New Developments in the Field of Self-Regulated Learning

Abstract

This special issue offers some examples for the state of the art in the field of research on self-regulation. It includes the development of new instruments to assess relevant aspects of self-regulation, the prediction of self-regulation strategy use, the efficient improvement of self-regulated learning, the integration of self-regulated learning in everyday school life, and the validation of a process approach to selfregulation. Self-regulation represents the essential capability of living organisms to adapt to the requirements of different and changing environments (Zimmerman, 2000; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). These aspects become increasingly important because the demands of the environment and, thus, the demands on individuals, change rapidly and continually. For example, people have to deal with an increasing amount of knowledge. Also, the results of the OECD Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) pointed out the importance of the growing use of self-regulation strategies (see e.g., Ertl, 2006). In school as well as in professional life, but also in everyday life, it is necessary to be able to continuously acquire new knowledge or adapt already existing knowledge to new requirements. In this regard, self-regulation is becoming increasingly important for academic learning as well as for vocational development and professional careers. Systematic research on self-regulation began in the mid1980s, mainly in the areas of social psychology and personality psychology. In the 1990s, publications began to appear in educational, organizational, clinical, and health psychology journals (see Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000). In the meantime, research was able to prove that self-regulation is important in many different fields of psychology, such as health behavior, vocational development, learning and education (e.g., Boekaerts, Maes, & Karoly, 2005; Frayne & Geringer, 2000; Schwarzer, Scholz, Lippke, Sniehotta, & Ziegelmann, 2006; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Schmitz & Wiese, 2006). It was shown that self-regulation is important throughout the whole life span and can be used in a great variety of areas of life including attention disorders, emotion-regulation, writing, and vocational goal attainment (e.g., Barkley, 2004; Latham & Frayne, 1989; Larsen & Prizmic, 2004; Leutner & Leopold, 2006; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Depending on the specific focus, various partly overlapping models of selfregulated learning are available. Self-regulation is originally based on a system-theoretic concept of regulation (Wiener, 1948). This technical model can be transferred to human behavior. In the system-theoretic model a desired value is compared with the actual value. In case of deviations, regulation becomes necessary. Based on this basic assumption, Bandura (1986) described goals (desired values), acting, identification of the actual value (monitoring), and regulation as essential aspects of self-regulation. In line with Bandura, Zimmerman developed a frequently used model of self-regulation that describes the process of self-regulation as a sequence of the three phases (1) planning, (2) acting and volitional control, and (3) self-reflection (e.g., Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). Central characteristics of the model are feedback loops and the inclusion of motivational and emotional components. It differs from other models of selfregulation that focus primarily on the cognitive perspective. Winne (1996) accents the metacognitive perspective. He defined self-regulated learning as a metacognitively-governed behavior where learners regulate their use of cognitive tactics and strategies. Another distinction between models of self-regulation is the postulated influence of the situation on self-regulation behavior. Winne and Perry (2000), for example, consider self-regulation as a personal trait. Other authors like Schmitz (2001) focus on how the situation influences self-regulation. Boekaerts (1997) defines self-regulated learning as a complex interaction between (meta)cognitive and motivational