Cognitive Modeling and Self-Regulation of Learning in Instructional Settings

Raising teachers’ awareness of the impact that their self-regulatory instructional practices could have on their students is critical to creating effective learning environments. (Winne & Hadwin, 2008; Zimmerman, 2013). As social models, teachers could use self-regulatory processes to empower learners to achieve high levels of personal, academic, and professional outcomes. Research that spans over 40 years supports the instrumentality of modeling when it is integrated with self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2013). Several of the initial studies conducted by Zimmerman and his colleagues (Zimmerman & Ghozeil, 1974; Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974) found that the development of new responses through observation of a model held the greatest potential for teaching cognitive or academic skills. In addition, these early studies provided evidence of the power of cognitive modeling to produce rapid learning, facilitate transfer to new tasks, and increase retention over time. However, up until recently, research studies often placed emphasis on the actions of the model, with little accounting of what the learner should be doing beyond “paying attention.”

Critical to effective modeling is the belief that learning and teaching are interactive processes in which both teachers and learners engage in planning, implementing, assessing, and reflecting on the process and outcomes. Self-directed and proactive integration of modeling and self-regulation results in a reciprocal interaction when teachers engage in behavior, action, and thoughts while demonstrating a task, and concurrently, learners engage behaviorally, cognitively, and resourcefully while attending to, retaining, producing, and sustaining motivation during the process of learning (White & Bembenutty, 2014, 2016). Self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to the degree to which students are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning processes (Zimmerman, 2013).

From the social cognitive view, effective learning encompasses a cyclical process at various developmental levels of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2000). The purpose of this article is to present a social cognitive view of modeling for instruction as an integral part of developing self-regulated learners in the classroom. Emphasis is placed on teacher–learner interactions that represent what the model (teacher, peer, or other) is doing to engage and monitor learners during observational learning segments. An integrated framework that incorporates both cyclical phases and hierarchal levels of attaining self-regulatory competence, with an emphasis on cognitive modeling, is applied to training competent, independent, self-regulated learners in 21st-century learning environments. The article provides an overview of the cyclical phases and developmental levels of SRL, a discussion of the significance of the role of cognitive modeling and SRL as key processes for learning, and detailed description of an integrated framework for SRL that emphasizes learner engagement during modeling segments.

SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

Instruction in SRL serves as a framework for metacognitive knowledge and skill acquisition that in turn develops students who are not only college and career ready but lifelong learners (White & DiBenedetto, 2015). Teaching and learning take place within a context, and within that context exists an interactive process of modeling and observational learning that can influence students’ self-regulation. Educators can set the pace for learning by paying closer attention to students’ behavior as they progress through the cyclical phases of self-regulation (i.e., forethought, performance, reflection) and advance through the levels of attaining self-regulatory competency (i.e., observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation). Instruction that supports SRL accounts for individual differences in students and, as a result, closely monitors students’ responses during modeling to assess SRL competency at each level.

CYCLICAL PHASES OF SRL

Zimmerman’s (2000) SRL model involves three cyclical phases during which learners engage in forethought, performance, and self-reflection. During the forethought phase, learners analyze the task for value and level of difficulty, identify appropriate learning strategies, set academic goals, examine their self-efficacy beliefs, and predict outcome expectancies. During the performance phase, learners self-monitor their academic progress, engage in academic delay of gratification and self-control, seek help when it is needed, and provide self-instruction. During the self-reflection phase, learners engage in self-evaluation, assessing their level of self-satisfaction of academic outcomes and adapting their performance depending on their attributions (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Zimmerman’s Cyclical Model of Self-Regulation of Learning

Adapted to include help-seeking in the performance phase from “Phases and subprocesses of self-regulation. Motivating self-regulated problem solvers,” by B. J. Zimmerman and M. Campillo, 2003, p. 239. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of problem solving, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Copyright by Cambridge University Press.

LEVELS OF COMPETENCE OF SRL

To develop self-regulatory competence, teachers guide their students through four levels of SRL development: (1) observation, (2) emulation, (3) self-control, and (4) self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000, 2013). The teacher models the desired behavior while supporting the students to engage in the behavior, gradually shifting to student-initiated self-control and self-regulation (Pape, Bell, & Yetkin-Özdemir, 2013). Self-regulation is attained when the learner can work on a task independently (White & DiBenedetto, 2015; Zimmerman, 2013). Observational learning from competent models, accompanied by support from those models, is significant to the process of attaining self-regulatory competency. Throughout the process, learners move from requiring additional modeling to retaining an image of the model’s actions while doing the task.

INTEGRATED LEVELS AND CYCLICAL PHASES

To provide teachers with a systemic and measurable approach to individual SRL development, Figure 2 depicts how cyclical phases of self-regulation are situated within the levels of attaining self-regulatory competency.

Figure 2. Integrated model of self-regulated learning

White, M. C., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2015). Self-regulation and the common core: Application to ELA standards. New York, NY: Routledge.

The process initially gives teachers control of the learning environment by carefully pacing students through each level of competency status and guiding them individually through the cyclical phases of SRL. This approach does not assume that everyone “gets it” at the observation level and is ready to move to the emulation level, where some retention of the modeled behavior is required to complete the task. The teacher recognizes that some students will require more time at the observation level than others before the modeled strategy is sufficiently retained to work a bit more independently.

MODELING: FUNDAMENTAL TO TEACHING AND LEARNING

The social cognitive view considers observational learning through modeling a fundamental aspect of learning (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1977) stated,

Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: From observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action. (p. 22)

Schunk (2001) referred to modeling as the process by which observers pattern their thoughts, beliefs, strategies, and actions after those displayed by one or more models. By observing live or symbolic models, learners form cognitive representations of the skills and form a basic understanding of how to replicate them (Schunk & Usher, 2013). Evidence derived from studies conducted by Schunk (1998) support the critical role of models during instruction as an important contextual factor that can promote self-efficacy, motivation, self-regulation, and achievement. Likewise, Zimmerman (2013) found that when models verbalized a rationale for their actions, the addition to their demonstration could significantly augment their power as instructors; this is what he later called “cognitive modeling.” The role of feedback is central to a learner’s emulation, and it is an essential part of reaching self-regulatory competence.

Modeling is a fundamental pedagogical process of a successful teaching and learning experience. It is inconceivable to enter classrooms where teachers are not engaging in modeling in one form or another. Textbooks introducing teachers to their profession include modeling as a practice aspiring teachers should understand and be able to perform in school (e.g., Ormrod, 2011). Yet, in spite of its pedagogical prominence, a research-based understanding of what modeling is and how it is demonstrated remains unclear to those who often report they have “modeled” a specific task or behavior (White & Bembenutty, 2014). Theoretical and empirical findings, and instructional approaches have recorded evidence of the effects modeling has produced over the last several decades (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Graham, Harris, & McKeown, 2013; Kitsantas, Zimmerman, & Cleary, 2000). Modeling has become one of the scientific-based implementations frequently used in the education of children with autism (Delano, 2007; Odluyurt, 2013).

Studies show that self-regulated learning can be learned from instruction and modeling by parents, teachers, coaches, and peers (Zimmerman, 2002; Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974). Teachers are charged with providing the context in which self-regulatory skills can be taught and developed, keeping in mind that learning how to be self-regulated takes effective modeling and time. Zimmerman and Schunk (1997) maintained that initially, students just might need extensive modeling, corrective feedback, and practice in addition to having instructional phases periodically repeated due to not “getting it” the first time a skill is modeled. The integrated framework for SRL incorporates extensive modeling and remodeling accompanied by corrective feedback for those students who take more time to retain an image of the modeled behavior. Therefore, it is in the best interest of learners that teachers and teacher candidates proactively engage in explicit modeling guided by specific outcome expectations and know what adjustments need to be made when the outcome expectations have not been met.

MODELING INFLUENCES LEARNING AND MOTIVATION

Classroom teaching that promotes interactive modeling (Marzano, 2007; Wilson, 2012) incorporates a combination of elements of effective teaching, which include modeling positive behaviors, engaging students in active learning, and immediately assessing their understanding. When modeling, teachers maintain a keen awareness of their students’ behaviors in order to monitor their engagement and motivation, going beyond the status of listening and paying attention. Motivation significantly influences observational learning because learners are more likely to retain and reproduce modeled actions that are important to them. Studies conducted using the self-regulated strategy development model to teach writing strategies have provided evidence of the significant effect of teachers’ modeling and the students’ participation as a helper in the planning of the first draft of a writing assignment (Harris, Graham, & Santangelo, 2013).

Learning complex skills requires specific actions to be observed with intention rather than simply watched. The influence of modeling on learning and performance depends on several factors, including the learners’ developmental status (Bandura, 1986), attention span, information processing, perception of usefulness, self-assessments of competencies, and capabilities of learning the specific skill. Observers are more likely to adopt skills from modeled behaviors that are useful and lead to successes rather than those that result in failure (Schunk, 2004).

NOT ALL MODELS ARE THE SAME

Recognizing that there are different types of models is critical to the successful use of observational learning as an instructional strategy. Whether the models are live or symbolic, observational learning has proved to be effective with students of all age groups and in various school subjects and professional development programs (Kitsantas et al., 2000; Schunk, 1998; Zimmerman 2013). Expert and peer modeling have both been found to be effective influences in helping students self-regulate their learning (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996).

Mastery models are effective when the task requires a competent and effective demonstration of a skill or strategy. Students perform competently from the outset, verbalizing a high level of confidence and ability along with a positive attitude (Schunk, 1998). Many students benefit from quick and rapid demonstrations and do not require a model who is transparent regarding challenges of completing the task successfully.

In contrast, coping models show their hesitations, express their doubts, and make errors, but gradually improve their performance and gain self-confidence. They illustrate their persistence and effort, and they verbalize positive self-reflections showing their observers how obstacles can be overcome (Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & Van den Bergh, 2002). In the early stages of learning, many students perceive themselves to be similar in ability to coping models. Graham, Harris, and Troia’s (1998) instructional sequence of strategies for writing is to first model the strategy; however, while the teacher models how to use the writing strategy, he or she includes coping model behaviors such as correcting errors and increasing self-efficacy by verbalizing self-reinforcement statements. Teachers who take on the attributes of a coping model by admitting to and correcting errors show students that even those who are experts are capable of making and correcting errors.

Peer models have been an effective way to help students learn and shape self-efficacy beliefs by their instructive function (Bandura, 1986). Peer models have been used to promote social learning experiences (Strain, 1981) with withdrawn children as well as training college students in self-regulation strategies (Orange, 1999). Schunk and Hanson (1985) connected peer modeling with self-efficacy, showing that peer models can enhance children’s self-efficacy for learning cognitive skills better than adult models. Elementary school children who had experienced difficulties learning to subtract were placed in three groups. One group observed a peer model learn subtraction with regrouping operations, the second group observed an adult model demonstrate the operations, and the third group did not observe any model. Children evaluated their self-efficacy for learning to subtract and then participated in a program of instruction. The results showed children who observed peer models had higher self-efficacy for learning the math operation as well as higher posttest self-efficacy and subtraction skills when compared with the teacher or no model conditions. However, observation of a teacher model had a better outcome than no model at all. One application of this outcome would be with younger students who may not initially feel capable of editing their written work. However, upon observing a peer self-edit using the interactive whiteboard or observing their teacher think aloud as he or she edits a writing sample, they are able increase their understanding of what is needed to perform the task.

Symbolic models can include either a real or fictional character demonstrating the behavior via movies, books, television, radio, online media, and other media sources. Video modeling has its origins in Bandura’s (1977) theory of social learning. The approach is based, in part, on the principle of allowing participants to view appropriate behaviors exhibited by relevant models in an environment that is relatively free from distraction. Many teacher education programs, state departments of education, and professional organizations have included extensive analysis of behaviors of models within the context of situations relevant to the specific area of study, including self-modeling (Rymal, Martini, & Ste-Marie, 2010; Star & Strickland, 2007).

MODELING SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

Research studies provide evidence on how information is conveyed through modeling and can be internalized by students to self-regulate and produce increased learning (Schunk, 2001). As stated earlier, learners’ acquisition of new skills becomes self-regulated in four sequential levels: observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation. The first two levels are in the context of social learning experiences with strong model presence and participation to prepare the learner to independently attain higher level skills. The learner can move from observation to emulation only after observation of modeling has led to retention of a clear image of how a skill is to be performed. Teachers who include assessment of an individual learner’s retention during and following the observation of a specific skill are able to differentiate which students are able to move ahead to emulating the modeled behaviors from those who need to remain at the observation level. Pape and colleagues (2013) argued that teachers should be more explicit with modeling and discussion of mathematical thinking and strategic behavior during early stages of learning. They proposed a framework for teaching literacy skills across grades and within content areas that take students’ SRL development into consideration when making pedagogical shifts.

Observational learning through modeling requires attention, retention, production, and motivation. Specific actions learned through observation require practice and feedback for skill refinement. Models who explain their judgments are more effective than models that display specific behaviors without verbalizations. How well a teacher models a new strategy can determine how well the observers are able to apply it. Verbalizing a strategy or “thinking aloud” can be used to achieve several goals: (1) it provides a method of inquiry to understand cognitive processing; (2) it serves as a method of instruction; and (3) it is an aspect of social interaction. Think-alouds have evolved to become an interactive experience between teacher and student during observational learning.

Observing models can have a significant influence on students who are uncertain about their own abilities. Teachers can serve as writing models and show students that even the best writers require strong models to emulate when creating new text (Gallagher, 2014; Griffith, 2010). In classrooms where writing is a cooperative effort, students also have opportunities to observe peers as they write. These vicarious experiences help create self-efficacy beliefs when students are uncertain about their own abilities (Pajares, Johnson, & Usher, 2007; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2014).

Benefits of modeling have been evident in children’s mathematical skill learning. Children who observed an adult verbalize and model division solution steps while applying them directly to a problem showed higher achievement and self-efficacy regarding the specific performance than children who only received written instructions. Schunk and Cox (1986) attributed outcomes of higher self-efficacy and achievement for students who observed adult models verbalize strategy descriptors and then proceeded to self-verbalize during problem solving.

MODELING OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT

A context in which models of instruction focus on the students’ use of specific processes to guide their learning diminishes the differences in personal talent and skill and enhances motivation in every learner. According to Bandura (2006), “Self-regulation is the capability of interest. The issue is not whether one can do the activities occasionally, but whether one has the efficacy to get oneself to do them regularly in the face of different types of dissuading conditions” (p. 311). Few students naturally self-regulate, which means they do not know how to plan, monitor, and assess their learning. To promote better learning habits and strengthen study skills, educators who encourage self-regulation provide opportunities for students to take charge of their learning. For teachers to encourage SRL processes in their students, they themselves must be self-regulated in their emotions, behaviors, and teaching and learning. The self-regulated teacher is essential to a well-managed instructional setting; how he or she sets the stage, directs the performance, and provides feedback are essential components of an SRL environment (DiBenedetto & White, 2013)

Present and future teachers are required to immerse themselves in the context of real school life to experience the interactive dynamics of teaching and learning all the way from the classroom to the principal’s office and out into the community. The 21st-century teacher must consistently evaluate how his or her beliefs, goals, values, perceptions, behaviors, classroom management, social relations, and arrangement of physical space impact the students’ understanding of the classroom. Social cognitive theory raises our awareness of the influence of contextual factors on learning and any attempt to self-regulate (Bandura, 1986). Learning environments that promote SRL are instructional settings where teachers and learners are not powerless victims of context, but rather proactive managers of their learning.

Research provides a substantial amount of evidence that self-regulation assists students in taking charge of their own learning; consequently, SRL strategies ought to be valuable for teachers as well. Teachers who focus on their own self-regulated learning skills are increasingly aware of their own teaching practices. Self-regulated teachers take charge of their own learning and through modeling encourage their students to do the same (Renyi, 1996). Table 1 provides an overview of some of the behaviors attributed to self-regulated teaching practices (White & DiBenedetto, 2015).

Table 1. Self-Regulated Teaching Practices

Most teachers are lifelong learners drawing from resources in their teaching environments to inform their work and professional growth (Little, 2007). The role of the self-regulated teacher in the classroom context goes far beyond the scope of the specific components outlined in Table 1. The behaviors that identify teachers who create and maintain a learning environment that promotes self-regulation are acquired over time and often follow many frustrating attempts to manage a classroom before doing a realistic self-evaluation. Pape et al. (2013) integrated the literature on SRL phases and levels as an educational intervention to support SRL in the mathematics classroom. The following framework of an integrated model (White & DiBenedetto, 2015) provides a sequential and cyclical approach to consistently integrating self-regulated learning in classroom settings that include the behavior of the teachers with formative assessment of students’ engagement.

THE BENEFITS OF AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE SRL IN THE CLASSROOM

The integrated framework provides clear directions on how lesson planning within the context of attaining self-regulatory competency can increase students’ use of self-regulatory learning strategies. The process requires teachers to monitor and pace students at each of the four levels of attaining self-regulatory competence while guiding them individually through the three phases of SRL. This section includes an application of the integrated framework to a generic grouping of students who are learning to accurately rate their self-efficacy for assigned tasks, self-monitor their progress, and self-evaluate their performances upon completion.

Evaluating self-efficacy at the four sequential levels of observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation during each phase of forethought, performance, and self-reflection while students are engaged in a task is a form of self-monitoring. As the demands of the task increase, students are encouraged by teachers to identify parts of the task that are particularly challenging and parts of the task that are easily accommodated. Students can be directed to use a

checklist aligning learning goals with self-efficacy ratings such as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2. Self-Efficacy Ratings of Learning Process Goals

The checklist includes learning process goals set by the teacher to serve as guidelines for students to rate their self-efficacy for different parts of the task while they plan (forethought), attempt (performance), and complete (reflection) a specific task. Rephrasing the learning process goals into questions to evaluate self-efficacy helps students fully engage in the process.

At the observation level, the teacher models how he or she would rate his or her self-efficacy for the task during all three phases by asking “Can I identify words for which I do not know the meaning using context clues?” The teacher thinks aloud, modeling specific inquiry techniques that show he or she is dissecting the demands of the task and evaluating his or her skill set to do the task successfully. Questions such as “Do I know what context means?” can help direct students’ attention on how important it is to dissect a task and evaluate whether they have the skills to complete the task before actually trying to do it unsuccessfully. The students help their teacher calculate a self-efficacy rating based on his or her verbalizations during modeling. A shift takes place at the emulation level, when students are supervised while they begin to evaluate their self-efficacy for the task. At the self-control level, students are given less supervision while they practice rating their self-efficacy to become increasingly accurate in ascertaining their skill set for a given task. Self-regulation is attained when students can independently remember to begin each task by rating their self-efficacy for the task with high accuracy. The following section is a detailed description of the process, including teacher actions and students’ responses.

Observation

To engage students in this process, the teacher models how he or she would evaluate his or her self-efficacy for the task. To motivate students to participate in the activity, the teacher provides each student with a copy of the Self-Efficacy Ratings for Learning Process Goals (see Table 2) displayed on the board. During the entire learning segment, sequentially detailed in Table 3, the teacher reminds the students to pay attention as he or she thinks aloud and enters self-efficacy ratings in the appropriate column based on their observations of the teacher’s actions. Moving through the cyclical phases of self-regulation, the teacher uses thinking aloud (verbal modeling) and visual aids to make his or her thought processes transparent.

<

Table 3. Teacher Action and Student Responses SRL Cycles: Observation Level

Emulation

At the emulation level, sequentially detailed in Table 4, the students are asked to rate their self-efficacy for attaining the learning goals under the close supervision of the teacher/model.

Table 4. Teacher Action and Student Responses SRL Cycles: Emulation Level

As they attempt to reference and emulate the image of the modeled segment, students are encouraged to ask questions and work with peers for clarification of confusing parts of the observation. The teacher distributes the same self-monitoring charts (Table 2) used at the observational level. During emulation, the teacher remains close by, observing the students practice rating their self-efficacy for the task as previously observed.

Self-Control

At the self-control level, sequentially detailed in Table 5, the teacher provides materials for students to demonstrate how well they can rate self-efficacy when provided with learning process goals for a similar lesson.

Table 5. Teacher Action and Student Responses SRL Cycles: Self-Control Level

At this point in developing self-regulatory competency, students should be able to independently approach specific tasks applying what they learned about the importance of accurately rating their self-efficacy with less teacher supervision.

Self-Regulation

At the self-regulation level, sequentially detailed in Table 6, students apply the strategies observed and practiced in previous levels to other settings when self-efficacy ratings are important while setting goals for subsequent tasks.

Table 6. Teacher Action and Student Responses SRL Cycles: Self-Regulation Level

They independently and without the presence of the model evaluate their strengths and weaknesses to successfully attain learning process goals. At this level, the teacher becomes a facilitator by providing opportunities for students to use their newly learned strategy outside of the classroom setting.

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The current global landscape of educational achievement stimulates comparisons between schools and educational systems, and as a result, the measurement of success is evaluated by the ability to prepare students to perform independently and take charge of their learning. This awareness has motivated many countries to take significant action in reforming their educational systems, with additional emphasis on critical thinking, problem solving, and metacognition. As a result, the outcomes include evidence of increased educational achievement (Heining-Boynton & Redmond, 2013; Schleicher, 2011).

This article provides theoretical and empirical research that directly associates modeling and self-regulation as two essential components for teaching effectiveness and academic achievement. Although thinking aloud and verbalizing thoughts during the demonstration of a strategy has become increasingly popular as a most effective practice in raising students’ awareness and increasing motivation (McKeown & Gentilucci, 2007), in most cases, learner engagement is not monitored and measured with specific outcome expectations.

Educational implications derived from the research conducted for this chapter call for future research to investigate the subtleties of social cognitive modeling, using qualitative and quantitative data to consider the functions of both the model and the observer during the learning segment. Making both the model and the observers fully aware of their functional roles and the behaviors that indicate proactive learning is critical to the success of learners in present-day classrooms. Furthermore, extensive work is required to provide educators with assessment tools to measure the demonstration of the model’s verbalizations and actions along with how problem-solving and critical thinking exercises are perceived and processed by the observer.

CONCLUSION

Rather than accepting the evolved representations of cognitive modeling, educators should consider developing a defined and measurable construct of modeling that can be applied to peer modeling, teacher modeling, video modeling, and self-modeling. Measurement of modeling effectiveness and students’ self-regulation should be incorporated into lesson planning with assessments of specific behavioral actions and responses targeted with outcome expectations for observational level goal attainment. In addition, more emphasis on training teachers how to prepare for observational learning segments would focus their attention on the organization of the task and the elements required to model the task. This involves:

•

Becoming fully aware that the characteristics of the model are critical to the success of the learning segment and using appropriate models should always be a consideration.

•

Knowing the observers and how to help them learn more effectively, including planning and using procedures and instructional cues that enhance the models’ performance and observers’ engagement.

•

Accounting for the variables that influence observational learning during modeling. Closely monitoring which cues are influencing student learning and when repetition is necessary.

•

Following the modeling process, doing a complete self-evaluation pinpointing the variable that enhanced or inhibited observational learning in preparation for the next modeling task.

Making both the model and the observers fully aware of their functional roles and the behaviors that indicate proactive learning is critical to the success of learners in present-day classrooms. The topic of cognitive modeling and self-regulation should stimulate further discussion and generate empirical evidence that can support the validity and practicality for implementation in the 21st-century classroom.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231.

Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415.

Delano, M. E. (2007). Video modeling interventions for individuals with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 28(1), 33–42.

DiBenedetto, M. K., & White, M. C. (2013). Applying the model of development of self-regulatory competence to mentoring. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 445–472). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Gallagher, K. (2014). Making the most of mentor texts. Education Leadership, 71(7), 28–33.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S.

Graham (Eds.), Handbook of research in learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 423–438). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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

Griffith, R. R. (2010). Students learn to read like writers: A framework for teachers of writing. Reading Horizons, 50(1), 49–56.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2013). Self-regulated strategies development in writing: Development, implementation, and scaling up. In H. Bembenutty, T. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry Zimmerman (pp. 59–87). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Heining-Boynton, A. L., & Redmond, M. L. (2013). The common core framework and world languages: A wake-up call for all. The Language Educator, 8(1), 52–56.

Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2000). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.811

Little, D. (2007). Introduction: Reconstructing learner and teacher autonomy in language education. In A. Barfield & S. H. Brown (Eds.), Reconstructing autonomy in language education: Inquiry and innovation (pp. 1–12). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McKeown, R. G., & Gentilucci, J. L. (2007). Think‐aloud strategy: Metacognitive development and monitoring comprehension in the middle school second language classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 136–147.

Odluyurt, S. (2013). A comparison of the effects of direct modeling and video modeling provided by peers to students with autism who are attending in rural play teaching in an inclusive setting. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 536–540.

Orange, C. (1999). Using peer modeling to teach self-regulation. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(1), 21–39.

Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1), 104–120.

Pape, S. J., Bell, C. V., & Yetkin-Özdemir, I. E. (2013). Sequencing components of mathematics lessons to maximize development of self-regulation: Theory, practice, and intervention. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines. A tribute to B. J. Zimmerman (pp. 29–58). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.

Rymal, A. M., Martini, R., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2010). Self-regulatory processes employed during self-modeling: A qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 24(1), 1–15.

Schleicher, A. (2011). The case for 21st century learning. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD Observer, 282/283, 42.

Schunk, D. H. (1998). Teaching elementary students to self-regulate practice of mathematical skill with modeling. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 137–159). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 201–209

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2014). Academic self-efficacy. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gillman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in the schools (2nd ed., pp. 115–130). New York, NY: Routledge.

Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 313–322.

Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2013). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. Ryan (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 13–27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2007). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7

Strain, P. S. (1981). The Utilization of classroom peers as behavior change agents. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

White, M. C., & Bembenutty, H. (2014, October). Teachers as culturally proactive agents through cycles of self-regulation. In S. J. Farenga (Chair), Implications of diversity toward the preparation of teachers for urban schools and communities. Symposium conducted at the biannual Department of Secondary Education and Youth Services Research Symposium, Queens, NY.

White, M. C., & Bembenutty, H. (2016, April). Transforming classroom practices of teachers and students through training in self-regulation. In A. Zusho & R. S. Blondie (Chairs), Promoting college and career readiness through self-regulated learning in the classroom. Symposium conducted during the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

White, M. C., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2015). Self-regulation and the common core: Application to ELA standards. New York, NY: Routledge.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Wilson, M. B. (2012). Interactive modeling: A powerful technique for teaching children. Turner Falls, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation research, and applications (pp.13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48, 135–147.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Ghozeil, F. S. (1974). Modeling as a teaching technique. Elementary School Journal, 74, 440–446.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1974). Observational learning of rule-governed behavior by children. Psychologist Bulletin, 81, 29–42.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 195–209.