Self-Regulated Learning : The Educational Legacy of

Paul R. Pintrich was a leading figure in the field of self-regulated learning. This article discusses some of Paul’s major contributions: (a) formulating a conceptual framework for studying self-regulated learning comprising phases (forethought, planning, activation; monitoring; control; reaction, reflection) and areas for self-regulation (cognition, motivation, behavior, context); (b) emphasizing the role of motivation in self-regulation; (c) conducting research linking learning, motivation, and self-regulation; (d) exploring the development of and interventions to enhance self-regulatory processes; (e) investigating how the complexities of classrooms and schools affect self-regulation; and (f) helping to develop the MSLQ to assess self-regulated learning, cognition, and motivation. Paul’s writings provide ideas for future research on self-regulated learning. Paul Pintrich left a rich legacy through his theoretical elaboration, exemplary research, dissemination and advocacy, and personal and professional friendships. Article: Self-regulated learning, or self-regulation, is ―an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment‖ (Pintrich, 2000b, p. 453). Research on academic self-regulated learning began as an outgrowth of psychological investigations into selfcontrol among adults and its development in children (Zimmerman, 2001). Much early self-regulation research was therapeutic in nature; researchers taught participants to alter dysfunctional behaviors such as aggression, addictions, and behavioral problems. Researchers now apply self-regulatory principles to academic studying and other forms of learning, such as social and motor skills (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Part of the impetus for studying academic self-regulated learning came from research showing that learners’ skills and abilities did not fully explain student achievement (Zimmerman, 2001), which suggested that factors such as self-regulation and motivation were important. Applying self-regulation to education also broadened its scope beyond the historical emphasis of performance of previously learned actions to actual learning. Selfregulated learning is seen as a mechanism to help explain achievement differences among students and as a means to improve achievement. For many years Paul R. Pintrich was a leading theorist, researcher, and advocate of self-regulated learning in education. His sudden passing on July 12, 2003, left a deep void in educational psychology and was a severe personal blow for his colleagues and friends. This article discusses some of his major contributions to the field of self-regulated learning: a conceptual framework for studying self-regulation; emphasis on motivational processes; research on learning, motivation, and self-regulation; the development of and interventions to enhance self-regulated learning; the complexity of self-regulation in educational contexts; and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Within these areas research by Pintrich and colleagues (and by others where appropriate) is described. Pintrich’s suggestions for future research on self-regulation are provided, and the article concludes with a summary of his legacy to self-regulated learning and education. MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Conceptual Framework Without question one of the major contributions Paul Pintrich made to the field of self-regulated learning was the conceptual framework he formulated. In developing this model he drew from his work and that of other theorists. The model may be thought of as a social-cognitive framework, although it incorporates elements from other theories (e.g., cognitive information processing; see Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001, for a discussion of different theories of self-regulation.) The following is an abbreviated description; more-complete coverage may be found in Pintrich (2000b). Pintrich believed that self-regulatory activities mediated the relations between learners and their environments and influenced learners’ achievements (Pintrich, 2000b; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002). His model comprises four phases of self-regulation and, for each phase, four possible areas for self-regulation (Table 1). This model specifies the possible range of activities; it does not necessitate them. The full range of areas may not be amenable to self-regulation, and within any area some activities may require little if any self-regulation. The model does not presume that the phases are linearly ordered; they may occur at any time during task engagement. There are learning situations in which learners may engage in some but not all of the phases. Phases also are interactive in that individuals may simultaneously engage in more than one. Forethought, planning, and activation. Cognitions that can be self-regulated during this phase include goals, prior content knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Goals involve setting and modifying task-specific goals that serve as criteria against which to gauge progress. Activation of relevant content knowledge may occur without conscious awareness, but self-regulated learners often activate knowledge in a planful way through prompting and self-questioning (e.g., ―What do I know about this? ‖). Activation of metacognitive knowledge, which also can occur automatically or through deliberate conscious control, includes declarative knowledge (e.g., of learning strategies such as rehearsal and note taking), procedural knowledge (how to implement these strategies), and conditional knowledge (when and why to use different strategies). Motivational processes subject to self-regulation during this phase include goal orientations, self-efficacy, perceptions of difficulty and ease of learning, task value, and interest. Goal orientations—a central construct in the model—are the reasons learners engage in tasks; for example, why they want to earn a high grade in a course or perform their best during a concert. Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs about their capabilities to learn or perform actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Learners’ ease of learning/task difficulty judgments concern how easy or hard they believe the material will be to learn. Task value beliefs include perceptions of the relevance, importance, and usefulness of the learning. Interest denotes the degree of liking students have for the content area or topic being learned. Behaviors that can be self-regulated are time and effort planning and planning for self-observation of behavior. Time and effort planning (time management) involves creating study schedules and allotting time for different activities. Planning for self-observation involves determining what methods one will use to assess progress and regulate behaviors; for example, counting pages of written text produced and keeping records. Contextual regulation factors include students’ perceptions of the task and context. Pintrich (2000b) noted that, although these perceptions are cognitions, their focus is on the context and not on the individual’s selfperceptions. These might include perceptions about classroom features that may help or hinder learning, types of tasks to be completed, grading practices, and classroom climate factors (e.g., helpfulness of the teacher). Monitoring. The second phase is monitoring, or attention and awareness of one’s actions and their outcomes. Pintrich (2000b) viewed cognitive monitoring as including dynamic metacognitive judgments of learning and metacognitive awareness (feeling of knowing). Judgments of learning involve beliefs about what one knows and what one does not understand. Feeling of knowing occurs when students believe they have some understanding of material, perhaps because they previously studied it. They may not be able to recall the information (e.g., the ―tip-of-the-tongue‖ phenomenon) but it seems familiar. Motivational monitoring refers to being aware of one’s self-efficacy, values, attributions (perceived causes of outcomes), interests, and anxieties. Monitoring of behaviors includes time and effort management and adjusting based on assessments of their effects (e.g., redoubling effort when material is judged as difficult). Contextual monitoring refers to monitoring task conditions to determine whether they are changing. Control. During this phase learners attempt to control their cognitions, motivation, behaviors, and contextual factors based on their monitoring with the goal to enhance learning. Cognitive control and regulation include cognitive and metacognitive activities that learners use to adapt and change their cognitions (Pintrich, 2000b). Through cognitive monitoring learners assess their goal progress. They continue to use strategies that are deemed effective or alter or replace them if they believe better strategies are needed. Various cognitive and learning strategies (e.g., outlining, summarizing, note taking) may be involved (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Zimmerman, 2000). Motivational control and regulation processes include self-efficacy through positive self-talk (e.g., ―I can do this‖). Learners also may make positive outcomes contingent on academic performance (e.g., rewarding oneself with a movie after studying), and they may attempt to control their anxiety, such as by not ruminating on test questions that they cannot answer. Behavioral control includes persisting, expending effort, and seeking help when needed. Good self-regulators do not seek help indiscriminately but rather selectively to understand a particular point and from a source they believe will be helpful. Contextual control includes strategies to make the context more conducive to learning. These may include efforts to eliminate or reduce distractions as well