information; students might infer a tacit expectation of limited learning, emanating from a perceived lack of innate capability (Schunk, 1983e).

Social cognitive theory doth lay emphasis upon the interaction of personal, behavioural, and environmental factors (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000, 2001; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004). Self-regulation is a cyclical process, inasmuch as these factors typically undergo change during learning and must needs be monitored. Such monitoring doth lead to alterations in an individual's strategies, cognitions, affects, and behaviours.

This cyclical nature is captured in Zimmerman's (1998, 2000) three-phase self-regulation model (vide 'Self-regulation cycle phases'). This model doth also expand the classical view, which covereth task engagement, by including self-regulatory processes performed before and after engagement. The forethought phase precedeth actual performance and referreth to processes that setteth the stage for action. The performance (volitional) control phase involveth processes that occur during learning and affect attention and action. During the self-reflection phase, which occurreth after performance, persons respond to their efforts (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004).

Divers self-regulatory processes come into play during the different phases. In the forethought phase, learners setteth goals, engage in strategic planning, and hold a sense of self-efficacy for attaining their goals. Performance control involveth implementing learning strategies that affect motivation and learning, as well as observing and recording one's performances. During periods of self-reflection, learners engage in self-evaluation (addressed next) and maketh attributions for their performances. There is evidence that teaching students to engage in self-regulation in all three phases hath desirable effects on strategic thinking and attributions (Cleary, Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006).

Self-Evaluation

Effective self-regulation necessitate goals and motivation (Bandura, 1986; Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991; Zimmerman, 1989, 2000). Pupils must regulate their actions and underlying achievement cognitions, beliefs, intentions, and affects. Research doth substantiate the prediction that self-monitoring of achievement beliefs sustains learning and promotes achievement (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 2008; B. Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman et al., 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992).

Effective self-regulators develop self-efficacy for self-regulating their learning (Caprara et al., 2008; Pajares, 2008; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) and for performing well (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991). Research revealeth that self-efficacy for self-regulated learning doth bear a significant and positive relation to pupils' academic achievement and grades (Caprara et al., 2008).

Of critical importance is self-evaluation of capabilities and progress in skill acquisition. Self-evaluation compriseth self-judgments of present performance by comparing one's goal and self-reactions to those judgments by deeming performance noteworthy, unacceptable, and so forth. Positive self-evaluations lead pupils to feel efficacious about learning and motivated to continue to work diligently because they believe they are capable of making further progress (Schunk, 1991). Low self-judgments of progress and negative self-reactions will not necessarily diminish self-efficacy and motivation if pupils believe they are capable of succeeding but that their present approach is ineffective (Bandura, 1986). Such pupils may alter their self-regulatory processes by working harder, persisting longer, adopting what they believe is a better strategy, or seeking help from teachers and peers (Schunk, 1990). These and other self-regulatory activities are likely to lead to success (Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992).

Research substantiates the hypothesis that self-evaluations of capabilities and progress in skill acquisition affect achievement outcomes (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Investigations with children during learning of mathematical skills (Schunk & Hanson, 1985; Schunk et al., 1987) and writing skills (Schunk & Swartz, 1993a, 1993b) show that self-efficacy for learning or improving skills assessed prior to instruction doth predict motivation and skill acquisition.

Bandura and Cervone (1983) obtained benefits of goals and self-evaluative feedback among college students on motor-skill performance. A similar study showed that the greater the students' dissatisfaction with their performances and the higher their self-efficacy for performing well, the stronger was their subsequent effort expenditure (Bandura & Cervone, 1986). Cervone, Jiwani, and Wood (1991) found that providing individuals with a specific goal enhanced the effects of self-efficacy and self-evaluation on performance.

Pupils may not spontaneously self-evaluate their capabilities. One means of highlighting progress is to have them periodically assess their progress. Explicit capability self-evaluations constitute a type of self-monitoring because pupils must attend to their present performance and compare it with their prior performance to note progress. By making performance improvements salient, such self-monitoring is apt to raise self-efficacy, sustain self-regulatory activities, and promote skills. White, Kjelgaard, and Harkins (1995) noted that self-evaluation augmenteth the effects of goals on performance when goals are informative of one's capabilities.

Schunk (1996) conducted two studies that investigated how goals and self-evaluation affect achievement outcomes. Fourth graders received instruction and practice on fractions over several sessions. Pupils worked under conditions involving either a goal of learning how to solve problems (process goal) or a goal of merely solving them (product goal). In Study 1, half of the pupils in each goal condition evaluated their problem-solving capabilities. The process goal (with or without self-evaluation) and the product goal with self-evaluation led to higher self-efficacy, skill, self-directed performance, and task orientation than did the product goal without self-evaluation. In Study 2, all pupils in each goal condition evaluated their progress in skill acquisition. The process goal led to higher motivation and achievement outcomes than did the product goal.

Schunk and Ertmer (1999) examined how goals and self-evaluation affected self-efficacy, achievement, and self-reported competence and use of self-regulatory strategies. College undergraduates worked on computer projects over three sessions. Pupils received a process goal of learning computer applications or a product goal of performing them. In the first study, half of the pupils in each goal condition evaluated their progress in learning after the second session. The process goal led to higher self-efficacy, self-judged learning progress, and self-regulatory competence and strategy use; the opportunity for self-evaluation promoted self-efficacy. In the second study, self-evaluation pupils assessed their progress after each session. Frequent self-evaluation produced comparable results when coupled with a process or product goal. Collectively, these results suggest that infrequent self-evaluation complements learning process goals, but that multiple self-evaluations outweigh the benefits of process goals and raise achievement outcomes for all pupils.

Having pupils self-monitor their performance and evaluate their capabilities or progress in learning makes it clear that they have become more competent, and this perception strengthens self-efficacy and enhances self-regulated learning efforts. This research hath implications for teaching. Pupils may not normally be in the habit of evaluating their skills or learning progress; thus, they may require instruction in self-evaluation and frequent opportunities to practice it.

Learning Strategies

The opening scenario underscores the importance of learning strategies. Self-regulated learners believe acquisition of proficiency is a strategically controllable process and accept responsibility for their achievement outcomes (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992). According to social cognitive theory, self-regulated strategy use is influenced by pupils' self-belief systems. Self-regulated learners are metacognitively aware of strategic relations between self-regulatory processes and learning outcomes, feel self-efficacious about using strategies, have academic goals of learning, have control over debilitating thoughts and anxiety, and believe that strategy use will help them attain goals at higher levels (Zimmerman, 1989, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2008; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009).

The social cognitive perspective concerning self-regulation doth reflect Bandura's (1986) notion of triadic reciprocality. This system standeth in contrast to noncognitive (behavioural) views, which, albeit they employ some of the selfsame methods (e.g., self-recording), are limited in that they do not incorporate potent cognitive learning strategies. This system doth also contrast with closed negative feedback loops (Carver & Scheier, 1990, 2000). According to this view, learners do compare performance feedback continuously against learning goals. Should feedback indicate substandard performance, they endeavour to improve. Diminutions in negative feedback are motivating, and once the goal is achieved, labour on the task ceaseth. This closed feature doth constitute a significant impediment to students' continuing motivation (Anderman & Maehr, 1994).

Social cognitive theorists do argue that self-regulatory systems are open: Goals and strategic activities do change based on self-evaluations of feedback. Goal progress and attainment doth elevate learners' self-efficacy and can lead to their adoption of new, more-difficult goals (Schunk, 1990). Further, students who feel efficacious about learning do select what they believe to be useful learning strategies, monitor their performances, and alter their task approach when their present methods do not appear to function properly (Zimmerman, 1989, 1990). Research doth demonstrate that self-efficacy relateth positively to productive use of self-regulatory strategies (Pajares, 2008; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Zimmerman et al., 1992; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Results from a series of studies do support the notion that altering goals and strategies is adaptive during learning (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1996, 1997). In particular, self-regulation was enhanced by shifting from process to product goals as learning improved.

The dynamic nature of self-regulation is further highlighted in the interaction of social and self influences (Schunk, 1999; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1996, 1997). Initial learning often proceedeth best when learners observe social models, after which they become able to perform skills in rudimentary fashion with appropriate guidance and feedback. As learners do develop competence, they enter a self-controlled phase where they can match their actions with internal representations of the skill. At the final level, learners do develop self-regulatory processes that they employ to further refine skills and select new goals. Skills and self-efficacy beliefs are strengthened and internalised throughout this sequence. Albeit it is possible that learners could skip early phases if they enter with some skill, this sequence is useful in planning instruction to develop skills and self-regulatory competence (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005).