Self-Regulated Learning

Loren M. Marulis
Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar
University of Michigan

To appear as: Marulis, L. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (2014). Self-regulated learning. In W. G. Scarlett (Ed).
Classroom Management: An A-to-Z Guide (pp. x-x). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Self-Regulation

s
Self-regulation (SR) is a broad concept that comprises a set of interdependent skills and
es
complex processes that “enable an individual to guide his/her goal-directed activities over time

and across changing circumstances (contexts)” (Karoly, 1993, p. 25). SR involves deliberately
Pr
recruiting and implementing the skills necessary to control, manage, and plan cognition,

behavior, motivation and affect (e.g., Morrison, Ponitz, & McClelland, 2010; Schunk &

Zimmerman, 1997). SR is traditionally not viewed as a trait or ability, but rather as a self-
In

initiated and directed process focused on achieving a particular goal (e.g., waiting one’s turn in a

long line to receive a driver’s license; resisting the temptation to have a second dessert for weight

loss; choosing to study for a test rather than join friends in a social gathering to do well in a

course). Thus, important indicators of SR include: task persistence - particularly in the face of

choices that may be more presently appealing; inhibiting internal and external distractions; and

intentionally, and with control, directing motor actions and attention to an activity.

Classroom teachers, or anyone who has spent time with groups of children, will have

likely anticipated a connection between these types of skills and academic success and indeed the
concept of SR naturally evolved to include individuals’ ability to regulate their cognition,

behavior, motivation and affect specifically to achieve academic goals. As researchers became

interested in the concept of SR and its importance for successful functioning in academic

contexts, a new term appeared: self-regulated learning (SRL) (Corno & Mandinach,1983;

Zimmerman; 1989), which is the focus of this entry to the guide.

Self-Regulated Learning

The term SRL has been defined in many ways, but generally refers to the active and

independent application of self-regulatory skills (as described above) to a learning task. Most

s
classroom teachers have encountered (and appreciated!) self-regulated learners who have been
es
described by researchers as students who:

are aware when they know a fact or possess a skill and when they do not. Unlike their
passive classmates, self-regulated students proactively seek out information when needed
Pr
and take necessary steps to master it... Self-regulated learners view acquisition as a
systematic and controllable process, and they accept greater responsibility for their
achievement outcomes (Zimmerman, 1990, p. 4).
Research has shown that self-regulated learners are more likely than other students to:
In

have high levels of academic achievement (Pintrich, 2000), employ help seeking strategies in

order to find ways to succeed in school (e.g., Karabenick & Newman, 2006), use more efficient

problem-solving strategies (Hmelo-Silver, 2004), maintain interest in academic tasks (Ainley,

Hidi & Berndorff, 2002), and have learning orientations and goals based on mastering the

material to be learned rather than simply receiving a high grade (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). In a

broad sense, these students are able to be successful despite obstacles that often occur in complex

school settings such as multiple distractions and interruptions, noisy classrooms, or unclear

directions (Zimmerman, 1990).

 The importance of SRL to academic success is consistent across domains (e.g.,

Analogical reasoning: Brown & Kane, 1988; Mathematics: Desoete, Roeyers, & Huylebroeck,

2006; Reading comprehension: Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Science: White & Frederiksen, 1998;

and Writing: Harris, Graham, Brindle, & Sandmel, 2009). Importantly, children with greater

SRL are more successful academically than children with low SRL, regardless of the presence of

risk factors such as minority status, English language learner status, low parental education, low

family income, single-parent households and maternal depression (Matthews, Kizzie, Rowley, &

Cortina, 2010; Sektnan, McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2010). Therefore, SRL can play a

protective and facilitative role for children at risk of learning difficulties. Furthermore, as many

s
teachers have experienced, students with greater SRL are not only easier to manage, facilitating a
es
classroom environment conducive to greater learning, but also allow for less time to be spent on

discipline and on the teaching of rules and behavioral skills allowing increased time to be spent
Pr
on academic activities.

SRL to Meet Cognitive Demands

As previously recognized, there are few contexts that are more complex than a classroom.
In

At a minimum, as Figure 1 suggests, teachers are managing curricula (across subject matter and

topics) and materials (e.g., texts, digital tools, manipulatives), interpersonal relationships, and the

cognitive demands integral to achieving identified academic goals. While there is leverage

gained by attending to any one of these gears, successful classroom management, and enhanced

learning, results from the meshing of each gear; furthermore, the primary “driver” of the

interaction should be the management of cognitive demands to advance productive teaching and

learning.
 Initial studies of SR primarily addressed the issue of managing cognitive demands; as

research on SR matured, there was greater attention to the larger context in which cognitive

demand must be managed. In this section, we illustrate the progression of this work for the

purpose of helping educators consider how research on SR can support their efforts. We begin by

tracing one line of the research on SR: verbalized self-instruction.

In the late 1970s and 1980s there was considerable interest in the role that engaging

learners in self- verbalization could play in supporting SR of learning skills. Self-verbalization,

also referred to as “private speech,” is speech that is not for the purpose of communicating with

s
others, but rather for the purpose of directing one’s own activity. For example, Meichenbaum

es
(1977) studied the application of self-verbalization to task-completion. Learners were taught,

through modeling, to: define the problem (e.g., “What is it I have to do?”), focus attention, (e.g.,

“I need to pay attention to what I am doing.”), plan their activity (e.g., “I need to look at all the
Pr
options before making my choice.”), self-reinforce (e.g., “I’m doing fine.”), and make coping

statements (e.g., “I need to try again when I don’t get it right.”). Self-verbalization has also been

successfully used to support students to rehearse information by modeling and practicing the
In

activity of breaking the information to be learned into smaller parts and practicing repeating the

information to be learned (e.g., a set of vocabulary terms, formulae, or dates). Research on the

application of self-verbalization indicates that it is useful for supporting learners to be more

systematic in their learning activity (Hallahan, Kneedler, & Lloyd, 1983), and helps learners who

tend to be impulsive (Schunk, 1985); however, self-verbalization adds another layer onto a task

and can distract learners who do not, in fact, need this form of support (Denney, 1975).

In the 1980s, the research on self-verbalization took a cognitive turn, in the sense that

researchers became interested in the application of verbalized instruction to challenging

cognitive tasks, such as interpreting and learning from text, and composing text; the focus of

instruction was less on behaviors (such as impulse control, or repeated practice) and more on

thinking. This body of work is often referred to as “strategy instruction.”

Strategy instruction was advanced by concomitant cognitive research on expertise. For

example, think-aloud research (e.g., Bereiter & Bird, 1985) in which competent readers shared

their thinking as they read, suggested that competent readers took control of their activity while

reading by: predicting what they would read, paraphrasing the information they were learning,

and occasionally monitoring how well they were understanding. This research informed the

s
focus of teaching for self-regulated reading. For example, Reciprocal Teaching, designed to

es
improve the reading achievement of struggling readers, focuses on teaching students to:

summarize by identifying and integrating key ideas in the text, use prior knowledge and ideas in

the text to predict upcoming content in the text, identify the kinds of questions that the text is
Pr
answering while reading (i.e., self-question), and stop to clarify when they find text confusing.

Borrowing from the self-verbalization research described above, these four strategies are taught

in the context of a discussion with the teacher, in the course of which, the teacher models expert
In

use of these four strategies, supports the students to enlist the use of these strategies as they read

and learn from text, and transfers increasing responsibility for leading the discussion as the

students become more competent with the independent use of these strategies (Palincsar &

Brown, 1984).

As another example, Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (Raphael, Englert, &

Kirschner, 1989) also drew upon studies of expertise. For example, the research of Flower and

Hayes (1980) revealed the strategies that skilled writers employed to assist them with setting

goals for their writing and determining the content and organization of that writing. Raphael and
Englert and their colleagues attended to these processes in the development of their writing

curriculum; they included “think-sheets” designed to correspond to the processes of planning,

organizing, drafting, editing, and revising. However, these think-sheets are not designed to be

completed independently by young writers, but rather serve to support the teacher in modeling

each process, and to provide students guided practice so that they can independently engage in

these processes.

The “tool” metaphor has commonly been used in the instructional literature to refer to

teaching students strategies that enable SR. The research is clear that, when done well, strategy

instruction can, indeed, help students to become actively engaged in learning activity and

s
transfer the stratgy to independent use. What does it mean to do strategy instruction well? It
es
means that students are introduced to and practice the use of tools in the context of challenging

academic tasks; it means that the expert use of the tools is modeled for the student, and that the
Pr
student is provided support (also referred to as coaching) to learn how to apply these tools

effectively. It also means that the students are provided opportunities to practice the use of the

tools and to experience for themselves how taking a strategic approach enables them to become
In

efficacious in their learning.

Unfortunately, one or more of these elements is often missing in strategy instruction; to

illustrate: reading strategies may be presented in isolation from reading for meaning, as happens,

for example, when students are asked to complete a journal entry generating a series of questions

from a text, but are never held accountable to answering those questions or justifying their

answers with information in the text. Students may be put in small groups to muddle through the

process of writing summaries without any instruction about the process of summarizing. They

may be asked to draw a picture in their heads with a piece of text that is poorly matched with the
strategy of visualizing. For all these reasons, and because a focus on process is vulnerable to the

criticism that it detracts from a focus on content, there is interest in alternative approaches to

teaching for SR that attend—in a more balanced way—to both learning processes and content.

We have selected three programs from preschool through late elementary school to illustrate

such an approach: Tools of the Mind (Bodrova & Leong, 1996, 2007), Fostering a Community of

Learners (FCL, Brown & Campione, 1990; 1994) and Concept Oriented Reading Instruction

(CORI, Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho, 2013; Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecher, 2000).

Programmatic approaches to SRL

s
Children who enter formal schooling without adequate self-regulatory skills are at
es
significantly greater risk for difficulties, including low levels of academic achievement

(McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000). Though they are limited, there are interventions and

curricula designed to enhance children's SR—in the contextualized way that we have endorsed—
Pr
prior to formal school entry. One such program is the Tools of the Mind preschool and

kindergarten program by Bodrova and Leong (1996, 2007). Tools of the Mind (Tools) uses

developmentally appropriate problem-solving strategies within the context of dramatic play and
In

academic content areas as a primary source of deliberately promoting, facilitating, and teaching

SR in preschool-aged children. Tools is based on the sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978)

which posits that social interactions enhance children’s learning and development and allow

learners to become more independent or gain greater SR. Further, this theory emphasizes the use

of mental “tools” (which can be as simple as learning to use lists as memory enhancers) to

become independent or self-regulated learners. In Tools, the instruction is designed to

intentionally increase SRL across, and within, content areas. For example, teachers scaffold

children in writing explicit plans for their dramatic play, specifying not only what they are going
to do but also what role they will take so that the play becomes more complex and self-

regulatory and is more likely to enhance SR and related metaskills (e.g., Whitebread, &

O’Sullivan, 2012) Moreover, the teachers facilitate children in regulating the recorded

representation of their play plans (i.e., recording their plan in a representational way that may

entail drawing, conventional writing or anything in between depending on the child’s capability)

thus further situating the instruction in literacy. Tools instruction includes similar activities

geared toward promoting SR in other content areas, such as mathematics (e.g., Word Problems)

so that children learn how to apply SR skills across domains. Research on Tools has shown that

SR can be increased, even in low-income preschool-aged children. Furthermore, preschool

s
teachers who have been trained to use the Tools curriculum were rated as having better
es
classroom management than those not trained in Tools (Barnett et al., 2008; Diamond, Barnett,

Thomas, & Munro, 2007). These studies also indicated that Tools may even positively increase
Pr
mathematics and language skills in preschoolers, though more research is needed in this area.

Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL) (Brown & Campione, 1990; 1994) is an

outstanding example of an educational reform effort that, while having its roots in teaching for
In

SR, illustrates—and accommodates—the dynamic that we framed in Figure 1. The FCL curricula

are organized around thematic units; for example, biological themes include interdependence and

adaptation; and environmental science themes include balance, competition, and cooperation.

With respect to materials, students in FCL classrooms have access to a broad array of material to

support their inquiry about the themes, including: text, video, and a computer environment in

which children correspond with one another, as well as with expert consultants. The

interpersonal relationships in FCL are managed with the use collaborative learning arrangements,

using both Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) and the jigsaw method (Aronson,
Bridgeman, & Geffner, 1978) in which children are assigned part of the topic of study to learn

and subsequently to teach to others; hence becoming expert relative to different aspects of the

topic under study and then sharing their expertise with their peers.

In FCL, instruction is designed to support an active role for the learners, who are

encouraged to assume control of their activity and be reflective in the process. The issue of

transfer, or the capacity and inclination to apply learning in novel contexts, is central to FCL.

Brown and Campione proposed that integral to promoting transfer in the classroom are

opportunities for students to come to understand a variety of domain-specific concepts, as well as

s
the more general processes useful to advancing new and continued learning. Such understanding

es
would enable students to talk knowingly about these processes, as well as to use them flexibly.

These tenets implied that instruction must first of all be about the task of mastering a rich domain

of knowledge. In addition, instruction in this rich domain must include modeling that is designed
Pr
to help students acquire the critical thinking and reflection activities that will guide their thinking

as they undertake this learning in these new areas of learning. Finally, in the spirit of the work on

self-verbalization that we presented earlier, Brown and Campione urged that students be
In

provided with many occasions for explaining to others (and hence to themselves) the

characteristics and limitations of what they are learning, and the reasons they are engaged in

particular learning activities. Research on FCL has supported these tenets; participants in FCL

classrooms acquired the targeted conceptual understandings, demonstrated transfer, and

improved their comprehension skills (Brown & Campione, 1990; 1994).

The FCL research resonates with findings obtained in the research on CORI. Guthrie et

al., 2004), suggested that students who have sustained opportunities to read interesting texts for

the purpose of advancing content knowledge related to a particular theme (e.g., animal habitats),
were more motivated to read and more strategic in their reading than were students who were

provided strategy instruction in reading. These researchers determined that, when content goals

(such as learning science) were salient to students, rather than performance goals (such as getting

a good grade), students showed increased motivation for reading, increased strategic behavior,

and increased comprehension (Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho, 2013).

Guiding Principles

Research in classrooms has identified classroom and learning characteristics that are

consistently associated with greater levels of SRL in even very young (i.e., preschool) students.

s
These characteristics include: allowing children to regulate their learning through choosing their
es
own goals and levels of challenge and doing self-evaluation (e.g., Perry, 1998; Winne &

Hadwin, 1998) and encouraging both children and teachers to articulate and discuss their

reasoning and problem-solving (e.g., Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Whitebread et al., 2007).
Pr
Furthermore, research in classrooms has shown that certain types of instructional practices are

most effective for facilitating SRL. These practices include: explicit teaching and modeling of

SRL strategies, including explicit feedback that links increased performance with specific
In

strategies employed (i.e., enhanced metacognitive awareness), as well as gradually decreasing

the support (i.e., external regulation) provided by the teacher so that the students begin to

internalize—or self-regulate—their learning (e.g., Perels, Merget-Kullmann,Wende,

Schmitz, & Buchbinder, 2009; Hattie et al., 1996). Finally, though small-group participation

structures tend to be particularly beneficial for enhancing SRL (e.g., Whitebread et al., 2007),

whole-group instruction can also be facilitative of SRL when it provides independent and group

decision-making opportunities (Perry, 1998), contextualized practice of SR and content-specific

strategies (e.g., Danoff, Harris, & Graham, 1993), opportunities to collaborate (Whitebread &

Coltman, 2007), and a supportive environment where risk-taking is encouraged and errors are

viewed as valuable learning opportunities (e.g., Perry, 1998).

s
es
Pr
In
 References

Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2002). Dynamic measures for studying interest and learning. In P. R.

Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: New directions

in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 43–76). Amsterdam: JAI Press.

Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D., & Geffner, R. (1978). Interdependent interactions and prosocial

behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 16-27.

Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R., & Burns, S.

s
(2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early

es
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 299–313. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.03.001

Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading
Pr
comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian approach to early

childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

In

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian approach to early

childhood education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by

any other name. Human Development 21, 108-125.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In

Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, ed. K.

McGilly, 9, 229-272. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Brown, A. L., & Kane, M. J. (1988). Preschool Children Can Learn to Transfer: Learning to

Learn and Learning from Example. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493-523.

Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning

and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–108.

Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the

writing process in the regular classroom. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 295-322.

Denney, D. R. (1975). The effects of exemplary and cognitive models and self-rehearsal on

children’s interrogative strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 476-488.

s
es
Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Huylebroeck, A. (2006). Metacognitive skills in Belgian third grade

children (age 8 to 9) with and without mathematical learning disabilities. Metacognition and

Learning, 1(2), 119–135. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-8152-9

Pr
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves

cognitive control. Science (New York, N.Y.), 318(5855), 1387–8.

In

doi:10.1126/science.1151148

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition

and Communication 35, 365-387.

Guthrie, J. T., Klaudia, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading

instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research

Quarterly, 48 (1), 9-26.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., and VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on

motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 231-

256.

Hallahan, D. P., Kneedler, R. D. and Lloyd, J. W. (1983). Cognitive behavior modification

techniques for learning disabled children: Self-instruction and self-monitoring. In J. D.

McKinney and L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 207-

244. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2009). Metacognition and children’s

s
writing. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in
es
education (pp. 131-153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J. & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
Pr
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99-136.

Karabenick, S. A., & Newman, R. S. (Eds.). (2006). Help seeking in academic settings:
In

Goals, groups, and contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of Self-Regulation: A Systems View. Annual Review of

Psychology, 44, 23-52.

Matthews, J. S., Kizzie, K. T., Rowley, S. J., & Cortina, K. (2010). African Americans and

Boys: Understanding the Literacy Gap, Tracing Academic Trajectories and Evaluating

Learning-Related Skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 757-771.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification. New York: Plenum Press.

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking: A

Sociocultural Approach. London: Routledge.

McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at-risk for early academic

problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

15, 307-329.

Morrison, F.J., Ponitz, C.C. & McClelland, M.M. (2010). Self -regulation and Academic

Achievement in the Transition to School. In S. Calkins & Bell, M.A., (Eds.), Child

Development at the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition. (pp. 203-224).Washington,

s
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
es
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Pr
Perels, F.; Merget-Kullmann, M., Wende, M., Schmitz, B., Buchbinder, C. (2009). Improving

self-regulated learning of pre-school children: Evaluation of training for kindergarten

teachers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 311-327.

In

Perry, N.E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 90, 715-729.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.

R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452-502). New York:

Academic Press.

Pintrich, P.R. & De Groot E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated components of classroom

academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-50.

Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S. & Kirschner, B. W. (1989). The acquisition of expository writing

skills. In J. N. Mason (Ed.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 261-290). Newton,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 208-

223.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.

Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208.

Sektnan, M. McClelland, M.M., Acock, A.C., & Morrison, FJ. (2010). Relations between early

s
family risk, children's behavioral regulation, and academic achievement. Early
es
Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 464-479.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental processes.
Pr
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making
In

Science Accessible to All Students, Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.

Whitebread, D. & Coltman, P. (2007). Developing young children as self-regulating learners. In J.

Moyles (Ed.) Beginning Teaching Beginning Learning in Primary Education (3rd

ed).London: Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.

Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pasternak, D. P., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development of

metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and

peer-assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6, 433-455.

Whitebread, D., & O’Sullivan, L. (2012). Preschool children’s social pretend play: supporting the

development of metacommunication, metacognition and self-regulation. International

Journal of Play, 1, 197-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2012.693384

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J.

Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice

(pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

s
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
es
Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17.
Pr
In