CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.

qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 1

THE IMPORTANCE OF SELF-REGULATION

FOR COLLEGE STUDENT LEARNING
St. Francis College

MARISA T. COHEN

The ability to self-regulate is important for students at any level,

but is especially valuable to those in college, as they are confronted with a great deal of material in a short span of time.
Some studies demonstrate that college students are effective selfregulators, while other studies indicate they are not (Peverly,
Brobst, Graham, & Shaw, 2003). Despite this debate, it is clear
that there are differences between those who use self-regulatory
strategies and those who do not. This paper will discuss the concept of self-regulation, its related constructs, and the ability of
college students to self-regulate. Furthermore, it will address
self-regulatory skills and ways in which to improve this ability.
Strategies will be compared, and educational implications will
also be discussed.
Keywords: self-regulation; strategy instruction; college students

Short of moving away from home and

adjusting to a new school, taking tests is
the greatest cause of anxiety for college
students. With insurmountable amounts of
information to master for several classes,
while still attempting to juggle paper writing, presentations, maintaining a social
life, and doing laundry on ones own for
the first time, studying for an exam may
seem like an impossible task. In order to
effectively prepare for course assessments
and learn the information, students must be
capable of self-regulation. Students must
also metacognitively monitor the ways in
which they think about the material they
are learning. Knowledge itself is insufficient; students must accurately judge
whether or not they possess it.
This paper will examine self-regulation
and related constructs. It will also discuss
the differences between learners who are
self-regulated and those who are not, to
elucidate the variations in strategy use and
learning approaches for the purpose of test
preparation. Finally, this paper will pro-

vide educators with valuable information

regarding strategies used to improve learning and self-regulatory skill.

Self-Regulation

Self-regulation refers to the self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions for

attaining ones goals (Zimmerman, 2000).
This process definition focuses on ones
beliefs and motives and does not treat selfregulation as a specific trait or ability
(Zimmerman, 2000). This conceptualization is derived from Banduras triadic view
of self-regulation which involves the relationship between the person, their
behaviors, and the environment. Self-regulating ones performance is cyclical in that
the feedback from prior performances is
used to adjust ones current approach. The
personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors are also adapted and changed
throughout the learning process as one continues to grow and learn (Zimmerman,
2000).
There are three stages of self-regula-

892

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 2

Self-Regulation of College Students / 893

tion: forethought, performance/volitional

control, and self-reflection. The forethought phase precedes action, and
includes components such as goal setting
and motivational beliefs. The performance/volitional control phase includes
the efforts to sustain attention and action,
and finally the self-reflection phase
involves the appraisals of ones performance. These reflections then influence
the next self-regulatory cycle (Zimmerman, 2000).
Based on previous work (Winne, 1997,
as cited in Zimmerman, 2000), it is
assumed that everyone is capable of selfregulation to an extent. What really differs
between people is the quality and quantity of their self-regulatory processes.
Researchers have shown that self-regulated learners set clear and realistic goals, use
strategies, self-monitor, and evaluate their
progress, as well as complete tasks on time,
report high levels of motivation, and exhibit skill acquisition (Schunk & Swartz, 1993;
Zimmerman, 2000, as cited in Kitsantas,
2002). Several self-regulatory processes
are thought to influence performance, such
as goal setting, self-monitoring, self-evaluating, self-consequences, environmental
structuring, and help seeking (Kitsantas,
2002). Strategic planning is also very
important, in that self-regulated learners
will select strategies that will enable them
to accomplish these goals.
Learners who are highly capable of selfregulating self-evaluate more often,
attribute poor performances to strategy
deficiency rather than to lack of ability,
experience greater self-satisfaction, and
make better adaptations than poorly selfregulated individuals (Kitsantas, 2002, p.

102). Self-regulated learners are interested in subject matter, well-prepared, ready

with comments and insights, are able to
admit if they do not understand, and are driven to construct understanding
(Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995). Self-regulation is thought to incorporate
metacognitive knowledge and skill, as well
as self-efficacy, and the motivational and
behavioral processes needed to enact these
beliefs (Zimmerman, 1995).
Important Constructs Which Fall Under
Self-Regulation

While self-regulation is the focus of this

paper, it is necessary to discuss other closely related constructs which influence this
cyclical process as well as students learning. Metacognition and self-monitoring
are both imperative for efficient self-regulation and both assist students in
adequately assessing their abilities.
Metacognition includes students
awareness of how learning, memory, and
attention work with one another, which
influences how individuals study and learn
(Rosenthal, McKnight, Soper, & Baudouin,
1996). Metacognition also involves selecting strategies that are situationally
appropriate and allocating cognitive
resources in a way that matches the
demands of a task (Schraw, Dunkle, Bendixen, Roedel, & DeBacker, 1995). It is
closely related to self-regulation, as it promotes students ability to self-monitor and
control cognitive processes (Meijer, Veenman, & van Hout-Wolters, 2006).
According to King (1995) metacognition
involves skills that include:

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 3

894 / College Student Journal

planning how to study for an

exam, setting goals for learning, allocating time for study, being aware
of ones level of attention during a
learning task, selecting strategies to
use in learning and problem solving, monitoring strategy use and
change of strategy when necessary,
monitoring comprehension during
learning, planning how to repair
comprehension deficits, and evaluating the effectiveness of strategies,
goals, and plans (p. 21).
Self-monitoring, which is a sub-process
of self-regulation, is especially important
during the college years. It is closely related to metacognition in that it involves
meta-awareness of knowledge and strategies. Learners who self-monitor are able to
observe themselves as they evaluate information regarding specific processes or
actions that affect their learning and
achievement (Zimmerman & Paulsen,
1995). It is especially important for students to self-monitor over the course of
the semester, because they often receive
little feedback from their instructors, in the
form of written assignments and tests. Selfmonitoring helps students focus, enables
learners to discriminate between effective
and ineffective performance, reveals the
inadequacies of strategies, and enhances
the use of study time (Zimmerman &
Paulsen, 1995). Self-monitoring activities,
such as checking for understanding, are
critical. A student should take frequent
breaks to evaluate where in the learning
process he/she is, and how much more
needs to be accomplished. Also, as stated
by Zimmerman (2000), self-monitoring

and evaluation enable students to become

aware of their shortcomings so they can
refine their strategies.
Formal self-monitoring, which involves
systematic planning and overt record keeping, is especially useful when one needs to
comprehend new material or acquire new
skills, such as when preparing for an exam.
This skill is not easy, as it requires the student to interpret changes in functioning
and to be motivated by academic benefits
in order to make the effort to monitor. Students must also realize when their informal
monitoring is not sufficient (Zimmerman
& Paulsen, 1995). Monitoring is important, because it enables students to uncover
areas of weakness in their learning and
encourages them to focus on which methods are most beneficial.
Need for Self-Regulatory Strategies

In order for students to succeed in high

school and college, they need to understand and remember material presented
during class lectures (King, 1992). Schneider and Pressley, 1997 (as cited in Peverly,
Brobst, Graham, & Shaw, 2003) have
shown that competent self-regulated learners have the knowledge and strategies
needed to learn and remember information, and the ability to apply these skills to
specific learning tasks. Students at the postsecondary level must also be proactive in
their quest for knowledge. They need to
self-initiate tasks, monitor and evaluate
their progress, and seek out help and enact
the appropriate repair strategies when they
are needed.
Learning and test preparation involve a
great deal of metacognitive awareness.
Judgments of learning, a concept coined by

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 4

Self-Regulation of College Students / 895

Nelson and Dunlosky, (as cited in Koriat

and Bjork, 2005), refers to peoples estimates of how well they have learned
information. Previous research has established that students judgments about
upcoming test performance generally
exhibit overconfidence, as these judgments
are made in the presence of information
that will be absent during the test (Koriat
& Bjork, 2006). This can have detrimental effects on the allocation of study time,
as learners with inflated beliefs will allocate less time for preparation. However,
this overconfidence is usually confined to
the first test in a multitrial situation. It can
switch to underconfidence on the second
test, as judgments made are based upon
previous test performance. Koriat and
Bjork (2006) state that learners seem
to rely on their metacognitive feeling in
regulating their behavior, and, to the extent
that these feelings are accurate, such
reliance can sometimes help improve memory performance (p. 1139).
Accurate monitoring is also used to
effectively guide learning, as students are
expected to absorb and comprehend material across a wide variety of courses.
Accurate evaluations of ones knowledge
can be used to drive the learning process
forward. Those who are overconfident tend
to find that their learning evaluations fall
short of their learning goals (Dunlosky &
Rawson, 2011). This relates to the accuracy-influences-memory
(AIM)
hypothesis, in that monitoring accuracy
leads to higher levels of memory and better retention, and rests on the idea that
students can assess what they know and
use this information in a valuable way
(Dunlosky & Rawson, 2011).

Self-regulation is clearly important for

learning, but it can influence other behaviors as well. In a broader sense, inability
to self-regulate can lead to a variety of
problems. Low-self-regulatory skill has
been associated with several personal
issues ranging from weight control to hospitalization due to difficulty managing
chronic asthma. Individuals who lack
strong self-regulatory abilities also engage
in more risky behavior related to sex, alcohol consumption and the use of recreational
drugs (Zimmerman, 2000). It is thought
that these difficulties arise as a result of
individuals using reactive rather than
proactive methods during the forethought
and performance phases of the self-regulatory cycle. Rather than taking charge
from the beginning, these people who face
difficulties with regulation use their failing outcomes as information and do not
employ the appropriate repair strategies to
change their behaviors.

Differences in Self-Regulatory Abilities

It has been shown that efficient learners exhibit the ability to use more
self-regulation processes (Kitsantas, 2002).
The self-regulatory processes used are
employed before, during, and after the
learning task. In order to understand what
teachers should focus on in strengthening
students self-regulatory skills, it is important to note what distinguishes those who
are more skilled from those who are struggling in their course work.
A study by Kitsantas (2002) utilized a
structured interview to examine the selfregulatory abilities of 62 college students
enrolled in a personality psychology class.
It was hypothesized that high test scorers

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 5

896 / College Student Journal

would use more self-regulatory processes

in enhancing their test preparation and performance than low test scorers, before,
during, and after the test; that self-regulation would positively affect test
performance; and that an individuals selfregulatory skill and self-efficacy beliefs
would predict his/her test performance. A
self-regulation interview questionnaire
based on Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponss
1986 work was used, as well as a three-item
measure of self-efficacy, which was developed based upon work outlined by Bandura
and Schunk (1981). Outcome measures
were based upon three multiple choice
exams consisting of 30-multiple choice
questions and an essay.
Results indicated that the high test scorers reported more self-regulatory processes
(M = .59) than low test scorers (M = .30)
before test taking (p < .01). The specific
self-regulatory processes that the high test
scorers outperformed low test scorers on
were in goal setting and planning, organizing and transforming notes, and help
seeking. Low test scorers used more
rehearsal and memorization strategies,
which suggests that they are less likely to
use elaborative or organizational strategies, which prevents them from having a
deep understanding of the material. During test taking, high test scorers also
reported more self-regulatory processes
(M = .93) than low test scorers (M = .53),
(p < .01), specifically with regards to planning and reviewing of responses. Again,
high test scorers (M = .91) reported more
self-regulatory processes than low test scorers (M = .35) after receiving their grades
on the second test (p < .001), specifically
in goal setting and planning, and monitor-

ing. Upon receiving the results, high test

scorers used self-evaluation strategies to
make judgments about their performance
and also sought help to improve future performance.
Participants were then divided, classified as either high or low-self regulators,
and results indicated that high-self regulators outperformed low-self-regulated
examinees on both the multiple choice (p
< .01) and essay test (p < .01). They also
reported a higher self-efficacy (p < .001)
and perceived instrumentality (p < .05); in
that they viewed the test as more important for their psychology career than low
test scorers. Overall this study demonstrates the wide range of self-regulatory
skill that learners have.

Self-Regulatory Difficulties and Exam

Preparation

Now that we know what self-regulation

is and the self-regulatory processes that
high test scorers have mastered, it is important to highlight the effects of this skill on
students learning and test preparation. Students must be able to assess what they
know about the material they are studying, how well they understand it, and if
they will be able to use the information
they have stored effectively on an upcoming test (Hacker, Bol, Horgan, & Rakow,
2000). Students must also plan which items
on the test to return to, how much time to
spend on each item, and how many inferences need to be made in answering a
question. Finally, the student must also
judge the accuracy of the information
he/she recalls.
Students, who are under the impression
that they know more than they do, pose a

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 6

Self-Regulation of College Students / 897

great hazard to themselves. This false confidence, or overestimation of ones future

performance, could mask the students
need to study, which will lead to poor
grades or failure in a course. Koriat and
Bjork (2005) suggest that this overconfidence stems from the inability of a learner
to adopt the perspective of an examinee
when assessing the information they have
retained. When learning, information is
presented with the answer; however, during the test it is not. This is a form of
foresight bias, as predictions about ones
success in recalling the correct answer are
made in the presence of the answer (Koriat & Bjork, 2005). One must be able to
detach him/herself from what one currently
knows in the presence of the answers to
get a true estimate of future ability.
Individuals may fall into many traps,
which will provide misinformation about
how much they know. If students rapidly
improve on a task, this may be reassuring
to them, even if little learning is actually
taking place. In a 1987 study by Pressley
et al. (as cited in Peverly, Brobst, Graham,
& Shaw, 2003), college students read a
textbook chapter once and then took a 50item multiple-choice test. These students
predicted how many items they would
answer correctly before and after they read
the text passage, and after the test. Results
showed that students posttest estimates
were the most accurate. College students
were also shown to have a high degree of
confidence in answers which were later
shown to be incorrect.
A disturbing finding is that in groups,
it is the lowest performing students who
show the most overconfidence and have
the most inaccurate judgments of their per-

formance. This overconfidence may stem

from their lack of metacognitive insight.
According to researchers who support this
belief, in addition to lacking knowledge of the material, poor students also
lack awareness of the knowledge that they
do and do not possess (Miller & Geraci,
2011, p. 502). In a study by Hacker, Bol,
Horgan, and Rakow (2000), 99 undergraduates were studied during a
semester-long educational psychology
class to examine the relationship between
self-assessment and performance. It was
hypothesized that with internally generated and external feedback provided to the
students, and given the ability to make
judgments of performance over multiple
tests over the course of a semester, students would gain experience making
predictions and postdictions. This should
lead the students to demonstrate better
accuracy regarding their performance. Students estimated the amount of hours they
spent studying for the exam and also made
predictions as to the amount of items they
thought they would answer correctly. Postdictions after the exam were also recorded.
In interpreting the results, students were
divided into five performance groups on
the basis of the percentage of items they
answered correctly. The students in Group
1 were in the A/B range, and those in
Group 5 were low Fs. After students were
separated, it was shown that the lowest performing students demonstrated poor
prediction and postdiction accuracy on the
first exam, and did not improve by the end
of the course. High performing students
exhibited increases. Results also demonstrated that students continued to base their
judgments on their prior expectations for

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 7

898 / College Student Journal

performance rather than on prior test performance results. This may be because
students failed to use the results to regulate subsequent behavior.
While this study demonstrated that the
judgment accuracy of high performing students was reasonably accurate, that of low
performing students was not. The predictions and postdictions of students who
scored at or above 70% differed from actual performance by less than 8 percentage
points. Low performing students showed
a good deal of overconfidence, which
became greatly exaggerated with the lowest scorers. Low performing students were
less able to self-assess their knowledge.
The lowest performing students not only
lacked knowledge of the course content,
but lacked an awareness of their deficits.
The results of this study are unfortunate,
as students who are scoring the lowest on
exams are those who most desperately need
an accurate view of their ability. If the students were more realistic, they could
anticipate their low scores and put in more
study time.
Rosenthal, McKnight, Soper, and Baudouin (1996) also conducted a study which
demonstrates that those who are struggling
often are unaware of the difficulties they
face. The researchers examined introductory psychology students predictions and
postdictions of a 50-item examination covering three chapters. The pretests and
posttests given to students instructed them
to rate how well they would score on the
exam and on which of the three chapters
they would score best and worst.
Results revealed that neither the pretest
nor posttest correlated significantly with
the actual score achieved. As a group, the

students were not able to accurately predict or postdict their scores. The mean
percent correct on the exam was 66.6, while
the mean estimated score before the exam
was 78.9, and mean estimated score after
the exam was 77.5. T tests showed that
indeed there was a significant difference
between the pretest and posttest prediction
(p < .03), meaning that the postdiction was
significantly more accurate. Overall, this
demonstrates the difficulty students have
in assessing their own performance.
What Can Be Done?

It is clear that self-regulation not only

affects test performance, but influences
students overall approach to learning. As
such, it is important to investigate effective
approaches for improving the ability students to self-regulate. By coming to a clear
understanding as to what works in the
classroom, teachers can target those who
are struggling and further enable those succeeding in continuing to improve.
Remedial programs aimed at helping
struggling students often center on instructing these learners on the course specific
content needed to pass the class. Being that
self-regulation is so important for learning, it would be beneficial to help students
at all ability levels improve this skill. Dignauth, Buettner, and Langfeldt (2008, as
cited in Zimmerman & Labuhn, 2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 48 studies with
primary school children that demonstrated that self-regulation interventions
produced gains in both students academic performance and their strategic behavior
and motivation. In this meta-analysis the
researchers also found that cognitive strategies had little effect on performance,

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 8

Self-Regulation of College Students / 899

however metacognitive strategies produced

a large effect. These are strategies
designed to [help the individual] control, monitor, regulate, and reflect on
learning and cognitive activities (Zimmerman & Labuhn, 2012, p. 416). Those
that produced the largest effect sizes were
reflection strategies (knowledge about
strategies) and ones that demonstrated the
benefits of applying the strategies or triggered metacognitive reasoning.
Dignauth and Buttner (2008, as cited
in Zimmerman & Labuhn, 2012) expanded the previous research and looked at
secondary school students use of strategies and self-regulated learning. They
found that the effect of self-regulatory
training on overall academic performance
was smaller for secondary students (0.54)
than for primary students (0.61), however
the effects of strategy training increased
from primary to secondary school. The
effect of self-regulation training on
students use of strategies was large for
secondary students (0.88).
One way to improve self-regulatory
ability is to assist students in monitoring
their performance. Research by Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1996) examined the
effects of goal-setting and self-monitoring
during a dart throwing task with high
school girls. These girls were assigned to
different goal setting conditions or a control, and further were either assigned to
self-record or not. Those who were to selfrecord wrote their scores in a log during
practice. Results showed that no matter
which goal-setting group the girls were
assigned to, dart throwing skills were significantly enhanced when the girls
self-recorded their progress.

Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1996) also

examined girls during the self-reflection
phase of the dart throwing task. They compared individuals who graphed
self-recorded outcomes with those assigned
to a control group. The graphs provided a
visual representation of students progress.
Results showed that there was a positive
effect of graphics on students performance
and motivational beliefs.
Another way to improve self-regulation
is to enhance students skill in self-reflection. A study by Zimmerman, Moylan,
Hudesman, White, and Flugman (2011)
examined a semester long intervention
geared at improving the self-regulatory
ability of students from an urban public
technological college. They did this
through (a) instructor modeling of error
correction, (b) guided self-reflection opportunities as part of a formative assessment
process, and (c) an incentive system that
rewards subsequent attempts at learning
(Zimmerman, et al., 2011, p. 143). This
was all put in place to help the students
self-reflect and change the way they
thought about academic feedback. The goal
was to change feedback from being an end
point in learning to one that would inform
future learning.
For the purpose of this study, 647 students enrolled in mathematics classes were
either assigned to a self-regulatory group
or the control. The intervention used in the
self-regulated learning (SRL) classroom
consisted of the teacher using coping modeling techniques to teach students about
how to detect errors and adapt when solving math problems. These students were
also given quizzes every two to three class
sessions in order to provide them with feed-

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 9

900 / College Student Journal

back. Students were given the opportunity to correct their errors on their quizzes
and resubmit them with a self-reflection
form, geared towards having them understand their mistakes. The form required
students to explain their ineffectual strategy, come up with a new strategy, and
indicate their confidence in solving another problem.
Analysis of the 496 students who completed the course showed that those in the
SRL group outperformed those in the control group on the three math examinations.
Those in the SRL group also exhibited less
overconfidence in self-efficacy beliefs and
overconfidence in post-performance selfevaluation judgments when compared to
the control. High self-reflectors, those who
used the forms given, outperformed the
low self-reflectors on the second and third
math exams. This demonstrates that the
differences were due to self-reflection, not
the mere presence of math quizzes. A significantly greater percentage of students
enrolled in the SRL classes passed the
developmental math course, introduction
to college math course, and the collegewide entrance test, compared to those in the
control.
Programs that focus on integrating the
phases of the self-regulatory cycle with
learning activities have also proven to be
quite useful. The Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP) was developed to
help at-risk middle and high school students. It aimed to enable them to be more
self-regulated during complex activities
and while studying for content-area exams
(Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004, as cited in
Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012). The program focuses on making students aware

of maladaptive beliefs they may hold

regarding the task at hand, and providing
explicit instruction in goal setting, strategic planning, and self-recording. Students
were also taught strategies to aid with content-learning, such as mnemonics and
concept mapping. Finally, students were
given a self-regulation graph in which they
plot their outcome goal and recorded all the
steps needed to attain that specific goal.
Tutors reviewed the graph with the students and helped them assess their
progress. The main goal of these tutors
was to guide students thinking to focus
on the relationship between their performance outcomes and the effort that they
displayed in using their strategic plan
(Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012, p. 250).
Cleary and Zimmerman (2012) note that
while their review of SRL intervention
programs was not exhaustive, it illustrated that a cyclical account of cognitive and
strategic engagement can successfully be
taught to students across academic tasks
and development levels (p. 250).
Educational Implications

We live in a society consumed by highstakes testing. Even at the post-secondary

level, students have to worry about college
entrance exams, placement tests for the
specific courses, as well as tests for graduate school admissions. There is a great
deal of pressure on students to perform,
and on schools and educators to exhibit
positive results. Because of this, and in
order to help students effectively learn
material for exams, it is important for
instructors to help students learn how to
self-regulate, and adequately assess what
it is they know and do not know.

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 10

Self-Regulation of College Students / 901

College students also face a great deal

of pressure in terms of the amount of work
they must complete and the time in which
they have to do it. Self-regulated learners
are those who are able to monitor their
abilities and employ strategies to improve
upon their learning. It is our duty as teachers to educate our students on
self-regulation, its importance, and ways
to cultivate this skill.
Many schools have implemented learning-to learn or mentoring courses
(Weinstein, Stone, and Hanson, 1993, as
cited in Zimmerman & Paulsen, 2006).
These programs attempt to aid those students who have trouble self-monitoring
and regulating, and who find it difficult to
handle the college course load. With growing evidence in support of the advantages
confirmed by self-regulatory abilities and
metacognition in learners, it may be wise
to implement programs such as these in
all educational settings.
References

Cleary, T.J., & Zimmerman, N.J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student
engagement: Theoretical foundations and
applications. In S.L. Christenson, A.L.
Reschly, and C. Wylie (Eds,), Handbook of
Research on Student Engagement (Chapter
11). New York: Springer.
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence
produces
underachievement:
Inaccurate
self evaluations undermine
students learning and retention. Learning
and
Instruction,
22,
271-280.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
Hacker, D.J., Bol, L., Horgan, D.D., & Rakow,
E.A. (2000). Test prediction and performance
in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160-170.

King, A. (1995). Cognitive strategies for learning

from direct teaching. In E. Wood, V.E.
Woloshyn, & T. Willoughby (Eds,), Cognitive
strategy instruction for middle and high
schools (Chapter 3). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning,
summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American
Educational Research Journal, 29, 303- 323.
Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and performance: A self-regulatory analysis. The Journal
of Experimental Education, 70, 101-113.

Koriat. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Mending

metacognitive illusions: A comparison of
mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 11331145.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R.A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring ones knowledge during
study. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 187194.
McDougall, S., & Gruneberg, M. (2002). What
memory strategy is best for examinations in
psychology? Applied Cognitive Psychology,
16, 451-458.
Meijer, J., Veenman, M.V.J., & van Hout-Wolters,
B.H.A.M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in
text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 12, 209-237.
Miller, T.M. & Geraci, L. (2011). Unskilled but
aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in lowperforming students. Journal of Experimental
Psychology,
37,
502-506.
doi:
10.1037/a0021802
Peverly, S. T., Brobst, K.E., Graham, M., & Shaw,
R. (2002). College adults are not good at selfregulation: A study of the relationship of
self-regulation, note taking, and test taking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 335346.

CSJ Cohen Self-Regulation.qxp:EDUC-CSJ-READ LAYOUT SAMPLE

902 / College Student Journal

Rosenthal, G. T., McKnight, R.R., Soper, W.B.,
Baudouin, G. (1996). What do introductory
psychology students know about their examinations, and when do they know it? Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 23, 137-143.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M.E., Bendizen, L.D., &
Roedel, T.D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87, 433-444.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39).San
Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. (1995). Self-regulation involves
more than metacognition: A social cognitive
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30,
217-221.
Zimmerman, B.J. & Kitsantas (1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: The role of
goal setting and self-monitoring. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 60-75. doi:
10.1080/10413209608406308
Zimmerman, B.J., & Labuhn, S.A. (2012). Selfregulation of learning: Process approaches to
personal development. In. K.R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational
Psychology Handbook (pp. 399- 425). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Zimmerman, B.J., Moylan, A., Hudesman, J.,
White, N., & Flugman, B. (2011). Enhancing
self- reflection and mathematics achievement
of at-risk urban technical college students.
Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling,
53, 141-160.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Paulsen, A.S. (1995). Selfmonitoring during collegiate studying: An
invaluable tool for academic self-regulation.
In P. Pintrich (Ed.), New directions in college
teaching and learning (No. 63, Fall, pp. 1327). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

11/8/12

11:16 AM

Page 11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.