190 WOLTERS

REGULATION OF MOTIVATION 191

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 38(4), 189–205

Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Regulation of Motivation: Evaluating an

Underemphasized Aspect of Self-Regulated Learning

Christopher A. Wolters

Department of Educational Psychology

University of Houston

Self-regulated learning is often described as a function of students’ motivation, cognitive strategy use, and metacognition. The purpose of this article is to emphasize regulation of motivation as another important aspect of self-regulated learning. To achieve this goal, a specific conceptual understanding of regulation of motivation is proposed and used to clarify theoretical distinctions between this process and motivation, metacognition, and volition. In addition, the diverse nature of this regulatory activity is established by reviewing evidence showing students’ useofseveralspecificstrategiesfortheregulationofmotivation.Theimportanceofthisprocess ishighlightedbydiscussinglinksbetweentheseregulatorystrategiesandindicatorsofstudents’ motivation,cognitiveengagement,andachievement.Finally,aguideforadditionalresearchrelated to the theoretical definition, measurement, development and instruction of strategies for

REGULATION OF MOTIVATIONWOL ERS

regulating motivation is identified.

Models of self-regulated learning emphasize that students are more effective when they take a purposeful role in their own learning (Pintrich, 2000; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000). Research in this area has emphasized that self-regulated learners are autonomous, reflective, and efficient learners who have the cognitive and metacognitive abilities as well as the motivational beliefs and attitudes needed to understand, monitor, and direct their own learning (see Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). The focus of this article is on the regulation of motivation, an essential but less investigated aspect of self-regulated learning.

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

The specific characteristics most often attributed to self-regulated learners concern their motivational beliefs or attitudes, their cognitive strategy use, and their metacognitive abilities. Regarding motivation, self-regulated learners are thought to hold a collection of adaptive beliefs and attitudes that drive their willingness to engage in and persist at academic tasks. Specifically, these students

Requests for reprints should be sent to Christopher A. Wolters, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston, 491 Farish Hall,

Houston, TX 77204–5029. E-mail: cwolters@uh.edu

tend to be highly self-efficacious individuals who are focused on increasing their level of mastery and who view the material they are learning in school as valuable, interesting, and useful to know (Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Wigfield, 1994).

At the same time, self-regulated learners are viewed as having a large arsenal of cognitive strategies that they can readily and skillfully deploy to accomplish different academic tasks. For instance, these students are proficient with a variety of rehearsal, organizational, and elaboration strategies (Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Self-regulated learners also are perceived as metacognitively skilled regarding their awareness and use of cognitive strategies (Butler & Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989, 1994). These students have a large store of metacognitive knowledge about learning strategies specifically, and about the learning process more generally (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990; Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000; Zimmerman, 1986). They are capable of monitoring their learning and generating internal feedback about their cognitive processing (Butler & Winne, 1995). They also are adept at modifying their learning behaviors in response to shifting situational demands or conditions (Zimmerman, 1989). In short, self-regulated learners have high levels of knowledge about different cog-

nitive learning strategies and have the ability to select, monitor, and regulate their use of those strategies when engaged in academic tasks.

REGULATION OF MOTIVATION AS A COMPONENT OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

Many models of self-regulated learning also presume that studentsmanageaspectsofthelearningprocessinadditionto their actual cognitive processing. Students’ ability to control aspects of their motivation, more specifically, is thought to have an impact on their learning and achievement. Research examining self-regulation from a volitional perspective, for example, has emphasized students’ efforts to increase their persistence or time on task (Corno, 1993, 2001; Kuhl, 1985). Motivationhasalsobeenidentifiedasoneareaofthelearning process that students actively self-regulate within social cognitive models of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1994). In line with this view, Pintrich (2000; Garcia & Pintrich, 1994) described resource management or effort control as an important component of students’ self-regulated learning. Finally, Boekearts (1995, 1997) depicted the active management of affective and motivational processes as an important part of self-regulated learning. In sum, there is some agreementintheliteraturethatstudentsmayacttomonitorandregulate their motivation or the processes responsible for their motivationandthatthisformofself-regulationcanultimately have an impact on their learning and achievement.

Thepurposeofthisarticleistoevaluatethetheoreticaland empirical research concerning regulation of motivation to emphasizeitsimportancetostudents’self-regulatedlearning. To achieve this goal the remainder of the article is divided into four sections. In the first section, a working definition of regulation of motivation is provided. In the second section, the theoretical distinctions between regulation of motivation and motivation, volition, and metacognition are evaluated. In the third section, this conceptual understanding is used to identify and describe a number of strategies that students might use to regulate their motivation within academic contexts. As part of this discussion, the empirical evidence relating these strategies to students’ choice, effort, cognitive engagement, or academic performance is reviewed. Finally, in the fourth section, several key issues related to regulation ofmotivationareidentifiedasaguideforadditionalresearch.

REGULATION OF MOTIVATION AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER ASPECTS OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

To define regulation of motivation, the meaning of achievement motivation itself needs to be clarified. Behaviorally, theories of motivation attempt to explain outcomes such as students’ choice of activities, the intensity of their effort or level of cognitive engagement within those activities, and their persistence at those activities (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Winne & Marx, 1989). Historically, efforts to understand and explain these behavioral outcomes have relied on factors that include instincts, internal drives or traits, behavioral associations, and psychoanalytic forces (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In contrast, more contemporary models of motivation emphasize the importance of cognitive constructs suchasstudents’causalattributions,perceptionsofself-competence, value, interest, feelings of self-determination, and reasons for engaging in an activity (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

From a cognitive perspective, motivation can be characterized as either a product or a process (Winne & Marx, 1989).Whenviewedasaproductorstate,motivationrefersto a student’s willingness to engage in and persist at a task. At any particular time, students have a level of motivation that they experience phenomenologically and that influences their choice, effort, and persistence regarding a particular activity. For example, students can experience the phenomenological state of being interested, feeling self-efficacious, or wanting to master an activity. Motivation also can be viewed as the process or processes that account for students’ level of motivation or goal-directed behavior (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). From this perspective, motivation refers not just to an end state but also to the means through which that state is determined, and more generally to the cognitive processesthatgovernstudents’choice,effort,andpersistence (Winne & Marx, 1989). For instance, motivation would include the processes that account for a student being interested,feelingself-efficacious,orwantingtomasterataskand the impact of these states on students’ behavior. Within this discussion, the term motivation is used broadly to refer to bothstudents’levelofmotivationaswellastheprocessesthat account for that level of motivation.

Consistent with this inclusive view of motivation, regulation of motivation can be described as the activities through which individuals purposefully act to initiate, maintain, or supplementtheirwillingnesstostart,toprovideworktoward, or to complete a particular activity or goal (i.e., their level of motivation). This form of regulation is achieved by deliberately intervening in, managing, or controlling one of the underlying processes that determine this willingness (i.e., the processes of motivation). Regarding behavior, the regulation of motivation (or motivational regulation) encompasses those thoughts, actions, or behaviors through which students act to influence their choice, effort, or persistence for academic tasks. Consistent with general descriptions of strategies (Alexander et al., 1998), a strategy for the regulation of motivation (or motivational regulation strategy) can be characterized as a procedure used by individuals in a purposeful and willful manner to influence their motivation. To the extent that such a strategy is instigated, monitored, and directed byastudent,italsocanbeidentifiedasaself-regulationstrategy and one factor in determining whether that student is a self-regulated learner.

As conceptualized here, motivational regulation is one process that operates within the larger system of self-regulatedlearning.Assuchitisrelatedtobutconceptuallydistinct from other processes considered critical to self-regulated learning including motivation, volition, and metacognition.

Distinguishing Between Motivation and Regulation of Motivation

Although deeply interrelated, the process of motivational regulation can be conceptually distinguished from the processes that account for motivation itself. Most notably these two processes can be differentiated based on the awareness and purposefulness of students’ thoughts and actions. Self-regulated learners are considered to be consciously and intentionally engaging various regulatory strategies to accomplish specific learning goals, especially in the initial stages of using a strategy (Pintrich, 2000; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000). Consistent with this view, regulation of motivation concerns only the thoughts and actions through which students deliberately try to influence their motivation regarding a particular activity.

Cognitive models of motivation, in contrast, do not typicallyproposethatstudentsnecessarilyareawareoftheunderlying processes that determine their motivation or that they purposefully intervene in these processes. For example, attribution theory proposes a process in which the causal attributions that students identify as responsible for their success or failure at a task sparks an emotional response and influences students’ later expectations for success (Weiner, 1986). Together these emotions and expectations influence students’ willingness to engage in similar tasks encountered in the future. Students’ understanding and active control over the attributionalprocessisnotnecessaryfortheseeffectstoberealized. In contrast, students must exhibit a conscious level of understanding and more active control to self-regulate this motivationalprocess.Boekaerts(1992)describedthisdistinctionasthedifferencebetweensubjectivecontrol,meaningactions influenced through beliefs and perceptions, and active control, meaning conscious intent to manipulate. Kuhl highlightsthisdifferencebyreferringtothefactorsinfluencingthe metalevel of decision making regarding one’s actions as executional preferences, while using the labels “motivational” or “emotional” preferences for those factors influencing the more traditional process of motivation (Kuhl & Kazen-Saad, 1988; Kuhl & Kraska, 1989). Theories of motivation emphasize the subjective control that various beliefs andattitudeshaveonstudents’choice,effort,andpersistence, whereas the regulation of motivation concerns students’ active control of the processes that influence these outcomes.

Thistheoreticaldistinctionbetweentheprocessofmotivation and the regulation of motivation mirrors the division that can be drawn between students’ cognitive processing and their regulation of cognition (Pintrich et al., 2000). As with this latter distinction, the difference between the process of motivation and the regulation of motivation can become somewhat fuzzy. For example, self-efficacy has been labeled a “self-regulatory process” and its role in students’ motivation has been described as the self-regulation of motivation (Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Self-efficacy does reflect a belief about the self and it does have a significant influence on motivation and ultimately on students’ self-regulated learning. In line with the aforementioned distinction, however, this influence does not necessarily include any deliberate thoughts or actions by the individual. As an example, students may avoid activities because they do not feel efficacious about completing them (Bandura, 1997). This influence on choice, though, may not and may never have been consciously understood or controlled by the learner. Following the current understanding, therefore, the traditional influence of self-efficacy on students’ choice, effort, or persistence would be considered motivational, whereas only some awareness and intentional management of this process by the student would be considered the regulation of motivation.

Despite this theoretical distinction, motivation and the regulation of motivation are likely to have a complex and interdependent relation. The need to use a motivational regulation strategy may only be triggered when students experience problems with their ongoing level of motivation, learning, or performance.Itispossiblethatstudentswillsometimesbegin and complete a task with a consistently high level of motivation and thus may not experience any obstacles that interrupt their initiation, engagement, and persistence at the task. During such times students are unlikely to engage any regulation strategiesintendedtoinfluencetheirmotivation.Thisreasoning suggests that students who express highly adaptive motivational beliefs and attitudes may sometimes use motivational regulation strategies less frequently than students with less adaptive beliefs and attitudes may.

Incontrasttothisratheridealsituation,studentsoftenhave some positive level of motivation yet experience potential motivational obstacles as they are preparing for and completing their academic work. For example, students may face boredom, difficulty in making progress, or distractions in the environment. Theoretically, the ability to regulate their motivation under these conditions should allow some students to overcome these problems and maintain a more productive level of engagement in the task. Hence, students who productively regulate their motivation should experience fewer situations in which they choose not to begin a task, provide inadequate effort, or disengage before a task is complete. Under these conditions, students’ use of motivational regulation strategies should be positively associated with their motivation, their effort, and their performance.

Adding to the complexity of the relation between motivation and the regulation of motivation is the fact that some effort and thus some initial level of motivation are necessary to engageanyregulatorystrategy.Althoughitultimatelyshould result in an increased level of motivation, the regulation of motivation is also an effortful process that itself must be initiatedbysomeminimalwillingnesstocompleteatask.Itseems doubtful that students who completely lack any expectation of success, who do not value successful completion of a task in the least, and who are not committed to finishing the task for any reason, will activate a strategy designed to ensure that thetaskisaccomplished.Fromthisperspectivestudentsmust possesssomeminimumwillingnesstoengageandcompletea task or else when they encounter motivational problems they will fail to regulate their motivation and quit the task altogether. This assumption is supported by empirical evidence showing that students with more adaptive motivational beliefs tend to report using some motivational regulation strategies more frequently (Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000).

Overall, this line of reasoning suggests a theoretical relation between students’ motivation and motivational regulation that is reciprocal and perhaps curvilinear. This relation is reciprocalinthatstudents’motivationaffectstheiruseofmotivational regulation strategies, while at the same time the use of motivational regulation strategies influences students’ ongoing motivation. It may be curvilinear because this relation is likely to be strongest among students with a moderate level of motivation, while weaker for students with very high or very low levels of initial motivation. Research that tests these assumptions empirically is needed to clarify and better establish the nature of these hypothetical relations, and to explore how the regulation of motivation fits with specific models used to explain motivation.

Distinguishing Between Regulation of Motivation and Metacognition

Like motivation, metacognition is often viewed as a core element necessary for self-regulated learning (Butler & Winne, 1995; Pintrich et al., 2000; Zimmerman, 1994). Historically, researchonmetacognitionhasrootsthatstretchintomanyareas of psychology including work focused on cognitive development, memory, executive processing, and learning strategies (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Flavell, 1979; Kluwe, 1982; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987). Perhaps because of this heterogeneous backgroundanexactandenduringdefinitionofmetacognitionand its constituent processes has at times proven to be elusive (Baker, 1994; Paris & Winograd, 1990; Wellman, 1983). Nevertheless, metacognition is most frequently described as consisting of at least two theoretically distinguishable components including regulation of cognition and knowledge of cognition (Brown et al., 1983; Flavell, 1979; Pintrich et al., 2000; Schraw & Moshman, 1995).

Narrowly defined, regulation of cognition describes students’ efforts to monitor, control, or adjust their cognitive processing in response to shifting task demands or conditions (Baker, 1994; Brown, 1987). Activities typically viewed as efforts to regulate cognition include planning how to complete a task, selecting the cognitive strategies one will use, monitoring the effectiveness of the strategies one has chosen, and modifying or changing the cognitive strategies one is using when problems are encountered (Pintrich et al., 2000; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Generally, the research on this facet of metacognition indicates that students who more effectively regulate their cognitive strategy use tend to show more adaptive performance or achievement outcomes (Baker, 1994; Butler & Winne, 1995; Pressley et al., 1987; Schraw & Moshman, 1995).

The regulation of motivation and the regulation of cognition are conceptually similar except that the purpose, object, or target of these two regulatory activities is different. Strategies for the regulation of cognition are meant to affect students’useofcognitivelearningstrategiesorhowstudentsare processing, constructing, or understanding the material with which they are interacting. In contrast, strategies for regulating motivation ultimately are meant to affect students’ willingness to process information, to construct meaning, or to continueworking.Strategiesforregulatingmotivationdonot necessarily influence how students are completing activities, but why they are completing them, or for how long they are completing them. A student using a motivational regulation strategy, for instance, may be intentionally pushing herself to continueworkingonatask,butsheisnotnecessarilymodifying the cognitive activities she is using to complete it. She may be using memorization before as well as after engaging the motivational regulation strategy.

Theoretically, strategies for regulating motivation and strategiesforregulatingcognitionarecloselyrelatedandmay be used in conjunction with one another (Boekaerts, 1997). For example, the aforementioned student, recognizing that memorization is not working, may decide to outline and answeradjunctquestions.Thistypeofchangeincognitivestrategies would be the result of a metacognitive process. At the same time the student may activate a strategy to regulate her motivation to sustain the effort needed to engage in this more effortfulcognitiveprocessing.Alternatively,astudentrecognizing that she is bored and frustrated with a reading may engage a strategy to increase her persistence while also changing to a form of cognitive processing that requires less effort. In short, though they can be distinguished conceptually, the regulation of motivation and the regulation of cognition are expressions of the same underlying self-regulatory systemandlikelyworkintandemundermanycircumstances. Thus, it may be difficult to differentiate empirically between regulation that is motivational and regulation that is metacognitive in particular cases.

Knowledge of cognition, the second component of metacognition,includesstudents’understandingorstoredinformation regarding the thinking and learning process. This aspect of metacognition has been differentiated based on whether the knowledge pertains to the person, to tasks, or to strategies, and into declarative, procedural, and conditional forms of knowledge (Baker, 1994; Flavell, 1979; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Students’ knowledge of the thinking and learningprocessisviewedasanimportantprerequisiteforthe regulatory aspects of metacognition and thus for students’ self-regulated learning (Pintrich et al., 2000).

In a similar fashion, students’ regulation of motivation is likely to be dependent on their metalevel knowledge regarding motivation. This knowledge might include information regarding their current level of motivation, the processes that impacttheirmotivation,andthefactorsthataffectmotivation more generally. In other words, the influence of students’ metamotivational knowledge on their use of motivational regulation strategies would mirror the impact of students’ metacognitive knowledge on their use of strategies for regulating cognition. In theory, students would need to have declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge pertaining tostrategiesforregulatingmotivationtousethemeffectively. Metalevel knowledge about motivation would also be importantwhenmakingdecisionsaboutwhichmotivationalregulation strategy would be most effective within a particular context, or when making decisions about how to modify a strategy to fit a specific situation. Students who lack the requisite knowledge of motivation may fail to use a particular strategy for regulating motivation, or they may fail to use it effectively.

Previous research provides some insight into the importance of students’ metalevel knowledge regarding motivation. For example, developmental changes in students’ knowledgeorbeliefsabouteffortanditsrelationtoabilitycan influence their level of motivation and perhaps their self-regulated learning more generally (Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriquez, 1998). Still, motivational research has tended to focus on beliefs and attitudes that influence motivation through subjective control rather than on knowledge that is important for the active control of motivation (Boekaerts, 1992). For instance, much research has examined developmental changes in how competent students feel about completing academic work and how these changes relate to students’motivationandachievement(Wigfieldetal.,1998). In contrast, studies that focus on whether students are aware of these changes—or are aware of how their feelings of competence impact their choice, effort, and persistence at academictasks—arelessreadilyavailable.Generally,additional research is needed that directly investigates the thoughts or beliefs that can be categorized as knowledge of motivation, when this knowledge develops, and how this knowledge influences students’ cognition and motivation.

Distinguishing Between Regulation of Motivation and Volition

The notion of will or volition appeared early in the history of psychology(e.g.,Ach,1905;James,1890)althoughitsprominence has waxed and waned especially regarding explaining behavior within academic settings (see Corno, 2001; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1985, for reviews). More recently, volition has been emphasized by Kuhl (1985) and Corno (2001) as a way ofunderstandingstudents’self-regulatedlearning.Infact,the regulation of motivation discussed up to this point appears similar and indeed has much in common with volitional accounts of self-regulation. Regulation of motivation and volition both convey the importance of understanding how students manage disruptions in goal-directed behaviors. For instance, each construct can be used to explain how students manage distractions or other problems that might interfere with the timely completion of their academic work. In addition, regulation of motivation and volition both recognize as significant the distinction between motivational processes and students’ ability to regulate or purposefully control those processes. Finally, explanations of the regulation of motivationandvolitionaresimilarinthattheybothhighlightthefact that the management of goal-directed behavior is accomplished through the use of various strategies that, at least initially, are consciously controlled by the learner.

Despite these commonalities, students’ management of their motivation is conceptualized and presented in this review from a more general social cognitive perspective of self-regulated learning. One reason for adopting this view of self-regulated learning is that it assumes a more fluid, ongoing interaction between students’ motivational, cognitive, and regulatory processing (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000). Volitional perspectives on self-regulation emphasize the distinction between motivational processesorthosethataccountfortheselectionofwhichgoalsto pursue, and volitional processes that are important for protecting the intention to pursue that goal (Corno, 2001; Kuhl, 1985).Forexample,thetransitionfromprocessingthatismotivational to processing that is volitional has been depicted as crossing the Rubicon, a change that is difficult to undo (Corno, 1993). Social cognitive views also acknowledge that theself-regulationprocesscanbedescribedasincludingforethought, performance, and self-reflection phases (Zimmerman, 2000). From a social cognitive perspective, however,thedistinctionamongthesephasesisviewedasless absolute,andtheinteractionamongtheprocesseswithineach phase more dynamic. For example, self-efficacy as a motivational process is thought to be important within each of these phases (Schunk, 2001). This more dynamic view is advantageous for understanding the regulation of motivation because many of the strategies described in the following section appear to operate across the forethought, performance, and self-reflection phases of task completion.

A second reason for using a social cognitive framework to understand the regulation of motivation is that this framework makes it easier to tie this process to contemporary views of motivation. Cognitive views of motivation are not limited to explaining students’ selection of particular goals, or to their choice of activities or behaviors. Rather, cognitive views of motivation extend into the activities associated with completing a task to understand, explain, and predict students’ quality or intensity of engagement and ongoing persistence at a task (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Theoretical accounts of self-efficacy, interest, and goal orientations, for example, propose to explain students’ level of cognitive engagement and ongoing effort at academic tasks and not just their selection of particular goals (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Hence, a strict volitional account of the motivational process as involving only the selection of goals appears somewhat incongruent with many contemporary cognitive views of motivation. Adopting a social cognitive perspective allows for a clearer understanding of how the regulation of motivation and specific motivational constructs may be related throughout the process of self-regulated learning.

The distinction between the regulation of motivation, as presented here, and volition is also evident when evaluating each in relation to the regulation of cognition and to self-regulation itself. As described earlier, the regulation of motivation is portrayed as a somewhat parallel process to the regulation of cognition that focuses on explaining how individuals’ control their motivational rather than their cognitive processing. At the same time, the regulation of motivation is viewed as a component or as one of several processes that contribute to students’ self-regulated learning. Theoretical descriptions of volition, in contrast, portray it as encompassing both the regulation of cognition and the regulation of motivation, thus making it more analogous to the process of self-regulation more broadly. For example, Corno (2001) and Kuhl (1985) both described students’ control of cognition and control of motivation as types of volitional strategies. In addition, the terms volition and self-regulation are often used interchangeably or as synonyms for one another within the volitional research. In comparison to volition, therefore, the regulation of motivation can be viewed as a more limited process that is perhaps more consistent with students’ use of motivational control strategies than with volition more broadly.

STRATEGIES FOR THE REGULATION OF MOTIVATION

As one critical dimension of self-regulating learning, students may know about and use many different strategies to regulate their motivation. In this next section, research relevant to students’ use of strategies for regulating motivation is reviewed. This review is not intended to be exhaustive in that it does not cover every possible way in which students’ may regulate their motivation, nor does it present all the research aboutanyparticularstrategy.Rather,thegoalofthisreviewis to substantiate the significance of this process by identifying and describing several key activities that can be considered strategiesforregulatingmotivationandbyevaluatingtheevidence linking these strategies to students’ motivation, cognitive engagement, and achievement.

Self-Consequating

A prototypical way in which students regulate their motivation is through the use of self-administered or self-provided consequences for their own behavior. This strategy includes students’ identification and administration of extrinsic reinforcementsorpunishmentsforreachingparticulargoalsassociated with completing a task. An example of this strategy would be a student who, when reading a textbook chapter at the library, states to herself, “If I finish reading this chapter I can buy myself an ice cream cone on the way home.”

Typically, individual’s use of rewards has been emphasized and in some research this process has been labeled “self-reinforcement.” However, students may rely on punishments as well as reinforcements for influencing their motivation and shaping their own behavior. For instance, a student might say to himself, “If I don’t finish reading this chapter I can’t go to the gym to work out as I had planned.”

Evidence indicating that students can use concrete consequences to affect their own behavior is readily available. For example, Jackson and Malloy (1983, 1985) found that students who provided themselves with rewards completed more arithmetic problems than students who provided themselves with punishments or students who did not self-consequate. In earlier studies such as these, however, self-consequating was viewed from a more behavioral perspectiveasamethodofself-conditioninginwhichtheassociation between certain stimuli (e.g., being in library) and certain responses (e.g., studying) were strengthened.

Research derived from volitional and social cognitive perspectives has highlighted this strategy as a form of self-regulation (Corno & Kanfer, 1993; Kuhl, 1985; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1990). In this research, providing oneself with a consequence for continued effort on a task is one method that students may use to purposefully maintain the pursuit of their established intentions. For example, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986, 1990) read elementaryandhighschoolstudentsseveralshortscenariosinwhich they were asked to report how they would overcome a typical academic problem and reach some identified goal. Students reported using self-consequating strategies, especially when asked about trying to finish homework when other more enjoyable activities were possible. Using a similar questionnaire and coding scheme, Purdie and Hattie (1996) found that Australian and Japanese high school students also reported using this type of strategy.

In addition to using concrete rewards or behavioral activities as a means of influencing their motivation, students may also make verbal statements to themselves while they are engaged in a task as a more immediate and perhaps more subtle method of self-consequating their behavior. Students might saytothemselveswhileworking,“Youfinishedanotherproblem,goodjob,youaremakinggoodprogress.”Usingthistype ofstrategyforshapingone’smotivationandbehaviorhasbeen demonstratedwithintheself-instructionliterature(Graham& Harris, 1994; Graham, Harris, & Troia, 1998; Meichenbaum &Biemiller,1992).Forexample,studentshavebeentaughtto make self-praising or self-reinforcing statements to bolster their use of effective writing strategies (Graham et al., 1998). Hence, the statements, and the strategy of making the statements,areusedbystudentstoincreasetheireffortorqualityof effort in completing specific school tasks.

Evidence from several theoretical perspectives indicates that students may work to influence their effort and persistence through the process of self-consequating. Past findings, for instance, demonstrate that high achieving or gifted students use this type of strategy more frequently than other students (Purdie & Hattie, 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1990). Further, students who report using a self-consequating strategy also tend to report more adaptive motivational beliefs and the use of some cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies (Wolters, 1999; Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000). Finally, the use of self-reinforcing statements or thoughts has also been linked to more affective and emotional outcomes such depression and anxiety (Heiby, 1981,1983).Insum,researchindicatesthatself-consequating has been positively associated with increases in students’ effort, performance, and general well-being.

Goal-Oriented Self-Talk

Another regulation of motivation strategy rests on students’ desire to reach various goals associated with completing academic tasks. Like the self-reinforcing verbal statements described earlier, goal-oriented self-talk involves students’ use of thoughts or subvocal statements while they are engaged in anacademicactivity.Thecontentofthesethoughts,however, is different from simple statements that reinforce or punish particular behaviors. Instead, students using goal-oriented self-talk think about or make salient various reasons they haveforpersistingorcompletingatask.Mirroringrecentdistinctions in goal theory, Wolters (1998, 1999; Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000) has argued that the goals students highlight can be categorized based on whether they are associated with performance or mastery goals. For example, when faced with an urge to quit studying a student may purposefully think about getting high grades, doing better than others, or showing one’s innate ability or other performance-approach goals as a way of convincing themselves to continue working. Alternatively, students may subvocalize or think about various mastery-related reasons for wanting to complete an activity such as satisfying their curiosity, becoming more competent orknowledgeableaboutatopic,orincreasingtheirfeelingsof autonomy.

Research documenting students’ use of this type of motivational regulation strategy is limited. Results from Wolters (1998), however, suggested that students’ use of goal-oriented self-talk may be quite widespread among college students. In this study, undergraduate psychology students were asked to report what they would do if they were faced with several different motivational problems but wanted to continue to work at the task described. In their written responses, students provided many different ideas about how to overcome the hypothetical motivational problems. The most frequently reported strategy, however, was self-talk related to highlighting or emphasizing different performance-approach goals (Wolters, 1998). Although reported much less frequently, results from this study also indicated that at times students would highlight mastery related goals for wanting to complete the task.

The evidence linking goal-oriented self-talk to behavioral indicators of students’ motivation is also limited. Wolters (1998) did not examine the relation between specific strategies and any engagement or performance outcomes. Performance-oriented self-talk was, however, a component of a larger category of strategies labeled “extrinsic regulation” thatwaspositivelyrelatedtostudents’performancebutnotto their use of cognitive strategies. In contrast, a larger category of strategies labeled “intrinsic regulation” that included mastery-oriented self-talk was positively associated with several higher order cognitive strategies including critical thinking. Wolters (1999) found similar results in a group of 9th- and 10th-grade students. On the one hand, mastery self-talk was associatedwithgreateruseofplanningandmonitoringstrategies, and with a self-report measure of students’ effort. Performance self-talk, on the other hand, was positively associated with rehearsal and regulation strategies, and with students’ classroom performance. Hence, there is some evidence that students engage in goal-oriented self-talk, and that using this type of strategy may increase their effort and ultimately their achievement within academic tasks.

Interest Enhancement

Althoughstudentsmayuseself-talktoincreasetheirfocuson mastery-oriented goals, they may also work to increase aspects of their intrinsic motivation in more concrete ways. In particular, students may use strategies designed to increase their immediate enjoyment or the situational interest they experience while completing an activity. Sansone and her colleagues(Sansone,Weir,Harpster,&Morgan,1992;Sansone, Wiebe, & Morgan, 1999) highlighted this type of strategy when they studied how college students cope with boring or repetitive tasks. In these studies, students were required to copy an array of letters over and over by hand. Overall, these researchers found that some students who were required to complete this task would modify what they were doing to make the process less repetitive or boring. For instance, these studentswouldcopytheletterarray,butwhiledoingsowould creativelyalterthescriptusedtocopytheletters.Thismodification made the task somewhat more difficult, but it served to increasethestudents’motivationbymakingthetaskmoresituational enjoyable, interesting, or challenging to complete.

Regarding more authentic academic tasks, the college students in Wolters (1998) reported that they would “Make (studying) into a game,” or, simply, “Try to make (studying) more interesting” when faced with boring or uninteresting lectures or textbook readings. Hence, there is some evidence that indicates students may work to purposefully affect their situational interest for academic tasks. Additional research that documents the various ways students affect their situationalinterestandexamineswhethertheyregulatetheirmotivation using other forms of interest would be helpful.

Although not studied extensively, there is also evidence linking this type of strategy to greater effort and persistence. For instance, Sansone et al. (1999) found that students who engagedaninterest-enhancingstrategypersistedlongeratthe repetitive letter-copying task than students who did not use thistypeofstrategy.Similarly,Wolters(1999)foundpositive correlationsbetweenhighschoolstudents’reporteduseofinterest enhancement strategies and their self-reported effort, and use of metacognitive monitoring and regulation strategies. Wolters and Rosenthal (2000) also found that eighth-grade students who reported using interest enhancement strategies more often tended to report greater value for academic tasks and a stronger focus on learning goals. There was no clear relation between interest enhancement and students’ academic achievement in any of these studies.

Environmental Structuring

Another type of strategy that students may use to regulate their effort and persistence for academic tasks has been labeled “environmental control” within the volitional literature (Corno,1993).Inotherresearchthistypeofstrategyhasbeen expressed as resource management (Pintrich, 2000) or environmental structuring (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1990). Typically, this strategy is conceptualized as decreasingthepossibilityofoff-taskbehaviorbyreducingtheprobability of encountering a distraction or by reducing the intensity of distractions that do occur. For example, students in a bustling classroom might move to a relatively quiet corner to read,oracollegestudentmightselectasecludedspotinthelibrary to study. Alternatively, students may try to control their current environment more directly through such actions as asking fellow classmates to be quiet or by turning off a loud television or radio.

Results from Wolters (1998) indicated that college students use a variety of environmental structuring strategies to help ensure their completion of the academic tasks they are required to complete. The students in this study not only reported changing their location to a more suitable study environment, but also reported such things as eating or drinking foodthattheybelievedwouldincreasetheirlevelofattention, taking naps or short breaks to increase their readiness for study, and listening to music to become more attentive and ready to study. Thus, students worked to alter the environment to avoid distractions and to maintain their focus on the task, but they also managed their own physical and mental readiness for the task. Purdie and Hattie (1996) used a similar split in the type of environmental structuring reported by groups of high school students from Australia and Japan. Longer term strategies such as keeping a calendar with important deadlines noted or setting aside specific times for studying have also been described as forms of environmental structuring (Pintrich, 2000).

Environmental structuring has not typically been assessed and evaluated independent of other regulatory strategies. Consequently, there is little evidence that specifically links this form of motivational regulation to students’ effort, persistence, or performance on academic tasks. In one study that did evaluate environmental structuring separately, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) failed to find differences in the use of this strategy between gifted and nongifted or between older and younger students. More typically, this strategy is incorporated into a general measure of volition or self-regulationthatitselfisassociatedwithgreatereffort,persistence, or performance. However, it is impossible to conclude anything about the influence of students’ environmental structuring independently. Additional research that assesses the impact of students’ use of environmental structuring strategies apart from other forms of self-regulation is needed to better evaluate the importance of this type of regulatory strategy.

Self-Handicapping

Studentsusinganenvironmentalstructuringstrategyactively work to remove distractions or other obstacles that hamper motivation or impede their progress in completing a task. A relatedbutquitedifferenttypeofstrategyforregulatingmotivation involves the manufacture of obstructions before or during a task that make performing that task more difficult. This somewhat counter-intuitive regulation of motivation activity has been labeled “self-handicapping” (Riggs, 1992; Urdan&Midgley,2001).Puttingoffdoingworkuntilthelast minute, avoiding studying, and staying up late the night before an important exam have all been used as examples of how students self-handicap within academic settings. Evidencethatasignificantnumberofindividualsengageinthese sorts of behaviors regarding academic tasks most often has been found among college students (Eronen, Nurmi, & Salmela-Aro, 1998; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Rhodewalt, 1994) although students as young as the seventh grade have also been found to self-handicap (Urdan & Midgley,2001).Oneissuestilldebatedwithinthisresearchis whether students are consciously aware of and purposefully engage in self-handicapping behaviors, or whether they do so without forethought (Urdan & Midgley, 2001).

The motivational benefits of using this strategy are somewhat equivocal. In academic contexts, one possible reason that students self-handicap is that it allows them to attribute poor performance to factors other than low ability, thus helping to maintain their self-esteem or sense of self-worth (Martin et al., 2001; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). For instance, students can blame their low score on a test to staying up late drinking with friends rather than on a lack of ability. Self-handicapping may be motivationally adaptive to the extent that it achieves this goal and helps students to avoid a complete withdrawal from a task, course, or subject area. Clear empirical evidence documenting the links between self-handicapping and these long-term benefits is still needed (Urdan & Midgley, 2001).

A second possible and more immediate motivational advantage of this strategy may be that it allows students to shift from focusing on performance aspects of a task to concentrating more on the task itself. Because self-handicappers establish a clear excuse for not performing even before beginning a task, they may be able to relax and focus on doing the task as best they can without worrying about appearing inadequate in comparison to others or to some presumed criteria (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Deppe and Harackiewicz (1996) found support for this hypothesis in a study of college students in which self-handicapping was associated with the maintenance of intrinsic interest or enjoyment of a pinball-playing task. Self-handicapping behaviors, these authors reasoned, may serve to protect a person from the worries of performance evaluation and allow them to experience greater intrinsic motivation for a task. These findings are also in line with the characterization of self-handicapping as a self-presentation strategy. In this role, handicapping is not intended to sustain self-esteem as much as it is meant to provide an avenue for maintaining the public perception that an individual has high ability (Riggs, 1992; Urdan & Midgley, 2001).

Regardless of these possible benefits, self-handicapping is typically characterized as a maladaptive activity because, by definition, it serves to impede students’ optimal ability to complete a task. This effect has been born out empirically by research showing links between self-handicapping and a cycle of low effort and low task performance that may become more pronounced over time (Martin et al., 2001; Urdan & Midgley, 2001; Zuckerman, Kieffer, & Knee, 1998). For example, Midgley and Urdan (1995, 2001) found that self-handicapping is associated with lower achievement in middle school students. Even when linked with decreased anxiety and increased enjoyment of an activity, self-handicapping was tied to less time spent practicing the activity (Deppe & Harackiewicz, 1996). Hence, there is evidence suggesting that self-handicapping may be counterproductive as a regulation of motivation strategy. Additional research that examines the motivational impact of using this strategy, including both the immediate and long-term consequences, is needed to better evaluate whether this activity should be considered an adaptive way to regulate motivation.

Attribution Control

Self-handicapping entails students’ a priori manipulation of the causal attributions they will be able to make for an academic task. The causal attributions students make also can be manipulatedduringorafterataskandinawaythatmorepositively impacts their motivation. When using this strategy, individuals purposefully select causal attributions to maintain or increase their motivation for a task or for future tasks that are similar. Students may, for example, intentionally avoid blaming their academic setbacks on internal, stable, and uncontrollable causes because this type of attribution tends to lead to a helpless orientation (Weiner, 1986). Students may instead purposefully use attributions that reflect internal and controllable factors because they lead to more adaptive motivational outcomes.

The evidence that students actually use this type of strategyinapurposefulmannerismorecircumstantialthandirect. One form of indirect evidence supporting attributional control as a motivational strategy comes from studies showing that students’ attributions can be intentionally manipulated. Usingcarefullydesignedinterventionsstudentsrangingfrom elementary school to college have been taught in a variety of ways to make attributions for their failures and successes to more internal and controllable causes such as effort or the use of a particular learning strategy (Foersterling, 1985; Graham, 1991; Robertson, 2000).

Itisdifficult,however,toconsidertheattributionalcontrol documented in this research as a form of self-regulation because learners do not manipulate their own attributions. Instead, modeling, feedback, or reinforcement provided by a teacher, experimenter, or trainer is used to get students to make more adaptive attributions. Further, the interventions rarely provide students the knowledge and practice they would need to understand and to purposefully control their own attributional processes (cf. Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988). Evaluating attributional control as a form of motivational regulation and distinguishing it from changes in students’ attributions that result from training has not been pursued actively in this area of research.

A second form of indirect evidence for this motivational strategy comes from research indicating that some students understand the attributional process enough to manipulate it to their own advantage. For instance, students have been found to manipulate the public attributions they make so that teachers, parents, or peers will view them in a positive light (Juvonen, 2000). Analogous to this intentional control of publicattributions,itmaybepossibleforindividual’storegulate the attributions they make internally to affect their motivation. Research that specifically documents this form of attributional control and its subsequent effect on students’ effort and persistence is needed.

Another indication that students might be able to actively regulate the attributional process comes from research examining differences between process and product goals (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997, 1999). For example, Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1999) found that students who set learning process goals were subsequently more likely to make strategy attributions to explain their performance than students who focused on learning outcome goals. Strategy attributions, moreover, were found to be more motivationally adaptive in that they were correlated positively with self-efficacy and intrinsic interest. Hence, this research indicates that students may be able to purposefully impact their attributional processing by consciously selecting learning process goals over outcome goals when engaged in academic tasks. Whether students choose to pursue process goals with this end in mind has not been investigated specifically.

A final form of evidence indicating that students can become more conscious, reflective, and purposeful about the types of attributions they use for their own academic performances is anecdotal. After covering attribution theory in my own courses, many students have conveyed to me that they have caught themselves making maladaptive attributions for their low performance (e.g., blaming a lack of innate ability) andthatwhenthishappenstheyworktoidentifyanotherattribution (e.g., effort, strategy use) that would result in a more adaptive motivational outcome. These personal accounts suggest that some students may gain an understanding of the attributional process that allows them to monitor and adaptivelyregulatethetypeofattributionstheyusetoexplaintheir academic outcomes. Empirical support for this awareness and control, however, is not readily available.

The attributions that students make can impact their subsequent motivation for academic tasks (Wiener, 1986). Further, interventions that teach students to make more appropriate attributions have been found to improve outcomes such as choice, effort, and performance (Foersterling, 1985; Graham, 1991; Robertson, 2000). Overall, there is much research showing that attributions can be manipulated through external means and that the attributions students make can impact their motivation and performance. More research is needed to determine whether students engage in this type of regulatory activity without direct interventions, or in a way that is more directed at influencing their current motivation. Further, evidence specifically examining whether attributional control positively influences students’ effort and persistence is needed.

Efficacy Management

Students’ self-efficacy or beliefs about whether they will be successful on a given task are a powerful predictor of their choice, effort, and persistence for academic as well as nonacademic activities (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996). Students’ ability to monitor, evaluate, and purposefully control theirownexpectations,perceptionsofcompetence,orself-efficacy for tasks represents a significant form of motivational regulation. Because of the various influences on students’ expectationstherearemanywaysinwhichstudentsmightinfluence their self-efficacy for a task. Based on prior work, three strategies students may use to manage their perceived competenceforacademictasksareconsideredhere:proximal goal setting, defensive pessimism, and efficacy self-talk.

Proximal goal setting. Proximal goal setting consists of breaking complex or larger tasks into simpler more easily andquicklycompletedsegments.Forexample,astudentwho has 30 pages of textbook reading to complete may identify reading 10 pages as a short-term goal. This process may be viewed as a strategy for regulating motivation when students purposefullyandconsciouslyengageinproximalgoalsetting to affect their motivation for an academic task. As support for this type of strategy, Wolters (1998) found that when faced with difficult tasks college students indicated they would break down the activity and make it more manageable to sustain their efforts at completing the task. Although similar to the process of self-consequating, students using this strategy set and pursue proximal goals without necessarily linking them to any particular consequence.

There are concerns, however, with considering proximal goal setting a regulation of motivation strategy. One problem isthatsettingproximalgoalsmaynotbeaconsciousoractive process on the part of the student. Instead, teachers or experimenters often drive the goal-setting process (e.g., Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Another concern is that proximal goal setting may not be utilized to address motivational objectives. Instead students may set short-term goals to guide their cognitive processing during the task. Research that examines whether students purposefully use this strategy to influence their motivation for academic tasks would help to clarify these concerns.

Whether considered a type of regulation of motivation or not, previous research has found that providing students with short-term goals can raise their self-efficacy and subsequent motivation for particular tasks (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Locke & Latham, 1990). The goal properties of proximity and specificity have especially been tied to increases in self-efficacy and subsequent motivation. In a study of elementary school children with a history of poor performance in math, for instance, Bandura and Schunk (1981) found that setting proximal goals for a math task was associated with greater self-efficacy, interest, and effort when compared to setting more distal goals or not setting goals at all. Studies such as this one indicate that short-term specific goals can raise motivation. Further, self-set goals are viewed as more advantageous in affecting behavior than other-set goals. Hence, students should be able to positively influence their motivation by purposefully setting and monitoring their own proximal goals. The evidence available does not clearly establish whether students engage in proximal goal setting with this purpose in mind.

Defensive pessimism. A second motivational strategytiedtostudents’perceivedcompetencetocompleteatask has been labeled “defensive pessimism.” In this strategy, students highlight their level of unpreparedness, lack of ability, or other factors to convince themselves that they are unlikely to complete a particular task successfully (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Norem & Cantor, 1986). The anxiety associated with these lowered performance expectations is used strategically toincreasestudents’willingnesstoprepareandthusavoidthe outcomes associated with the anticipated failure. For example, college students identified as defensive pessimists described their behavior the night before an exam with statements such as “I think about how unprepared I am in order to get myself to work harder” (Norem & Cantor, 1986). This strategy is distinct from dispositional and realistic forms of pessimism in that it facilitates students’ performance and because the students who use it have generally performed quite well on academic tasks (Cantor & Norem, 1989). Like self-handicapping,oneconcernwithlabelingthisbehavioras a self-regulation strategy is that students may not be purposefully using this process to affect their motivation.

The few studies examining the academic benefits of defensive pessimism are inconclusive. In one study, students categorized as defensive pessimists and exposed to experimental conditions intended to facilitate this strategy performed better and reported lower levels of anxiety than similar students in conditions that disrupted their use of this strategy (Norem & Illingworth, 1993). In contrast, Martin et al. (2001) found reason to believe that defensive pessimism hasbothfacilitativeandnegativeeffectsonstudents’learning and achievement. In this study, one aspect of defensive pessimism (i.e., reflectivity) predicted higher levels of persistence and self-regulation, whereas a second part (i.e., defensive expectations) was related negatively to both of these outcomes. Defensive pessimism also may have long-term negative influences on motivation and achievement. Cantor and Norem (1989) found that college students identified as defensive pessimists during their 1st year of college earned lower grades and reported more frequent instances of worry 2 years later.Inlightofthesefindings,defensivepessimismmaybest beconsideredapreventativestrategythatfacilitatesstudents’ motivation and performance in the short run but may serve to hinder these outcomes in the long term. Additional studies that link defensive pessimism more directly to increased effort, persistence, and academic performance would help to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes associated with using this strategy.

Efficacy self-talk. A third motivational strategy related to students’ self-efficacy can be identified as efficacy self-talk. Students using this strategy engage in thoughts or subvocalstatementsaimedatinfluencingtheirefficacyforan ongoing academic task. Students might say to themselves suchthingsas“Youcandoit,justkeepworking.”or“Youare doing a good job; you are going to be successful if you just keepatit.”Thereissomeevidenceindicatingthatcollegestudentsusethistypeofstrategy.Forexample,asmallpercentof the students in Wolters (1998) reported this type of strategy. College students also moderately endorsed items that tapped into this type of self-talk when they were included on a broader measure of volition (McCann & Garcia, 1999).

Evidence specifically linking efficacy self-talk to effort, persistence, or performance is almost nonexistent. A larger grouping of motivational strategies that included efficacy self-talk was positively related to students’ use of some higher level cognitive strategies but not to course grade (Wolters, 1998). Bembenutty (1999) also found that, as part of a larger scale, efficacy self-talk was positively related to college students’ reported ability to persist at studying when more appealing alternatives were possible. Hence, the evidence linking efficacy self-talk to motivation and performance is unclear because efficacy self-talk has not been evaluated separate from other regulation strategies. Research examining the relation of efficacy self-talk to students’ motivation and performance is necessary to clarify the effectiveness of this strategy.

Emotion Regulation

Emotions and emotional reactions permeate the processes of self-regulation and of learning more broadly (Aspinwall, 1998;Carver&Scheier,1990).Evenforveryyoungchildren, the ability to regulate this aspect of one’s functioning is considered an important skill. From a developmental perspective, emotion regulation incorporates children’s ability to monitor, evaluate, and change the occurrence, intensity, or duration of a particular emotional experience (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Thompson, 1994; Walden & Smith, 1997). It may also include children’s ability to mask physical manifestations of an emotion they are feeling or to present physical signs of an emotion they are not feeling. The specific strategiesthatyoungchildrenusetomanagetheiremotionsinclude such behaviors as attention shifting (looking at something else), attention focusing (thinking of something else), tactile self-soothing (thumb sucking), and avoidance (leaving or avoiding particular situations; Rothbart, Ziaie, & O’Boyle, 1992; Thompson, 1994).

As a regulation of motivation strategy within educational settings, emotion control describes students’ ability to regulate their emotional experience to ensure that they provide effort and complete academic tasks (Corno, 1993; Schutz & Davis, 2000). In this context, emotional control is frequently viewed as necessary for reducing negative affective response and deleterious effects associated with performance evaluations (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995; Zeidner, 1998). Although mentioned less frequently, strategies designed to control positive emotions might also be important regarding academic functioning. For instance, students may purposefully control theirexcitementaboutseeingandwantingtotalktoafriendto maintain their efforts at studying.

Therearemanyspecificstrategiesthatstudentsmayuseto influence or cope with their emotional reactions such as slowly counting to 10, purposefully controlling their breathing so it is slow and deep, and wishful thinking (Knapp, Kukjian,Spirito,&Stark,1991;Schutz&Davis,2000).Individuals might also use inner speech to control their affective reaction, making statements such as “Don’t worry about the others;youaredoingfine.”or“It’snotgoingtohelptogetfrustrated; just keep trying.” Self-affirmation, a process by which studentsconductacognitivesearchforpositiveevaluationsof theself,alsohasbeendescribedasastrategyusedtoavoidnegative emotional experiences (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). As a whole,thereisampleevidenceindicatingthatschool-agechildren understand and use many specific strategies for regulating their emotional responses (Thompson, 1994).

The evidence linking this growing emotional sophistication to important academic outcomes, however, is less certain.Emotionalcontrolstrategieshavemostoftenbeentiedto students’ academic effort and performance within the test anxietyliterature(Spielberger&Vagg,1995;Zeidner,1998). Studies within this area indicate that test anxiety can have a debilitating influence on students’ academic performance andthatinterventionscanbeeffectiveinreducingtheanxiety that students experience (Zeidner, 1998). However, studies that specifically examine the relation between students’ use of coping or emotion regulation strategies and their academic performance have produced mixed results (Zeidner, 1998). Some studies have found a positive relation between using strategies to cope with test anxiety or stress and subsequent performance; whereas others have found no relation, or even a negative relation between them. More research examining the relation between emotional control as a regulation of motivation strategy and students’ choice, effort, and persistence is needed, especially in situations beyond those associated with tests or other performance evaluations.

Summary

Drawing together evidence from many areas, this brief review indicates that students may use many types of strategies to regulate their motivation for academic tasks. The range of strategies reviewed here demonstrates that there are forms of motivational regulation that are consistent with many of the most prevalent cognitive views of motivation. For instance, strategies linked to students’ motivation as outlined by attribution theory, self-efficacy, value, interest, and goal theory allwereidentified.Thesevariedlinksindicatethattheregulation of motivation is not tied to any one perspective on motivation, but can be viewed as a more ubiquitous self-regulatory process that is consistent with many models of achievement motivation.

Althoughlimitedinscope,theresearchreviewedherealso provides insight into the variety of academic outcomes that have been or might be linked to students’ use of strategies for the regulation of motivation. As might be expected, there is evidence that students’ use of motivational regulation strategies is associated positively with both conceptual and behavioral indicators of their level of motivation. For example, strategies for the regulation of motivation have been tied to motivational constructs such as interest and value, and to motivationaloutcomessuchaspersistenceandeffort(Sansoneet al., 1999). In addition, the regulation of motivation has been positively associated with the more cognitive and metacognitive aspects of self-regulated learning (Wolters, 1999).Consistentwiththesepositiverelations,theregulation of motivation has been tied to adaptive performance outcomes. For instance, research reviewed earlier indicates that students who use motivational regulation strategies are more likely to get better grades than students who do not regulate their motivation (Wolters, 1998, 1999).

Overall, the research reviewed here provides support for the importance of further integrating the regulation of motivation process into models of self-regulated learning. At the same time, it is clear that much more research documenting the nature and effectiveness of this process and of individual strategies is needed to provide a clear understanding of this important regulatory activity.

ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As part of the discussion up to this point, research needed to investigateparticulartheoreticalrelationsorparticularstrategieshasbeenhighlighted.Inthisfinalsection,abroadersetof issues related to the definition, development, measurement, and instruction of motivational regulation strategies are describedasafurtherguidetotheresearchneededinthisarea.

Definition

To be consistent with the definition presented earlier, a strategyfortheregulationofmotivationmustmeetatleasttwocriteria.One,studentsmustbeactinginadeliberateorpurposeful attempt to influence their level of motivation or the processes thatdeterminetheirmotivation.Two,thestrategyshouldactuallyfacilitateorimprovestudents’motivationandsubsequent performanceonacademictasks.Formanyofthestrategiesdescribed earlier, there is not enough information to clearly establish that both of these criteria are in fact satisfied.

Regarding the first criteria, it is unclear whether students use several of the strategies presented in the current review in an active or deliberate effort to influence their motivation. Under some conditions these strategies can be used without any conscious intent on the part of the student to affect their own motivation. Proximal goal setting and attributional control,forexample,oftenhavebeenusedbystudentsbecauseof instructional interventions (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Foersterling,1985).Hence,instructorsaredrivingtheregulatoryprocessandnotthestudent.Whetherstudentscontinueto use these strategies in a more conscious, deliberate, and active process has not yet been demonstrated directly. In a similar fashion, some strategies that act to regulate motivation may not be engaged purposefully by the student. Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism, for instance, apparently may be used without a conscious decision by the student (Martinetal.,2001).Additionalresearchisneededtosupport more clearly the view that students can knowingly use these strategies purposefully to sustain or increase their level of motivation.

Based on the second criteria, additional research evaluating the relations between students’ use of particular types of strategies and their motivation and performance on academic tasks is needed. By definition, one immediate goal of students’ regulation of motivation is to increase their effort, persistence, or choice of activities. This adaptive change in motivation ultimately should positively affect outcomes that more directly reflect students’ learning and achievement. Empirical evidence supporting these relations, however, can beconsideredincompleteatbestformanyofthestrategiesreviewed here. One reason for this problem is that prior work has tended to group strategies together into more general measuresofvolitionorself-regulationbeforeexamininghow theyarerelatedtolearningandachievement(e.g.,McCann& Garcia, 1999; Wolters, 1998). This research provides valuable evidence that self-regulation more generally is related to performance. Now, research that investigates the regulation of motivation or particular motivational regulation strategies would provide needed insight into this facet of self-regulated learning. As an example, research is needed to link goal-oriented self-talk to students’ level of engagement, persistence, and performance on academic tasks.

Alsorelatedtothesecondcriteriaistheneedtoexplorethe contextual or situational effectiveness of strategies for regulating motivation. A particular motivational regulation strategy is not presumed to be appropriate under all situations, nor in response to all motivational problems. For instance, an interest-enhancement strategy may not be effective if deployed in response to problems associated with frustration or perceived task difficulty. Theoretically, regulating motivation is mosteffectivewhenthestrategyselectedistiedtothemotivational problem experienced (or expected to be experienced) by the student. The effectiveness of strategies for regulating motivation also may be influenced by situational factors such as the stage of task completion or the social setting (e.g., Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Additional research that documents these situational influences would help to clarify the conditions under which strategies to regulate motivation most facilitate students’ performance.

Anotherdefinitionalissuethatneedsfurtherworkconcerns the relation of the regulation of motivation to other processes important for self-regulated learning. As argued earlier, the regulation of motivation is best viewed as one process, along with others like motivation and metacognition that together determine whether students self-regulate their academic learning. Additional research is needed to clarify how these differentprocessesinfluenceoneanother.Forinstance,itwas maintained earlier that motivation and the regulation of motivation have a complex relation in which they reciprocally influence one another. However, more empirical research is neededtoexplicatehowbesttomodelthisrelationatageneral level and regarding specific motivational constructs. At the same time, research that investigates the relative influence of these different processes on students’ cognitive engagement and achievement would also be informative.

Development

Anotherimportantareaofresearchconcernsthedevelopment ofstudents’abilitytoregulatetheirmotivation.Priorresearch has documented students’ regulation of motivation across a wide developmental period. For instance, there is evidence that children use strategies to avoid distractions and persist at tasks well before they reach school age (Metcalf & Mischel, 1999). Research also has documented forms of motivational regulation within elementary, secondary, and postsecondary student populations (Sasone et al., 1999; Thompson, 1994; Wolters,1999).Thedevelopmentalprogressoftheregulation ofmotivation,however,hasnotbeenmappedouttoanygreat extent. Hence there are several unaddressed yet important questions concerning the development of students’ regulation of motivation. For instance, what is the connection between earlier and later regulation of motivation activities? Howandwhendostudentsdeveloptherangeofstrategiesdescribed here? Charting the strategies that are used at different age levels, and examining the relations between students’ use of these strategies at early ages and older age levels, would serve to clarify these developmental questions.

Measurement

Moreworkisalsoneededtoaddressissuesrelatedtothemeasurementofmotivationalregulationstrategies.Aspectsofstudents’ regulation of motivation have been examined experimentally (Kuhl, 1985; Sansone et al., 1992), with oral interviews (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986), with open ended questionnaires (Wolters, 1998), with Likert scaled items (McCann & Garcia, 1999; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000), and through observation (Kuhl, 1985). Hence, there is evidence that aspects of this regulatory process can be assessed successfully usinganarrayofmethodologies.Thesevariousmethodsmust nowberefinedandimprovedtoincreasetheirvalidityandreliability across different contexts and groups of students.

One particular measurement issue that needs to be addressed is the ability to measure regulation of motivation apartfromotheraspectsofself-regulation.Attemptstoassess students’ use of strategies for the regulation of motivation havefrequentlybeengroupedwithotherregulatorystrategies into more global measures of self-regulation. For example, the questionnaire developed by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986, 1988) to assess self-regulated learning taps into 14 self-regulatory activities found in students at the elementary and secondary level. Whereas most of these activitiescanbedescribedascognitiveormetacognitivestrategies, a few tap into students’ regulation of motivation. In a similar way, a survey popularly used to assess self-regulation includes items that reflect students’ use of resource management or effort control strategies along with more cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies (Pintrich et al., 1993). Research using these instruments, furthermore, tends not to investigate the importance of motivational regulation independently or to distinguish these different regulatory processes (e.g., Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Reliable and valid measures of the regulation of motivation discrete from other self-regulatory processes are needed to evaluate better the relations between these processes, and to investigate their unique and joint effects on students’ learning and achievement. This goal might be achieved by augmenting those parts oftheexistingmeasuresthatalreadytapintostudents’regulation of motivation or by developing new instruments more specifically designed for this purpose.

Anothermeasurementgoalthatshouldbepursuedistodevelop measures that assess a broader spectrum of strategies for the regulation of motivation. Many of the efforts to assess this regulatory process have focused on a single or a small numberofstrategies(e.g.,Pintrichetal.,1993;Sansoneetal., 1992;Zimmerman&Martinez-Pons,1986).Thisisproblematic because the construct validity of an assessment is threatened when it fails to adequately reflect all aspects of the underlying theoretical construct in question (Pintrich et al., 2000). Hence, measures that purport to assess students’ regulationofmotivationmustsufficientlyreflectalltheimportant aspects(e.g.,strategies)underlyingthisconstructandnotjust a small set of them. This issue is also a concern when global measuresofself-regulationoveremphasizeregulationofcognition strategies and fail to include regulation of motivation strategies to a degree that reflects their importance to the process of self-regulated learning. The extent to which strategies for the regulation of motivation should be incorporated into these measures must also be pursued in future research.

Instruction

Instruction, or how the regulation of motivation might be fostered in students, represents a fourth area in need of further study. Students’ understanding and use of strategies for the regulation motivation should be amenable to instruction.

There is in fact evidence that students’ use of some of these strategies can be increased through well-designed instructional interventions (e.g., Foersterling, 1985; Graham et al., 1998; Zeidner, 1998). Building on this previous research, work is needed to investigate whether other types of strategies might also be fostered through instructional interventions.Inaddition,workisneededtorefinetheproceduresand conditions with which these strategies are best taught to students. For example, at what age will students most benefit from instruction in which type of strategy? Are there particular groups of students who would most benefit from instructioninthesetypesofstrategies?Byaddressingquestionssuch as these, the usefulness of strategies for the regulation motivation to the classroom teacher can be increased.

CONCLUSION

Motivation is consistently viewed as a critical determinant of students’ learning and achievement within academic settings (Graham &Wiener, 1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). More specifically,motivationisviewedasanimportantcomponent of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000; Winne, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000). At the same time, a lack of motivation is a frequent problem experienced by students at all age levels. Learning is an effortful process and academic tasks are fraughtwithobstaclesthatarelikelytointerferewithstudents maintaining an adaptive level of achievement motivation. Typical classrooms, for example, are often characterized by multiple tasks occurring at one time, a high level of noise and distractions, and many opportunities for off-task behavior (Schuell, 1996). Within this context, students are expected to focus on material or tasks that for many are viewed as boring, repetitious, difficult, or unimportant. The challenge to complete academic work outside the classroom can be even more difficult. When completing homework, students are asked to learn material or complete tasks that also may suffer from these same problems, and to do so without the structure or social pressures to finish that are present in the classroom. In light of these obstacles, students’ ability to actively influence their motivation to increase their choice, effort, and persistence at academic tasks is likely to be an important determinant of their self-regulated learning and achievement.

Despite its importance, students’ ability to regulate their motivation has not received the same level of attention as their ability to manage their cognitive processing. In this article, the need to better understand the regulation of motivation has been emphasized in three ways. First, it was argued that the regulation of motivation can be viewed as interdependent but conceptually distinct from other processes related to self-regulated learning including motivation, metacognition, and volition. Two, prior research bearing on the regulation of motivation was used to show a variety of distinct strategies that students’ can use to regulate their motivation within academic contexts. Further, this review indicated that there is some empirical evidence linking students’ use of some of these strategies to important motivational, cognitive, and achievement outcomes, although more evidence of these relations clearly is needed. Finally, several issues related to the conceptual understanding, measurement, development, and instruction of strategies for the regulation of motivation were identified to provide direction for additional research in this area.

REFERENCES

Ach, N. (1905). Über die Willenstätigkeit und das Denken. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung mit einem Anhange [On the will and thinking: An experimental investigation and supplement]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Alexander,P.,Graham,S.,&Harris,K.(1998).Aperspectiveonstrategyresearch: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154.

Aspinwall,L.(1998).Rethinkingtheroleofpositiveaffectinself-regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 1–32.

Baker, L. (1994). Fostering metacognitive development. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 201–239). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598.

Bembenutty, H. (1999). Sustaining motivation and academic goals: The role of academic delay of gratification. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 233–257.

Berglas, S., & Jones, E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy inresponsetononcontingentsuccess.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology, 36, 405–417.

Boekaerts, M. (1992). The adaptable learning process: Initiating and maintaining behavioral change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 377–397.

Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivational theories. Educational Psychologist, 30, 195–200.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 53–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Borkowski, J., Weyhing, R., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46–53.

Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell, & E. M.

Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (4th ed., pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.

Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

Cantor, N., & Norem, J. (1989). Defensive pessimism and stress and coping. Social Cognition, 7, 92–112.

Carver,C.,&Scheier,M.(1990).Originsandfunctionsofpositiveandnegative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.

Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22, 14–22.

Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman&D.Schunk(Eds.),Self-regulatedlearningandacademic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 191–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Corno, L., & Kanfer, R. (1993). The role of volition in learning and performance. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 19, pp. 301–341). Washington, DC: AERA.

Deppe, R., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Self-handicapping and intrinsic motivation:Bufferingintrinsicmotivationfromthethreatoffailure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 868–876.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T., Fabes, R., Shepard, S., Reiser, M., et al. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 112–1134.

Eronen, S., Nurmi, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (1998). Optimistic, defensive-pessimistic, impulsive and self-handicapping strategies in university environments. Learning and Instruction, 8, 159–177.

Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

Foersterling, F. (1985). Attribution retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 495–512.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom:Theroleofself-schemasandself-regulatorystrategies.InD. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: Issues and applications (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 5–39.

Graham,S.,&Harris,K.(1994).Theroleanddevelopmentofself-regulation inthewritingprocess.InD.Schunk&B.Zimmerman(Eds.),Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications(pp.203–228).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Graham, S., Harris, K., & Troia, G. (1998). Writing and self-regulation: Cases from the self-regulated strategy development model. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 20–41). New York: Guilford.

Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 63–84). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Heiby, E. (1981). Depression and frequency of self-reinforcement. Behavior

Therapy, 12, 549–555.

Heiby, E. (1983). Depression as a function of the interaction of self and environmentallycontrolledreinforcement.BehaviorTherapy,14,430–433.

Jackson,H.,&Molloy,G.(1983).Tangibleself-consequationandarithmetical problem-solving: An exploratory comparison of four strategies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 471–477.

Jackson, H., & Molloy, G. (1985). Some effects of feedback alone and four types of self-consequation on selected measures of problem solving.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1005–1006.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.

Juvonen, J. (2000). The social functions of attributional face-saving tactics among early adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 15–32. Kluwe, R. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind–human mind (pp. 201–224). New York: Springer Verlagg.

Knapp, L., Kukjian, J., Spirito, A., & Stark, L. (1991). Assessing coping in children and adolescents: Research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 309–334.

Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101–128). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1985). Historical perspectives in the study of action control. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 89–99). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Kuhl,J.,&Kazen-Saad,M.(1988).Amotivationalapproachtovolition:Activation and de-activation of memory representations related to uncompleted intentions. In V. Hamilton, G. Bower, & N. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 63–85). Boston: Kluwer.

Kuhl, J., & Kraska, K. (1989). Self-regulation and metamotivation: Computational mechanisms, development, and assessment. In R. Kanfer, P. Ackerman,&R.Cudeck(Eds.),Abilities,motivation,andmethodology (pp. 343–375). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Martin, A., Marsh, H., & Debus, R. (2001). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87–102.

McCann, E., & Garcia, T. (1999). Maintaining motivation and regulating emotion: Measuring individual differences in academic volitional strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 3, 250–279.

Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1992). In search of student expertise in theclassroom:Ametacognitiveanalysis.InM.Pressley,K.Harris,&J. Gutherie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 3–56). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19.

Midgley,C.,&Urdan,T.(1995).Predictorsofmiddleschoolstudents’useof self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389–411.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61–75.

Norem,J.,&Cantor,N.(1986).Defensivepessimism:Harnessinganxietyas motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208–1217.

Norem, J., & Illingworth, S. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of reflecting on self and tasks: Some implications of optimism and defensive pessimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 822–835.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.

Paris, S., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinkingandcognitiveinstruction(pp.15–51).Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Pintrich,P.R.,&DeGroot,E.(1990).Motivationalandself-regulatedlearning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.

Pintrich,P.,&Schrauben,B.(1992).Students’motivationalbeliefsandtheir cognitive engagement in classroom tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.),Studentperceptionsintheclassroom:Causesandconsequences (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.

Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Pintrich, P., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 4, pp. 89–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Purdie,N.,&Hattie,J.(1996).Culturaldifferencesintheuseofstrategiesfor self-regulated learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 845–871.

Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in self-handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62, 67–85.

Riggs, J. (1992). Self-handicapping and achievement. In Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 244–267). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Robertson,J.(2000).Isattributiontrainingaworthwhileclassroomintervention for K-12 students with learning difficulties? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 111–134.

Rothbart, M., Ziaie, H., & O’Boyle, C. (1992). Self-regulation and emotion ininfancy.InN.Eisenberg,R.Fabes,&A.Richard(Eds.).Emotionand its regulation in early development. New directions for child development (pp. 7–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sansone,C.,Weir,C.,Harpster,L.,&Morgan,C.(1992).Onceaboringtask always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379–390.

Sansone, C., Wiebe, D., & Morgan, C. (1999). Self-regulating interest: The moderatingroleofhardinessandconscientiousness.JournalofPersonality, 67, 701–733.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351–371.

Schuell, T. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 726–764). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Schunk,D.(1991).Self-efficacyandacademicmotivation.EducationalPsychologist, 26, 207–231.

Schunk,D.(2001).Social-cognitivetheoryandself-regulatedlearning.InB. Zimmerman&D.Schunk(Eds.),Self-regulatedlearningandacademic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 125–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schunk, D., & Ertmer, P. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schutz, P., & Davis, H. (2000). Emotions and self-regulation during test taking. Educational Psychologist, 35, 243–256.

Spielberger,C.,&Vagg,P.(Eds.).(1995).Testanxiety:Theory,assessment, and treatment. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Thompson, R. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. InN.Fox(Ed.),Thedevelopmentofemotionregulation:Biologicaland behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 25–72.

Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 115–138.

Walden, T., & Smith, M. (1997). Emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 7–25.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Weinstein,C.,&Mayer,R.(1986).Theteachingoflearningstrategies.InM. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching and learning (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

Wellman, H. (1983). Metamemory revisited. In M. Chi (Ed.), What is memorydevelopmentthedevelopmentof?Alookafteradecade(pp.31–51). Basel: Karger.

Wigfield, A. (1994). The role of children’s achievement values in the self-regulation of their learning outcomes. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 101–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., & Rodriquez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 23, pp. 73–118). Washington, DC: AERA.

Winne, P. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learningandacademicachievement:Theoreticalperspectives(2nded., pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Winne,P.,&Marx,R.(1989).Acognitive-processinganalysisofmotivation with classroom tasks. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 223–257). Orlando, FL: Academic.

Wolters, C. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.

Wolters,C.(1999).TherelationbetweenHighSchoolstudents’motivational regulationandtheiruseoflearningstrategies,effort,andclassroomperformance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 281–299.

Wolters, C., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between students’ motivational beliefs and their use of motivational regulation strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 801–820.

Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum.

Zimmerman, B. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313.

Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning and academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

Zimmerman, B. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation, A conceptual framework for education. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 2–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.

Zimmerman,B.,&Kitsantas,A.(1997).Developmentalphasesinself-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.

Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shiftingfromprocesstooutcomeself-regulatorygoals.JournalofEducational Psychology, 91, 241–250.

Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614–628.

Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.

Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.

Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects of coping, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1619–1628.

The post 190 WOLTERS REGULATION OF MOTIVATION 191 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 38(4), 189–205 Copyright © appeared first on PapersSpot.