This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile]

On: 27 September 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906706830]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychologist

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653642

Computer Environments as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning

Roger Azevedo

Online publication date: 08 June 2010

To cite this Article Azevedo, Roger(2005) 'Computer Environments as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning',

Educational Psychologist, 40: 4, 193 197

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4004_1
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 40(4), 193197

Copyright 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
AZEVEDO

Computer Environments as Metacognitive Tools for

Enhancing Learning
Roger Azevedo

Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 17:10 27 September 2010

Department of Human Development

University of Maryland, College Park

The articles appearing in this special issue of Educational Psychologist reflect a growing interest by researchers from various fields in examining the use of computers as metacognitive
tools for enhancing learning. This topic has become increasingly important as computer-based learning environments become ubiquitous and students use them extensively both in and
out of school to learn about conceptually rich domains. It is argued that the effectiveness of these environments will only be
achieved if learners regulate their learningthat is, if they deploy the metacognitive and self-regulatory processes necessary to effectively learn about the relevant topics. Using computer environments to learn about conceptually rich domains
involves a set of complex interactions between cognitive, motivational, affective, and social processes (Anderson &
Labiere, 1998; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989; Derry &
Lajoie, 1993; Jonassen & Land, 2000; Jonassen & Reeves,
1996; Lajoie, 2000; Pea, 1985; Shute & Psotka, 1996; Solomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991; Wenger, 1987). Current research on learning with computer environments from the
fields of cognitive science, learning sciences, psychology, education, and artificial intelligence (AI) in education provides
evidence that learners of all ages experience certain difficulties when learning about conceptually rich domains such as
science, math, and social studies. This research indicates that
learning about these domains with computer environments is
particularlydifficult because it requires students to analyze the
learning situation, set meaningful learning goals, determine
which strategies to use, assess whether the strategies are effective in meeting the learning goals, and evaluate their emerging
understanding of the topic. Learners also need to deploy several metacognitive processes to determine whether they understand what they are learning and to modify their plans,
goals, strategies, and effort as necessary, all in response to
changing contextual conditions (e.g., their cognitive states,
motivational level, and social support). Further, depending on

Correspondence should be addressed to Roger Azevedo, Department of

Human Development, University of Maryland, 3304 Benjamin Building,
College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: razevedo@umd.edu

the learning situation, they may need to reflect on their learning and modify aspects of the learning context.
Researchers have previously used cognitive theories (e.g.,
Anderson & Labiere, 1998) or constructivist models of learning and instruction (e.g., Collins et al., 1989; Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV], 1990; Greeno,
1998; Resnick, 1991; Rogoff, 1997) to explain different aspects of learning with computer environments. However, due
to the complexity in learning about conceptually rich domains
with computer environments, several researchers have recently extended these theories and models by advancing models of metacognition (Bandura, 1986; Brown, 1975, 1987;
Flavell, 1979, 1985; Hacker, 1998; Hacker, Dunlosky, &
Graesser, 1998; Schraw & Moshman, 1995) and self-regulated learning (SRL; Butler & Winne, 1995; Corno &
Mandinach, 1985; McCaslin & Hickey, 20001; Paris, Byrnes,
& Paris, 2001; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk, 2001; Winne, 2001;
Zimmerman, 1986, 2000, 2001) to describe the complex interaction of mediating cognitive, metacognitive, and social processes involved in studentslearning of complex topics and domains. These new models have been advanced to account for
the various phases (e.g., planning, metacognitive monitoring,
strategy use, and reflection) and areas (e.g., cognitive, affect/motivation, behavior, and context) of SRL. Although
there is a wealth of research in various areas of academic
achievement (for recent reviews see Boekaerts, Pintrich, &
Zeidner, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001), these frameworks are in their infancy in terms of their explanatory and predictive adequacy for using computers as metacognitive tools
for enhancing learning. Therefore, much more research is
needed on the conceptual, theoretical, empirical, and design
issues related to using computers as metacognitive tools to foster learning about conceptually rich domains.
COMPUTER ENVIRONMENTS AS
METACOGNITIVE TOOLS
I broadly define a computer environment as a
metacognitive learning tool as one that is designed for in-

Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 17:10 27 September 2010

194

AZEVEDO

structional purposes and uses technology to support the

learner in achieving the goals of instruction. This may include any type of technology-based tool, such as an intelligent tutoring system, an interactive learning environment,
hypermedia, multimedia, a simulation, microworld, collaborative learning environment, and so on. The characteristics
explicitly stated by Lajoie (1993, p. 261) and several others
(see Derry & Lajoie, 1993; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996;
Lajoie, 1993, 2000; Lajoie & Azevedo, in press; Pea, 1985;
Perkins, 1985) serve as the foundational basis for the metaphor of computers as metacognitive tools(a) assist learners to accomplish cognitive tasks by supporting cognitive
processes, (b) share the cognitive load by supporting lower
level cognitive skills so that learners may focus on higher
level thinking skills, (c) allow learners to engage in cognitive activities that would be out of their reach otherwise because there may be no opportunities for participating in
such tasks (e.g., electronic troubleshooting, medical diagnosis; see Lajoie & Azevedo, in press), and (d) allow learners to generate and test hypotheses in the context of problem solving.
As such, a metacognitive tool is any computer environment that, in addition to adhering to Lajoies (1993)
characteristics of cognitive tool, also has the following additional characteristics:
1. It requires students to make instructional decisions regarding instructional goals (e.g., such as setting learning
goals; sequencing instruction; seeking, collecting, organizing, and coordinating instructional resources; deciding
which embedded and contextual tools to use and when to use
them to support their learning goals; deciding which representations of information to use, attend to, and perhaps modify to meet instructional goals).
2. It is embedded in a particular learning context that may
require students to make decisions regarding the context in
ways that support successful learning (e.g., how much support is needed from contextual resources, what types of contextual resources may facilitate learning, locating contextual
resources, when to seek contextual resources, determining
the utility and value of contextual resources).
3. It is any computer-based environment that (to some degree) models, prompts, and supports a learners self-regulatory processes, which may include cognitive (e.g., activating
prior knowledge, planning, creating subgoals, learning strategies), metacognitive (e.g., feeling of knowing, judgment of
learning, evaluate emerging understanding), motivational
(e.g., self-efficacy, task value, interest, effort), or behavioral
(e.g., engaging in help-seeking behavior, modifying learning
conditions; handling task difficulties and demands)
processes.
4. It is any environment that (to some degree) models,
prompts, and supports learners to engage or participate
(alone, with a peer, or with a group) in using task-, domain-,
or activity-specific learning skills (e.g., skills necessary to

engage in online inquiry and collaborative inquiry), which

also are necessary for successful learning.
5. It is any environment that resides in a specific learning
context where peers, tutors, humans or artificial may play
some role in supporting students learning by serving as external regulating agents.
6. It is any environment where the learners use and deployment of key metacognitive and self-regulatory processes
prior to, during, and following learning are critical for successful learning.
Several researchers have recently questioned the educational potential of such computer environments because of
students failure to show learning gains. This criticism is
based on learners failure to deploy the key metacognitive
and self-regulatory skills necessary to regulate their learning
(see Azevedo, 2002; Azevedo & Hadwin, in press; Clark,
2004; de Jong et al., 2005; Lajoie & Azevedo, in press;
Mayer, 2003; Shapiro & Neiderhauser, 2004). This new metaphor using computers as metacognitive tools should follow
Mayers (2003) proposal for the scientific investigation of
how people learn with environments. Our research must include three basic elementsevidence, theory, and applications. Mayers proposal renews our concern about the lack of
theoretical and empirical evidence necessary to advance research on open-ended electronic environments such as
Web-based learning environments, hypermedia, and hypertext in educational psychology and other related fields. Given
the strong interest in these new technologies for teaching and
learning, there is a need to extend our current theoretical
frameworks and establish a solid research base of replicated
findings based on rigorous and appropriate research methods
(Mayer, 2003; Winn, 2003).
The goal of this special issue was to bring together cognitive scientists, psychologists, and educational researchers to
both synthesize and advance our current understanding of the
role of metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) related to using computers as metacognitive tools for enhancing student learning (Azevedo, 2005; Graesser, McNamara,
& VanLehn, 2005; Lin, Schwartz, & Hatano, 2005; Mathan
& Koedinger, 2005; Quintana, Zhang, & Krajcik, 2005;
White & Frederiksen, 2005). The authors in this issue have
articulated how their programs of research (and their respective theories and conceptualizations of metacognition and
SRL) can provide evidence about computers acting as
metacognitive tools for enhancing students learning. The researchers contributing to this special issue were invited to
provide scholarly reviews and critical analyses of both existing research and their own research. In their programs of research, they have used different frameworks, research methodologies, and quantitative and qualitative methods to
address issues related to students metacognitive and SRL.
The result is a group of articles that we feel has the potential
to define the emergence of a new paradigmusing computers as metacognitive tools for enhancing student learning.

Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 17:10 27 September 2010

INTRODUCTION

The contributing authors were asked to explicitly address

five issues: (a) Provide an overview of the context in which
computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) are used to
study and foster students metacognitive and/or SRL; (b) provide an overview of their theoreticalconceptual framework
and the underlying assumptions, and an explanation of how
the
particular
theory/model
addresses
students
metacognitive processes and SRL (e.g., which specific
phases and areas are being targeted); (c) review and summarize the findings from their own studies using quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods as they related to how CBLEs
have been used to study and foster/develop students
metacognitive and/or SRL; (d) describe how effective their
existing CBLEs are in detecting, tracing, and monitoring
learners metacognitive and self-regulatory behaviors during
learning; (e) discuss the implications for the design of
metacognitive tools to support learning, and which of these
components and/or aspects of metacognition and SRL can
and should be modeled and why? (f) Assess whether their existing framework can be extended into a unifying
metacognitive or SRL framework for studying the various
phases and areas of learning with CBLEs.

OVERVIEW OF ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE

Azevedo describes the importance of self-regulation in learning about conceptually challenging science topics using
hypermedia learning environments. Based on a wealth of
contemporary research on academic achievement and SRL,
he advances SRL as a theoretical framework with which to
examine the complex and dynamic processes that mediate
the relationships between learner characteristics, the features
of hypermedia learning environments, and the learning context. The article includes a synthesis of laboratory and classroom research conducted by his research group, which uses a
mixed-method approach by converging product (i.e., shifts in
learning from pretest to posttest) and process (i.e.,
think-aloud protocols) data to investigate how the deployment to key self-regulatory processes are related to students
knowledge gains. A model of SRL consisting of more than
30 planning, cognitive, and metacognitive self-regulatory
processes is described to account for the difficulties students
experience when using hypermedia to learn about challenging science topics. Last, implications for the design of adaptive hypermedia learning environments to support students
SRL are presented.
White and Frederiksens article provides a theoretical
framework and approach to fostering metacognitive development. Their article focuses on the nature of
metacognitive knowledge, its relationship to learning
through inquiry, and the CBLEs that can be used to foster
and assess its development in classrooms as students engage in collaborative inquiry. They illustrate their approach
by providing examples from Inquiry Island, a CBLE that

195

provides learners with advisors, who can provide knowledge, advice, and tools aimed at supporting students
metacognitive development in the context of doing inquiry
science projects. Their pedagogical approach involves having young students take on the role of various cognitive,
metacognitive, and social advisors as a way of enacting and
internalizing the forms of expertise the advisors embody.
They present research findings that illustrate how such embedded tools and learning activities can foster the development of metacognitive knowledge and the skills needed for
successful collaborative inquiry.
Quintana, Zhang, and Krajciks article proposes a framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry
through software-based scaffolding. They base their approach on the fact that novice learners experience several
cognitive and metacognitive problems during online inquiry
and that these problems could be remedied by software that
can serve a scaffolding function to support students
metacognition. Their framework focuses specifically on
three metacognitive processes: task understanding and planning, monitoring and regulation, and reflection. Based on
their existing studies, they discuss different types of scaffolding that can support these three metacognitive processes by
making them explicit to learners.
Graesser, McNamara, and VanLehns article focuses on
the well-documented difficulties of students who do not
have adequate proficiencies in inquiry and metacognition,
to enable deeper levels of comprehension. Their article describes some of their recently designed CBLEs that facilitate inquiry and metacognition for students in Grades K12
and college who are learning science and other domains.
They provide a theoretically based and empirically driven
approach to facilitating explanation-centered learning.
Based on their results, they present several approaches to
scaffolding students learning, which include (a) animated
conversational pedagogical agents that scaffold strategies
for inquiry, metacognition, and explanation construction;
(b) computer coaches who facilitate students answer generation to questions that require explanations by using
mixed-initiative dialogue; and (c) modeling and coaching
students in constructing self-explanations and the application of metacomprehension strategies while reading text.
Lin, Schwartz, and Hatanos article contrasts conventional uses of metacognition in academic domains with the
kinds of metacognition required by the teaching profession.
They introduce the concept of adaptive metacognition, which
they argue is critical for teachers to deal with and successfully perform in highly variable classroom situations. According to the authors, successful teaching can benefit from
this adaptive metacognition, which involves changes in oneself and ones environment in response to a wide a range of
classroom social and instructional variables. Their approach
to metacognitive learning attempts to integrate both specific
cognitive skills and general adaptive and social abilities by
using critical-event-based instruction. They provide evi-

Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 17:10 27 September 2010

196

AZEVEDO

dence for how computers can assist with teachers

metacognition about teaching by giving them a set of experiences with specific and recurring classroom events where
personal decision making is required.
Mathan and Koedingers article deals specifically with two
important aspects of metacognitionhow do students monitor their ongoing performance to detect and correct errors and
how do students learn from those instances thorough reflection? They discuss the effects of providing such feedback regarding what they term an intelligent novice cognitive
model. Their model of desired performance posits that an intelligent novicesomeone with general skills facing a novel
problemis still likely to make errors. Therefore, the intelligent novice model incorporates error detection and error correction activities as part of the task. Based on their research
with Cognitive Tutors, their approach allows students to make
certain reasonable errors and then provides guidance through
the exercise of error detection and correction skills. They argue that the opportunity to reason about the causes and consequences or errors may allow students to form a better model of
the behavior of the domain operators, and that feedback supports both generative and evaluative aspects of a skill.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Philip H. Winne and Lyn Corno, Editors of Educational Psychologist, for the opportunity to produce this special issue. I also acknowledge and thank the individuals who
served as reviewers for the manuscripts included in this special issue.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J., & Labiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Azevedo, R. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Computers as
MetaCognitive tools to enhance learning? Instructional Science, 30,
3145.
Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 40, 199209.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (in press). Scaffolding self-regulated learning
and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Brown, A. L. (1975). The development of memory: Knowing, knowing
about knowing, and knowing how to know. In H. W. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 10). New York: Academic.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and
other more mysterious mechanism. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),
Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65116): Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Butler, D., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback as self-regulated learning: A
theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Review, 65, 245281.

Clark, R. E. (2004). Research on web-based learning: A half-full glass. In R.

Bruning, C. Horn, & L. PytlikZillig (Eds.), Web-based learning. What do
we know? Where do we go? (pp. 122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Collins, C., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick
(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert
Glaser (pp. 453494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in
classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88109.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher,
19(6), 210.
de Jong, T., Beishuizen, J., Hulshof, C., Prins, F., van Rijn, H., van Someren,
M., et al. (2005). Determinants of discovery learning in a complx simulation learning environment. In P. Gardenfors & P. Johansson (Eds.), Cognition, education, communication, and technology (pp. 257283). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Derry, S. J., & Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906911.
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Graesser, R. C., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep
comprehension strategies through AutoTutor and iSTART. Educational
Psychologist, 40, 225234.
Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 526.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory
and practice (pp. 123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Metacognition
in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning
environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (pp. 694719). New York:
Macmillan.
Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. Derry & S. P. Lajoie (Eds.), Computers as cognitive
tools (pp. 261288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lajoie, S. P. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory
change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (in press). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers adaptive
metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40, 245255.
Mathan, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Benefits of tutoring error detection
and self-correction skills. Educational Psychologist, 40, 257265.
Mayer, R. (2003). Learning environments: The case for evidence-based practice
and issue-driven research. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 359373.
Paris, S. G., Byrnes, J. P., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Constructing theories, identities, and actions of self-regulated learners. In B. Zimmerman & D.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 253288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize
mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20, 167182.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning.
In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation (pp. 452502). New York: Academic.

Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 17:10 27 September 2010

INTRODUCTION
Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Scaffolded software environments for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235244.
Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as a social practice. In L.
B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially
shared cognition (pp. 120). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Rogoff, B. (1997). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational
Psychology Review, 7, 351371.
Schunk, D. (2001). Social cognitive theory of self-regulated learning. In &
B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125152). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research
issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605620).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Shute, V., & Psotka, J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring system: Past, present, and
future. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 570600). New York: Macmillan.
Solomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson. T. (1991). Partners in cognition:
Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational
Researcher, 20(3), 29.

197

Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems. Lost Altos,

CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). Cognitive models and instructional environments that foster young learners metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211223.
Winn, W. (2003). Research methods and types of evidence for research in
educational technology. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 367373.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd
ed., pp. 153189). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Zimmerman, B. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key
sub-processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective (pp. 1339). In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self regulation. New York: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk
(Eds), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives (pp. 138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.