Perhaps our most important quality as humans is our capability to self-regulate. It has provided us with an adaptive edge that enabled our ancestors to survive and even flourish when changing conditions led other species to extinction. Our regulatory skill and lack thereof is the source of our perception of personal agency that lies at the core of our sense of self. Understanding how this capability develops, its various subcomponents, and its functions has been a major thrust of social cognitive theory and research. Of equal importance is the explanation for common dysfunctions in self-regulatory functioning, such as biased self-monitoring, self-blaming judgments, and defensive self-reactions. This chapter will define self-regulation, and will discuss the structure of self-regulatory systems, social and physical environmental context influences on self-regulation, dysfunctions in self-regulation, and self-regulatory development. (http://books.google.fr/books?id=u9e1RWMbtjEC&lpg=PP1&hl=fr&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective.

The purpose of this article is to examine the contribution made by the self-efficacy component of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory to the study of self-regulation and motivation in academic settings. The difference between self-efficacy beliefs and other expectancy constructs is first explained, followed by a brief overview of problems in self-efficacy research. Findings on the relationship between self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and academic performances are then summarized. These findings demonstrate that particularized measures of self-efficacy that correspond to the criterial tasks with which they are compared surpass global measures in the explanation and prediction of related outcomes. The conceptual difference between the definition and use of expectancy beliefs in social cognitive theory and in expectancy value and self-concept theory is then clarified. Last, strategies to guide future research are offered.

Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings

Publisher Summary
Current research on goal orientation and self-regulated learning suggests a general framework for examining learning and motivation in academic contexts. Moreover, there are some important generalizations that are emerging from this research. It seems clear that an approach-mastery goal orientation is generally adaptive for cognition, motivation, learning, and performance. The roles of the other goal orientations need to be explored more carefully in empirical research, but the general framework of mastery and performance goals seems to provide a useful way to conceptualize the academic achievement goals that students may adopt in classroom settings and their role in facilitating or constraining self-regulated learning. There is much theoretical and empirical work to be done, but the current models and frameworks are productive and should lead to research on classroom learning that is both theoretically grounded and pedagogically useful.

The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning.

A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation was proposed and tested in a college classroom. Mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals were assessed and their antecedents and consequences examined. Results indicated that mastery goals were grounded in achievement motivation and high competence expectancies; performance-avoidance goals, in fear of failure and low competence expectancies; and performance-approach goals, in ach.ievement motivation, fear of failure, and high competence expectancies. Mastery goals facilitated intrinsic motivation, performance-approach goals enhanced graded performance, and performanceavoidance goals proved inimical to both intrinsic motivation and graded performance. The proposed model represents an integration of classic and contemporary approaches to the study of achievement motivation. Achievement motivation is a ubiquitous feature of daily life. In the classroom, at the workplace, and on the ballfield individuals strive to be competent in their effortful activities. In the past decade, many theorists have utilized a social-cognitive, achievement goal approach in accounting for individuals' competence-relevant strivings. "Achievement goal" is commonly defined as the purpose of task engagement (Maehr, 1989), and the specific type of goal adopted is posited to create a framework for how individuals interpret, experience, and act in their achievement pursuits (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989). Achievement goal theorists commonly identify two distinct orientations toward competence: a performance goal focused on the demonstration of competence relevant to others, and a mastery goal focused on the development of competence and task mastery (Ames & Archer, 1987; for similar conceptualizations with different nomenclature see Dweck, 1986; NichoUs, 1984). The adoption of a performance goal is hypothesized to produce susceptibility to a "helpless" pattern of responses in achievement settings (e.g., a preference for easy or difficult tasks, withdrawal of effort in the face of failure, and decreased task enjoyment), whereas the adoption of a mastery goal is presumed to lead to a "mastery" motivational pattern (e.g., a preference for moderately challenging tasks, persistence in the face of failure, and enhanced task enjoyment; Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). Most achievement goal theorists conceptualize both perfor

/pdf/a-hierarchical-model-of-approach-and-avoidance-achievement-1ffisu2rjd.pdf

A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation

A central tenet of economics is that individuals respond to incentives. For psychologists and sociologists, in contrast, rewards and punishments are often counterproductive, because they undermine "intrinsic motivation". We reconcile these two views, showing how performance incentives offered by an informed principal (manager, teacher, parent) can adversely impact an agent's (worker, child) perception of the task, or of his own abilities. Incentives are then only weak reinforcers in the short run, and negative reinforcers in the long run. We also study the effects of empowerment, help and excuses on motivation, as well as situations of ego bashing reflecting a battle for dominance within a relationship.

/pdf/intrinsic-and-extrinsic-motivation-7fbia6fbrl.pdf

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

This paper reports on a new self-report, Likert-scaled instrument that was designed to assess motivation and use of learning strategies by college students. The motivation scales tap into three broad areas: (1) value (intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation, task value), (2) expectancy (control beliefs about learning, self-efficacy); and (3) affect (test anxiety). The learning strategies section is comprised of nine scales which can be distinguished as cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies. The cognitive strategies scales include (a) rehearsal, (b) elaboration, (c) organization, and (d) critical thinking. Metacognitive strategies are assessed by one large scale that includes planning, monitoring, and regulating strategies. Resource management strategies include (a) managing time and study environment; (b) effort management, (c) peer learning, and (d) help-seeking. Scale reliabilities are robust, and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated good factor structure. In addition, the i...

Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq)

Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies.

The Effects of Autonomy on Motivation and Performance in the College Classroom

Self-Regulated Learning in College Students: 
Knowledge, Strategies, and Motivation 
Paul R. Pintrich 
The University of Michigan 
Teresa Garcia 
University of Texas at Austin 
Our research the past five to eight years has focused on self-regulated 
learning in college students and has been conducted in close 
collaboration with Bill McKeachie on a number of different grants and 
research projects. The first project that brought Paul Pintrich and Bill 
McKeachie together was a National Science Foundation grant to 
develop and research a Learning to Learn course (see McKeachie, 
Pintrich, & Lin, 1985; Pintrich, McKeachie, & Lin, 1987). From this 
early collaboration on how to teach college students learning strategies 
and improve their motivation, we then moved on to a program of 
research on college student learning in general, funded through a fiveyear OERI grant to the National Center for Research to Improve 
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL). It was then that 
Teresa Garcia joined the research team as a graduate student and has 
since been an active collaborator throughout these studies of college 
student learning. We did a number of correlational field studies of 
college student learning during this program of research (see Pintrich, 
1989; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991), as well as developed a general model of 
college student motivation and self-regulated learning (see McKeachie,Pintrich, Smith, Lin, & Sharma, 1990; Pintrich, 1988a, 1988b) upon 
which the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) is 
based (see Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). More 
recently, our College Student Research Group has been continuing its 
research on college student learning by investigating the role of 
intraindividual differences in motivation and self-regulation over time 
(see Pintrich & Garcia, 1994) and the application of our general model 
to specific classroom contexts like chemistry and calculus courses (e.g., 
Garcia, Yu, & Coppola, 1993).

Self-Regulated Learning in College Students: Knowledge, Strategies, and Motivation

Current research on student classroom learning stresses the importance of considering both motivational and cognitive components of academic performance (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Motivational components include students’ perceptions of the classroom environment as well as their selfrelated beliefs such as personal goals, self-efficacy, interest, and value beliefs. Cognitive components include students’ content knowledge as well as various cognitive learning strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration, and organization, and metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring, and regulating learning (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). Research in both experimental and field settings has consistently shown that positive motivational beliefs such as perceptions of high selfefficacy,a focus on mastery goals, high value and interest in the task or content, and low levels of test anxiety are positively related to greater cognitive engagement in terms of the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies as well as actual academic performance (see Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992 for a review).

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-011-0657-3_12.pdf

Teresa Garcia

Papers

Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq)

Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies.

The Effects of Autonomy on Motivation and Performance in the College Classroom

Self-Regulated Learning in College Students: Knowledge, Strategies, and Motivation

Assessing Students’ Motivation and Learning Strategies in the Classroom Context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire