Winne (1997) argued that every person attempts to self-regulate her or his functioning in some way so as to gain goals in life and that it is inaccurate to speak about un-self-regulated persons or even the absence of self-regulation. ‘From a social constructive perspective, self-regulatory processes and accompanying beliefs fall into three cyclical phases: forethought, performance or volitional control, and self-reflection process’ (Zimmerman, 2000; see Figures 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 (taken from Zimmerman, 1998 and Zimmerman, 2000)).
Figure 2.2.1. Academic learning cycle phases
The first phase creates the necessary conditions for learning. Zimmerman (2000) divides the forethought phase into two distinctive but closely linked categories: task analysis and self-motivational beliefs. Task analysis consists of goal setting and strategic planning. Self-motivational beliefs, such as self-efficacy, outcome
Phase I:
Forethought
Phase II:
Performance or Volitional
Control
Phase III:
Self-Reflection
13
expectations, intrinsic interest or valuing and goal orientation, are underlying forethought processes of goal setting and strategic planning.
Figure 2.2.2. Cyclical phases and subprocesses of self-regulation (Zimmermann, 2000)
The second self-regulatory phase involves processes that occur during learning efforts and which guide and regulate the learning process. Zimmerman presents two major types of performance or volitional control processes: self-control and self-observation. Self-control processes, such as self-instruction, imagery, attention focusing and task strategies, help learners and performers to focus on the task and optimise their effort (Zimmerman, 2000).
The third phase, self-reflection, involves processes which occur after the learning experience and which influence reactions to that experience. Self-reflection refers to looking back on the learning experience; that is giving meaning to the learning experience (Ruohotie, 2000a). Bandura (1986) has identified two self-reflective processes that are closely associated with observation: judgement and
self-Forethought
self-recording and self -experimentation
14
reaction. Self-judgement involves self-evaluating (comparing self-monitored information with a standard or goal) one’s performance and attributing causal significance to results (see Zimmerman, 2000).
Several studies of forethought processes and beliefs have been published recently.
Goal-setting and strategic planning processes are affected by personal beliefs such as self-efficacy, goal orientation, intrinsic interest and valuing of the task (see later in this Chapter). The present study focuses on the volitional processes of learning.
2.2.1. Phase I: Forethought and Motivation
Nearly all motivation theorists assume that motivation is involved in the performance of all learned responses. Learned behaviour does not occur unless it is somehow energised.
The basic need theory of motivation views needs as dispositions toward action.
Needs can be biological, affective, emotional, cognitive, aesthetic, volitional, behavioural, spiritual etc., and they can explain the actions of the individuals.
There are behavioural, cognitive, attributional, psychoanalytic, humanistic, achievement motivation and expectancy theories of motivation. Recently some motivation researchers (see Keller, 1983; Locke, 1991; Ruohotie, 1996) have turned their attention to organising and integrating the various theories of motivation into a unified description (see Figure 2.2.1.1 (from Ruohotie, 1996, adapted from Locke, 1991)).
The theoretical framework for conceptualising student motivation is an adaptation of a general expectancy value model for motivation (see Eccles, 1983; Pintrich, 1989). Using this model, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) proposed that there are three motivational components that may be linked to the three different components of self-regulated learning:
15
Figure 2.2.1.1. Sequence model of motivation process (from Ruohotie, 1996, adapted from Locke, 1991)
1. an expectancy component (including students’ beliefs about their ability to perform a task);
2. a value component (including students’ goals and beliefs about the importance and interest of the task);
3. an affective component (including students’ emotional reactions to the task).
Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that the motivational components were linked in important ways to students’ cognitive engagement and academic performance in the classroom. The intrinsic value was strongly related to the use of cognitive strategies and regulation, and independent of initial performance levels,
self-16
efficacy and test anxiety. Students need to have both ‘will’ and ‘skill’ to be successful in academic tasks or performance.
2.2.2. Goal Setting, Goal Orientation
Goal setting refers to deciding upon specific outcomes of learning or performance.
Bandura (1986) notes that goal setting and self-evaluation of goal progress constitute an important motivational mechanism. Students work toward goals and they evaluate their progress, which helps them to sustain certain behaviour. There is a clear conjunction between goal setting and outcome expectations. Students act in the ways they believe will help them attain their tasks and goals.
Locke and Latham (1990) introduced goal setting and task performance theory to explain individuals’ achievement behaviour in work settings. Goal-setting theory proposes that goals represent situation-specific and conscious intentions or purposes that an individual is pursuing. They also propose (p.127) two important aspects of goal-formation:
1. goal choice refers to the actual goal students are trying to obtain and to the level at which they are trying to attain it;
2. goal commitment refers to how strongly students are attached to the goal and how determined they are to achieve the goal.
Locke and Latham (1990) also note that goal commitment can be assessed through behaviour and action because the selection of a goal does not give enough information to spur action. There has to be a volitional element to goal commitment.
Even if the goal task is well chosen, is desirable (goal level) and is achievable for the student (self-efficacy), there is still a volitional choice to be made — to pursue or not to pursue the goal — which reflects the student’s commitment to the goal.
According to Pintrich and Schunk (1996, p. 211) ‘the willingness and commitment to enact a goal is very similar to the volitional phases in Corno’s (1993) model
17
where the individual “crosses the Rubicon” in terms of goal acceptance and then tries to obtain that goal through volitional strategies.’
Students can be seen as goal-directed agents (Winne, 1995; 1997). Different goals lead students to use different strategies. Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) propose that goals that incorporate specific performance standards, are close at hand and are moderately difficult, are more likely to enhance performance than goals that are general, extend into the distant future, or are perceived as overly easy or difficult.
The goal orientation theory proposes that there are two main goal orientations that student can adopt (see Pintrich and Schunk, 1996, p. 252):
1. mastery or learning orientation with the focus on learning and mastery of the content; and
2. performance orientation with the focus on demonstrating ability.
According to Pintrich and Schunk the mastery goal orientation leads (in contrast to performance orientation) to adaptive attributional patterns, positive affect and interest, higher levels of cognitive engagement, more effort and persistence and better performance.
2.3.2. Strategic Planning
Learners also need methods that are appropriate for the task and the setting. Self-regulative strategies are purposive personal processes and actions directed at acquiring or displaying skill (Zimmerman, 1989; see also Weinstein and Mayer, 1986). As a result of diverse and changing intrapersonal, interpersonal and contextual conditions, self-regulating learners have to continually adjust their goals and choice strategies.
Table 2.2.3.1 (adapted from Ruohotie, 1994) indicates the learning strategies area covered by the survey questionnaire (MLSQ) and Table 6.0.1 indicates the categories used in classifying the students’ strategy-use in the content analysis part
18
of the study. The three general types of learning strategy scales of the MSLQ instrument used in this study are the cognitive, metacognitive and resource management scales.
Table 2.2.3.1. The organisation of learning strategies in the research study (Ruohotie, 1994)
Cognitive scale Metacognitive scale Resource management scale Rehearsal strategies Planning strategies Time and study environment
management Elaboration strategies Monitoring strategies Effort management Organisational strategies Regulating strategies Peer learning
Critical thinking Help-seeking behaviour strategies
Cognitive strategies include the use by students of basic and complex strategies for processing information from texts and lectures. The basic cognitive strategy subscale measures the use of rehearsal by the students (e.g. repeating words over and over again to help them memorise the information). The two subscales on elaboration strategies (paraphrasing, summarising) and organisation strategies measure the use of more complex strategies (e.g. outlining, creating tables). In addition, a subscale on critical thinking is included which refers to the use of ideas by students (see Pintrich, 1995).
The second general category is the metacognitive control strategies. These are measured by a single large subscale on the use of strategies helping the students’
control and regulate their cognition. This subscale includes planning (setting goals), self-monitoring (of one’s comprehension) and regulating (e.g. adjusting the reading speed to the task) (see Garcia and Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich, 1995).
The MSLQ resource management scale includes four subscales on the students’
regulatory strategies in controlling other resources besides their cognition. These strategies include managing time and the study environment (e.g. using time well), as well as regulation of effort (e.g. persistence in the face of difficult or boring tasks). Peer learning (e.g. using a study group or friends to assist in learning) and
19
seeking help (e.g. asking the instructor when needed) focus on the use of others in learning (see Pintrich, 1995).
Cognitive strategies help the student to codify new material and to structure knowledge. Metacognitive strategies help the student to plan, regulate, verify and shape his/her own cognitive processes. Resource management strategies help the student to control available resources — time, effort and outside help — in order to cope with the task (Ruohotie, 1996)
2.2.4. Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Bandura (1986; 1997) developed a social cognitive model of behaviour that includes goals, expectations and self-efficacy as important parts of learning mechanisms. He views motivation as goal-directed behaviour sustained by the individual’s expectations concerning the anticipated outcomes of actions. Self-efficacy refers to personal beliefs about one’s capability of learning or performing actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacious students set higher goals for themselves and they choose learning strategies that are more likely to be effective than students who lack efficacy (Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994).
School students preparing themselves for examinations have efficacy judgements of their capabilities, skills and knowledge. At the same time they have outcome expectations about the grades they might receive in the exams. Normally high efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations are positively correlated . In the case of low efficacy beliefs, poor outcomes might lead to apathy or withdrawal. Bandura (1986, p. 393) suggests that outcome expectations are dependent on efficacy judgements: ‘if you control for how well people judge they can perform, you account for much of the variance in the kinds of outcomes they expect’. Bandura
SELF-EFFICACY
Self-efficacy refers to personal beliefs about having the means to learn or perform effectively (Zimmerman, 2000)
20
(1986) also notes that people tend to avoid tasks and situations they believe exceed their capabilities, but they take on tasks and activities that they believe they can handle.
Figure 2.2.4.1. Behavioural and affective reactions as a function of different levels of self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996)
There is evidence that self-regulatory self-efficacy beliefs causally influence use of such regulatory processes as academic learning strategies (Schunk and Schwartz, 1993; Zimmerman et al., 1992), time management (Britton and Tessor, 1991), resisting adverse peer pressures (Bandura et al., 1996), self-monitoring (Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1991), self-evaluation and goal setting (Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994).
2.2.3. Intrinsic Interest
Intrinsically motivated students work on a task because they find it enjoyable — task participation does not depend on other rewards or on any external constraints.
Extrinsically motivated students are involved in an activity as a means to an end.
They expect to get reward, praise or avoidance of punishment as a result of finishing the task.
SELF-EFFICACY
High self-efficacy
Low self-efficacy
Social activism Protest
Assured, good action High cognitive engagement
Resignation Withdrawal
Self-devaluation Depression High outcome
expectation
OUTCOME EXPECTATION
Low outcome expectation
21
According to Pintrich and Schunk (1996, p. 258) there is no automatic relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They suggest that they should be thought of as separate continuums, each ranging separately from high to low. Moreover intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are contextual. The same task may be intrinsically and extrinsically motivating for different students and changes in the level of motivation are possible.
Lepper and Hodell (1989) have presented the four sources of intrinsic motivation:
challenge, curiosity, control and fantasy. Activities that challenge students’ skills may be intrinsically motivating (Deci, 1975). Curiosity is elicited by activities that present students with ideas that are discrepant from their present knowledge or beliefs and that appear surprising or incongruous (Lepper and Hodell, 1989).
Activities that provide students with a sense of control over their academic outcomes may enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1980). Intrinsic motivation can be promoted by activities that involve learners in fantasy and make-believe through simulations and games that present them with situations not actually present (Lepper and Hodell, 1989).
There is evidence (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996) that intrinsic interest can promote learning and achievement in a positive way. Intrinsic motivation is a strong and positive force for the students. Harter (1981) distinguished between students who offer intrinsic rationales such as mastery, challenge, learning and curiosity from students who are more orientated to extrinsic considerations such as grades and rewards or approval of others (see Pintrich and McKeachie, 2000). These intrinsic and extrinsic orientations are to some extent parallel to the learning and performance goal theories presented by Dweck and Elliot (1983). According to Ruohotie (2000b), ‘internal (learning) goal orientation may be to learn the content in a particular domain; to experience challenge, curiosity or joy through learning; or to increase self-worth. External (performance) goal orientation is related to external goals, such as grades, rewards or acceptance.’ Learner goal orientation and task
22
value are considered to be the value components of motivation. They have an effect on individuals’ choice of activities as well as their persistence at the task.
Wolters (1998) concluded that students have a variety of strategies to actively control their motivational engagement in a manner similar to the way in which students are thought to regulate their cognitive engagement. Students who reported using more intrinsic regulation strategies tended to report stronger learning goal orientation while students who reported more extrinsic regulation strategies tended to report greater performance goal orientation