Your Perfect Assignment is Just a Click Away

We Write Custom Academic Papers

100% Original, Plagiarism Free, Customized to your instructions!


Explain self-regulated learning from an information processing perspective, and give examples of self-regulatory strategies used by proficient learners.

Explain self-regulated learning from an information processing perspective, and give examples of self-regulatory strategies used by proficient learners.

Early applications of social cognitive theoretical principles of self-regulation involved investigating the operation of three processes: self-observation (or self-monitoring), self-judgment, and self-reaction (Bandura, 1986 ; Table 10.2 ). Notice the similarity of these to the three processes espoused by behavior theory: self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement.

Students enter learning activities with such goals as acquiring knowledge and problem-solving strategies, finishing assignments, and performing experiments. With these goals in mind, students observe, judge, and react to their perceived progress. These processes are not mutually exclusive, but rather interact with one another.

Self-observation involves judging observed aspects of one’s behavior against standards and reacting positively or negatively. People’s evaluations and reactions set the stage for additional observations of the same behavioral aspects or others. These processes also do not operate independently of the environment (Zimmerman, 1989 , 1990 , 2000 ). Students who judge their learning progress as inadequate may react by asking for teacher assistance, which alters their environment. In turn, teachers may instruct students in a more efficient strategy, which students then use to promote their learning. That environmental influences (e.g., teachers) can assist the development of self-regulation is important, because educators advocate that students be taught self-regulatory skills (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994 , 1998 , 2008 ).

Self-observation is conceptually similar to self-monitoring and is commonly taught as part of self-regulatory instruction (Lan, 1998 ; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996 ); however, by itself self-observation usually is insufficient to self-regulate behavior over time. Standards of goal attainment and criteria in assessing goal progress are necessary.

Self-judgment refers to comparing present performance level with one’s goal. Self-judgments depend on the type of self-evaluative standards employed, properties of the goal, importance of goal attainment, and attributions.

Self-evaluative standards may be absolute or normative. Absolute standards are fixed; normative standards are based on performances of others. Students whose goal is to read six pages in 30 minutes gauge their progress against this absolute standard. Grading systems often reflect absolute standards (e.g., A = 90–100, B = 80–89).

Normative standards frequently are acquired by observing models (Bandura, 1986 ). Socially comparing one’s performances with those of others is an important way to determine the appropriateness of behaviors and self-evaluate performances. Social comparison becomes more probable when absolute standards are nonexistent or ambiguous (Festinger, 1954 ). Students have numerous opportunities to compare their work with that of their peers. Absolute and normative standards often are employed in concert, as when students have 30 minutes to read six pages and compare their progress with peers to gauge who will be the first to finish.

Standards inform and motivate. Comparing performance with standards indicates goal progress. Students who read three pages in 10 minutes realize they have finished half of the reading in less than half of the time. The belief that they are making progress enhances their self-efficacy, which sustains their motivation to complete the task. Similar others, rather than those much higher or lower in ability, offer the best basis for comparison (Schunk, 1987 ).

Schunk ( 1983b ) compared the effects of social comparative information with those of goal setting during a division training program. Half of the children were given performance goals during each instructional session; the other half were advised to work productively. Within each goal condition, half of the students were told 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 given comparative information. Goals enhanced self-efficacy; comparative information promoted motivation. Children who received both goals and comparative information demonstrated the highest skill acquisition.

Davidson and Smith ( 1982 ) had children observe a superior adult, equal peer, or inferior younger child set stringent or lenient task standards. Children who observed a lenient model rewarded themselves more often 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 behaviors ( Chapter 4 ). Zimmerman and Ringle ( 1981 ) exposed children to an adult model who unsuccessfully attempted to solve a wire puzzle for a long or short period and who verbalized statements of confidence or pessimism. Children who observed a pessimistic model persist for a long time lowered their efficacy judgments. Perceived similarity to models is especially influential when observers experience difficulties and possess self-doubts about performing well (Schunk & Hanson, 1985 ; Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987 ).

Order Solution Now

Our Service Charter

1. Professional & Expert Writers: Writers Hero only hires the best. Our writers are specially selected and recruited, after which they undergo further training to perfect their skills for specialization purposes. Moreover, our writers are holders of masters and Ph.D. degrees. They have impressive academic records, besides being native English speakers.

2. Top Quality Papers: Our customers are always guaranteed of papers that exceed their expectations. All our writers have +5 years of experience. This implies that all papers are written by individuals who are experts in their fields. In addition, the quality team reviews all the papers before sending them to the customers.

3. Plagiarism-Free Papers: All papers provided by Writers Hero are written from scratch. Appropriate referencing and citation of key information are followed. Plagiarism checkers are used by the Quality assurance team and our editors just to double-check that there are no instances of plagiarism.

4. Timely Delivery: Time wasted is equivalent to a failed dedication and commitment. Writers Hero is known for timely delivery of any pending customer orders. Customers are well informed of the progress of their papers to ensure they keep track of what the writer is providing before the final draft is sent for grading.

5. Affordable Prices: Our prices are fairly structured to fit in all groups. Any customer willing to place their assignments with us can do so at very affordable prices. In addition, our customers enjoy regular discounts and bonuses.

6. 24/7 Customer Support: At Writers hero, we have put in place a team of experts who answer to all customer inquiries promptly. The best part is the ever-availability of the team. Customers can make inquiries anytime.