The role of the self-system in self-regulated learning

CONTEMPORARY

EDUCATIONAL

PSYCHOLOGY

11, 314-332 (1986)

The Role of the Self-System BARBARA

in Self-Regulated

Learning

L. MCCOMBS

Until recently, general assumptions were made about the importance of the selfsystem in self-regulation (e.g., importance of self-concept. self-efficacy, self-esteem). but the more specific underlying structures and processes of the self-system that are involved in this self-management process were rarely addressed. This article presents theoretical and empirical support for a preliminary causal model of the role of the self-system in self-regulated learning. The model postulates that for self-regulated learning processes to be engaged. students must view themselves as activators of these processes (i.e., they must possess positive self-views in general as well as have specific perceptions of competency and control in pat-ticular learning situations). The model also postulates a recursive and reciprocal relationship between the processes involved. such that continual self-evaluations of competency and control can force changes in perceptions of self. the learning task, goal importance, etc.. that. in turn. exert continuing influences on motivation. use of self-regulatory processes. and actual task performance. Educational implications 1 IYXh Academic of the model are discussed along with future research directions. Pre,,.

Inc

The past 10 years have given witness to increased research and theorizing in two highly interrelated areas: the self-system and self-regulated learning. There have been, however, relatively few attempts to integrate the work in these two areas, particularly with respect to the role of the self-system in self-regulated learning and the implications of this role for the design of maximally effective educational interventions. An understanding of the self-system and its goal of maintaining positive self-evaluations, such that one’s sense of self-esteem or self-worth remains stable, promises to assist LIS in defining not only its role in executing the use of self-regulated learning processes and strategies, but also how we as educators can better enhance learning practices and cxpcrienccs that contribute to ongoing student efficacy and their commitment to the use of self-regulated learning strategies. This article focuses on the task of integrating some of the latest thinking and findings relevant to the role of the self-system in self-regulated learning, drawing on work in the areas of social, cognitive, educational, and developmental psychology. The case is made that the selfthrough which all information system operates as the base set of “filters” Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Barbara L. McCombs. tute, SSRE Division. P.O. Box 10127. Denver. CO 80210.

314

Denver Research Insti-

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

315

is processed, transformed, and encoded. The self-referent nature of this filtering process serves the purpose of maintaining illusions of control or self-determination that lie at the base of self-esteem maintenance. Without this self-serving bias or adaptive self-preservation coping ability, students are unable to generate the motivation to engage in the self-regulatory learning processes that allow them to take responsibility for the self-management of their learning activities. Students’ abilities to assume responsibility for their own learning, to maintain positive self-evaluations of competency and control, and to be motivated to acquire and use self-regulatory learning processes, however, are a product of both development and positive learning experiences. Until students develop a stable sense of positive self-identity which is reinforced by successful learning experience, it is not possible for them to engage in the type of self-evaluation processes that can generate the positive affect and motivation to be self-regulated learners. It is for these reasons that it is essential that we take up the challenge recently offered by developmental psychologist Susan Harter (1985) to seriously study the self-system and to take a truly integrative approach to understanding the processes that underlie the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of the self. In developing the preceding case, contemporary structural and functional definitions of the self-system are presented, along with a discussion of self-system processes and the role of the self-serving bias. Relationships between the structure, function, and processes of the self-system and self-regulated learning processes are then explored, a preliminary integrative model of the role of the self-system in self-regulated learning is presented, and the article concludes with a discussion of educational implications and future research directions. DEFINITIONS OF THE SELF-SYSTEM Prevalent theories of the self emphasize the structural and functional nature of self-system variables. From a structurcrl standpoint, the self has been viewed as a compound set of multiple, hierarchically organized cognitive structures or schemata that exert a powerful influence on attention, the organization and categorization of information, recall, and judgments about others (Eccles, 1983; Maehr, 1985; Marsh, Parker, & Barnes, 1985; Paris & Cross, 1983; Pervin, 1985; Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977; Shavelson & Bolus, 1982; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). There is a growing consensus that the organization of the self-system structure is not only hierarchical but self-enhancing, in the sense that one’s most positive and central traits or attributes are presented initially at the core, branching out to salient subschemata, and with less positive characteristics represented in the outer ring (Connell & Ryan, 1984; Harter, 1985;

316

BARBARA

L. MC COMBS

Rogers et al., 1977). As individuals develop from infancy into adulthood, they see themselves as a locus of causality and engage in a progressively higher order synthesis of their multiple systems of self-identification, with a reciprocal coordination and integration of fundamental self-system processes (Connell & Ryan, 1984). For these reasons, the self has come to be conceived as an extremely active and powerful agent in the organization of our reality and in helping us process personal data. In the view of Rogers et al. (1977) the self acts as the background or setting against which new information and prior experiences and knowledge are organized into personal schema. Similarly, in Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory it is implied that the self is a central processor of efficacy information which not only processes, but also weighs and integrates diverse information about one’s capabilities and regulates choice behavior and effort expenditure accordingly. Further, the nature of the self-structure has been described by Markus and Sentis (1982) as the largest and most available structure or set of structures in memory, and as the central and first structure through which all information flows. There is also considerable consensus that the self can be viewed as both the subject (causal agent) and object (how we perceive ourselves, our knowledge and feelings about ourselves) of experience (Kinch & Fdlk, 1983; Lewis & Brooks, 1978) or cognitive construction (Harter, 1982; Harter & Connell, 1984). Cohen, Dowling, Bishop, and Maney (1985) further distinguish that when the self is viewed as the object of one’s experience, an internal self-focus is maintained, whereas when the self is viewed as an active agent, an external self-focus is maintained in the sense of evaluating the effects of the self on the environment. Because the self is both an agent and an object, Kinch and Falk (1983) argue that we can treat ourselves as objects, which allows for self-interaction and self-knowledge or awareness of our personal qualities. Further, we can have both social identities and personal identities that we can use as conceptual descriptions of our attributes as objects in particular roles (Kinch & Falk, 1983). Gibbs and Schnell (1985) also discuss this ability to define ourselves both in the context of our relations with others and our own internal judgments. In a related vein, Iran-Nejad, Clore. and Vondruska (1981) describe two parts of the self-concept: an inherent self which is our sense of self at any particular time, and an acquired sense of self which is our particular ideas about our self that contribute to our self-image, self-esteem, and sense of self-worth. Those addressing the self and self-system from a developmental perspective generally agree that one’s judgments about the self are both global and domain specific. In Harter’s (198.5) work, for example, five self-domains have been found to be relevant in preadolescent and adolescent learners: scholastic competence. athletic competence, social com-

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

317

petence, social acceptance, physical appearance, and behavior/conduct. A sense of global self-esteem or self-worth is said to emerge about mental age 8 and is operationalized and measured as the discrepancy between domain-specific judgments and attitudes about the importance of success in each domain. Especially critical from a developmental framework is that until a child’s sense of self and personal identity develops into a uniform and well-structured concept, he or she does not have the ability to make use of a positive self-reference and focus in information processing during learning-a point I return to later. From aJirnc.tioncrl standpoint, a number of processes operative in the self-system have been identified. There is widespread agreement that the most important process is self-evaluation, particularly as it relates to one’s judgments of personal control and competence (self-efficacy) in general and in specific situations (e.g., Baird & White, 1982. 1984; Bandura, 1977, 1982; Connell & Ryan, 1984; Covington. 1985: Harter. 1982. 1985; Harter & Connell. 1984; Oka & Paris, 1985; Schunk, 1984: Showers & Cantor, 1985; Wang, 1983; Wang & Lindvall, 1984: Wang & Peverly, in press; Zimmerman. 198.5;Zimmerman & Pons, in press). Self-evaluations are also cited as important as they relate to evaluations of (a) understanding of the self and the learning task (Baird & White, 1982, 1984: Connell & Ryan, 1984); (b) learning outcomes (Bandura, 1977: Wang & Lindvall, 1984); (c) one’s own and other’s expectations (Eccles, 1983: Schunk, 1984); (d) the importance of the task and of doing well (Ecclcs, 1983; Harter, 198.5;Showers & Cantor, 1985): and (e) the cost or effort required (Eccles, 1983; Paris, Newman, & Jacobs, 1985). In addition to the process of self-evaluation, Harter (1982) lists two other self-system processes important to self-regulated learning: self-observation and self-reward. She further contends that all three of these self-system processes require attending to self as an active agent in engaging these processes and as an object or cognitive construction to which these processes are applied. Connell and Ryan (1984) identify a slightly different set of self-system processes in achievement-related behavior: specific and global self-evaluations, processes for coping with anxiety, processes for understanding locus of control for successes and failures, and motivational processes for initiating and sustaining goal-directed and task-involved activity. Connell and Ryan contend that these processes are in support of one’s striving to be competent and self-determined. Still other self-system processes that have been cited include selfperception or self-awareness (Eccles, 1983; Schunk. 1984) and self-monitoring and checking (Wang & Lindvall, 1983; Zimmerman & Pons. in press). All in all, these definitions and concepts about the self-system and its processes point to the active role of the self in constructing, interpreting,

318

BARBARA

L.

MC COMBS

selecting, and encoding information about ourselves and about reality. The self-referent or self-focused nature of our information processing further points to the “filtering” role of self-views and self-beliefs in information processing activities. The self-system structures and processes can be said to moderate our perceptions, expectations, judgments, selfstatements, and other cognitions-including information-processing variables such as encoding and retrieval. Developmental theories suggest that our self-system filters change with biological development, experience, and increased knowledge. What seems clear is that the self-system is the initial referent against which knowledge and experience is organized. As the development process proceeds and more complex cognitive structures and knowledge bases are defined, the self-system plays an increasingly active and powerful role in monitoring and orchestrating all mental, emotional, and physical activity. When viewed in this light, one realizes that every decision has a self-referent focus to a greater or lesser (conscious or unconscious) degree. One can then begin to examine the relationships between self-views (self-concept, self-image) and self-judgments or beliefs (selfesteem, self-worth, self-efficacy, self-control) as these relate to perceptions (of the task, of others, etc.), goals (self-protection, self-enhancement), motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic), the use of self-regulated learning strategies, and attributions of causes of learning outcomes. To better understand these potential relationships, however, it is necessary to more fully understand what has been termed the self-serving bias. SELF-SERVING BIAS: THE FUNCTIONAL SELF-SYSTEM

ROLE OF

PROCESSES

There is growing recognition among those concerned with self-system processes that there is an inherent need for individuals to establish and maintain a positive self-image and sense of self-worth. A strong proponent for this position is Covington (1985), who distinguishes between the perceptual bias in one’s privately held beliefs about the self and the descriptive distortion in one’s public image. He argues that there is a striving to maintain both images, to have them be internally consistent with one another, and to be credible in the eyes of others. In Covington’s framework, self-perceptions of competency are said to be the dominant manifestation of the self-worth motive in the classroom achievement context. Similarly, Tesser and Campbell (1982) present a self-evaluation maintenance model which posits that individuals are basically motivated to maintain a positive self-evaluation, The processes of reflection and comparison are said to effect self-evaluations as a function of particular social circumstances. Tesser and Campbell (1982) found that people with high self-esteem maintain positive evaluations of themselves primarily

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

319

through cognitive perceptual behavior such as perceiving the world in a self-serving way. On the other hand, people with low self-esteem were found to rely more on behavioral strategies (e.g., negative feedback) in their self-evaluations, with the effect that their evaluations were more accurate but not more adaptive. Mineka and Hendersen (1985) discuss the importance of individuals’ control experiences and personal beliefs in the development of a positive self-identity. Findings are presented in support of the fact that beliefs about one’s intelligence (ability) as stable versus growing differentiate external and internal orientations, respectively, and affect persistence. They maintain that perceptions of prediction and control are often inaccurate illusions that help to maintain self-esteem. Harter (1985) has also found a self-serving bias in high self-worth students. These students tend to slightly exaggerate their competence or adequacy, whereas low selfworth students judge themselves more harshly than even their teachers. As part of this process, high self-worth students-unlike low self-worth students-take more responsibility for their successes than for their failures. Marsh, Cairns, Relich. Barnes, and DeBus (1984) similarly report a positive correlation between the tendency to internalize responsibility and self-concept, particularly when the locus of responsibility is ability versus effort. This finding is taken to imply that attributes are more positively evaluated than behaviors, again indicating the presence of a self-serving bias or attempt to enhance and protect self-esteem. A further delineation of the relationship between the self-serving bias and attributions has been presented by Cohen rr al. (1985). They point out that when students are in a state of self-focused attentiveness (i.e., in ego-involving situations), causal attributions will be made to characteristics of the self and that protection of one’s self-esteem has major effects on the types of causal attributions made. Oka and Paris (1985) discuss this type of phenomena in terms of the concept of adaptive motivation, in which personal perceptions and effort are balanced in order to preserve self-worth. They argue that students will choose to engage in and pursue activities that permit them a feeling of efficacy and control and that fulfill their needs, goals, and values. In this way, motivation involves more than mere cognitive competence and may serve the function of preserving self-worth (Oka & Paris, 1985). The role of the self in this framework is to integrate one’s expectancies or beliefs about existence, competence, and control into decisions and plans for actions (Paris & Cross, 1983). McClelland (1985) points out, however, that individuals’ beliefs that they will be successful will not lead to their engaging in particular tasks or behaviors. In his view, to engage in activities, individuals need to be motivated and interested in the sense that they value the activity and it satisfies some personal motive (e.g., self-enhancement). In fact, McClel-

320

BARBARA

L. MC COMBS

land argues that values are more strongly related to choices made than the actual outcomes of the decisions. In his model, values directly influence the self-evaluation process that then calls into play self-beliefs, which, in turn, give rise to motives and action. With this background on the self-system’s structure, functions, and processes in mind, let us turn our attention to what have been described as self-regulated learning processes. SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

PROCESSES

There is a clear similarity between what have been cited as self-system processes and what others have named self-regulated learning processes. Bandura’s (1982) work sheds some light on this seeming overlap. He states that to be self-determined and self-regulatory requires “the tools of personal agency and the self-assurance to use them effectively” (p. 129). The “tools” Bandura refers to can include coping strategies, problemsolving and decision-making skills, goal setting, planning, as well as capabilities for self-evaluation, self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement (McCombs, 1984). Underlying one’s ability to self-regulate events is one’s sense of personal efficacy-one’s self-judgments that one can exercise the personal control necessary for self-regulation. As Schunk (1984) has explained, expectancies about how one’s performance will affect learning outcomes (derived from judgments of amount of personal control one can exercise) are differentiated from self-appraisals of what one can do (judgments of self-efficacy) in that positive self-control judgments can strengthen self-efficacy judgments. Some of the tools are thus self-system processes which may or may not be developed as a product of maturation or experience. As was discussed regarding the functionality of the self-serving bias in maintaining one’s sense of efficacy and control, a self-attention or self-focus is required along with the development of a positive self-identity. Scheier and Carver (1983) have argued that self-focus is the beginning of self-regulation. In their view, it is first necessary to compare what we bring to a task (perceptions of our skill and knowledge competencies) with what is required (standards or goals). We next have to judge whether there are discrepancies between what we bring and what is required, and to make decisions about whether or not to engage in an activity, what level of effort we will exert, and so on. Self-focus is said to engage a feedback loop which is the basic unit of cybernetic control. Harter (1982) makes a similar point and argues that young children do not yet have the skills required for self-attention, i.e., the skills required for self-evaluation and self-observation. Self-reference has been described by Rogers et ~1. (1977) as the process of involving the self-schema in information processing. To the extent that

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

321

a self-reference can be maintained while learning, it is said to be an encoding strategy that results in more enduring and retrievable memory traces (Rogers et al., 1977; Schmeck & Meier, 1984). Rogers et al. point out, however, that self-reference works as an encoding strategy only to the extent that the learner’s self-identity is a uniform, well-structured concept. When it is, it assists in organizing our information and prior knowledge and experience into more highly retrievable subschemata. Schunk (1984) has suggested that the nature of the cognitive processing in self-efficacy appraisals may be the same as in processing instructional information. The preceding theorizing is related to findings reported by Watkins (1984) and Schmeck (in press) on deep processing approaches that contribute to students’ sense of mastery and ability to be self-regulated learners. Watkins (1984) reports that self-esteem and locus of control are directly related to students’ perceptions of learning and their motivation to study. This motivation, in turn, influences students’ use of self-regulatory strategies and their grades. He also presents evidence that internal locus of control and positive academic self-concept are necessary for students to adopt deep-level learning processes. Schmeck (in press) reports that for these students who do not adopt deep processing approaches (due to external locus of control and low self-esteem), cognitive restructuring approaches which help students change their perceptions, assumptions, and beliefs about themselves and about learning are more effective. Such approaches are said to be effective because of their emphasis on the development of personal identity, independence, and responsibility. These findings are in line with Findley and Cooper’s (1983) literature review, which showed that (a) internal beliefs were associated with higher academic achievement and (b) the strength of the relationship increases with age. Further indication of the self-referent nature of processes related to self-regulated learning (i.e., attributions for success and failure) is provided by Eccles (1983). She makes the point that attributions play a critical role in the formation of self-concept of ability, but once these selfconcepts are formed, attributions may simply mirror one’s self-concept. She also points out that one’s self-perceptions, needs, and goals play a major role in the persona1 value one attaches to a particular task. Variables such as the importance of doing well (attainment value), the inherent and immediate enjoyment expected from engaging in the task (intrinsic or interest value), and the perceived importance of the task for some future goal (utility value) are also cited as contributing to the overall value of the task and whether students will choose to engage themselves in the types of activities (e.g., self-regulated learning processes) that promote task mastery. Other important mediators discussed

322

BARBARA

L.

MC COMBS

by Eccles (1983) include one’s sex-role identity and values, and the perceived cost of success or failures such as the perceived effort required, the perceived loss of valued alternatives, and what one perceives to be the psychological cost of failure (e.g., loss of self-esteem). The personal value students attach to a task is thus one variable that influences the use of self-regulated learning strategies. Paris et ul. (1985) emphasize that for learning strategies to be used (including self-regulated or self-managment strategies), learners must also personalize, contextualize, socialize, and temporalize them. In addition, judgments must be made regarding strategy utility and economy. According to Paris rt al. (1985), strategies are employed as goal-directed actions only after positive perceptions and evaluations of strategy, utility, and economy are made. In a related vein, it is also increasingly being recognized that affect plays a major role in self-system development and in the engagement of self-regulated learning processes and strategies. Iran-Nejad et al. (1981) have stated that “affect (emotional experience) is a consequence of the functional integration among various dynamics of mental functioning” (p. 45). These dynamic mechanisms are said to be awareness valence, attention, an inherent sense of self, and an acquired concept of self. The latter two mechanisms have been shown to be powerfully influenced by affect, in the sense that affect plays an active role in the organization of self-relevant information (Pervin. 1985). Harter (1985) has found that one’s sense of self (including one’s sense of competence and personal control) mediates affect and determines the extent to which one is happy or sad. The attributions one makes regarding performance have also been shown to differentially influence one’s emotional responses such as shame and pride (Weiner, 1980, 1983). In addition, feelings of confidence and of being in control have been cited as the affective component motivating self-evaluations of understanding (Baird & White, 1982, 1984). Harter’s (1982, 1985) research on causal relations between self-system variables, affect, motivation, and actual performance has indicated that students’ affective reactions to self-evaluations of competence are most strongly related to motivation to perform, and it is motivation that most directly predicts actual performance. Similarly, Showers and Cantor (1985) postulate that affect (or mood) is one of three (mood, goals, expertise) primary motivational factors that lead to one’s use of flexible cognitive strategies (i.e., self-regulated learning approaches). They claim that moods are the affective “tags” to other cognitive elements such as one’s self-evaluation or self-esteem. The self (as agent) can choose to maintain or alter moods based on flexible strategies and multiple interpretations. To do so, however, Showers and Cantor maintain that one has to have a relatively complex self-organization that is not easily “damaged.” It may very well be that low self-esteem students, whose problems have an early

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

323

developmental and/or experiential basis, have not developed the cognitive complexity necessary to organize information in such a way that it enhances or preserves self-esteem. Expertise is said to be involved in self-image maintenance in terms of one’s ability and motivation to respond to the situation, take control, generate multiple alternatives, and be receptive to change (Showers & Cantor, 1985). Showers and Cantor (1985) also cite the importance of personal self-goals (which are dependent on developing self-knowledge) for learners’ development of what they perceive to be appropriate strategies for processing information and planning how to act in specific situations. These self-goals are said to be primarily directed at self-esteem or self-concept maintenance. Connell and Ryan ( 1984) have argued that for self-regulation to occur, students must internalize (transform) regulation by external sources into regulation by internal forces. This internalization is said to be the process of taking on regulation of behavior as one’s own, which is fueled by needs for competence and self-determination. Internalization is further said to have a developmental progression in which. at first, the child’s regulation is extrinsic in the sense that he or she acts in response to the controls imposed by others. At the next stage, termed introjected, the regulators are approving and disapproving voices in the child’s head. The third stage is termed identification, in which young adults act in accordance with their own values and goals and see themselves as a locus of causality. Finally, the stage of integration is reached in which the more mature adult has synthesized his or her multiple self-identities and is able to engage in a reciprocal coordination and integration of fundamental self-system processes. According to Connell and Ryan (1984), then, selfregulation develops with the development of the self-with the internalization of selected external standards and the development of self-control and competence. This position is in general agreement with that presented by Zimmerman (1985) in his discussion of the development of selfregulation and the development of self-efficacy. This development is said to be a gradual process of internalizing self-regulation knowledge and skills through observation, direct teaching, and feedback from others. Wang and Peverly (in press) discuss students’ abilities to be self-regulatory in terms of capabilities for assuming self-responsibility. Antecedents of these capabilities which they cite include self-perceptions of competence and personal control as well as affective pleasure in task mastery. Metacognition or domain-general knowledge is also cited as an important antecedent of students’ capabilities for assuming self-responsibility, which includes knowledge about the characteristics of the self and others, the task structure, expected task goals, criteria, and resources required (including strategies or activities needed to think, understand, and comprehend). To self-regulate their learning, Wang and Peverly

324

BARBARA

L. MC COMBS

stress that students need to be able to use the processes of predicting, planning, strategy selection and use, and monitoring and checking. Thus, the development of self-system structures and processes is at least implied to be a critical antecedent of both students’ acceptance of personal responsibility and their abilities to be self-regulated learners. As Wang (1983) has argued, students have to believe that they are personally responsible for their school learning, which requires perceptions of self-efficacy in taking this responsibility. Work in the area of metacognition is particularly relevant to an understanding of the relationships between self-regulated learning processes and self-system processes. Metacognition is generally defined as one’s knowledge about cognition clnd the self-regulation of one’s thinking (Oka & Paris, 1985). In my own work on metacognitive. cognitive, and affective processes related to continuing intrinsic motivation to learn (McCombs, 1984; McCombs, in press), I have presented the view that metacognitive knowledge and skills provide the basic structure for the development of positive self-control and self-regulation. We know from the work of developmental psychologists, however, that the ability to engage in metacognitive processes of self-monitoring self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement requires that students have a relatively well-defined and stable self-identity in both a global and domain-specific sense. Without this self-identity, self-awareness is missing, and self-awareness has been claimed by Brown and her colleagues to be the basis of self-regulation (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981). It seems clear, therefore, that the development of self-system structures and processes is a necessary predecessor to the development of metacognitive capabilities which, in turn, are necessary to the development of self-regulation. In addition, once the self-system and its processes necessary for self-regulation have been developed, it seems equally clear that the self is the active agent in orchestrating the decisions to call into play the entire set of processes important to self-regulated learning-including metacognitive, cognitive. and affective processes. A PRELIMINARY

MODEL OF THE ROLE OF THE SELF-SYSTEM SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

IN

The preceding background review has pointed to the central role of self-system variables in enacting a process of self-esteem/self-worth maintenance that can result in the positive affect and motivation to assume personal responsibility for learning and to engage in self-regulated learning activities. The review has also pointed to the importance of considering developmental and experiential factors that contribute to a learner’s ability to engage the necessary positive self-referent processes

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

325

that enhance feelings of self-worth which, in turn, allow for the development of personal responsibility and self-regulation. Understanding these relationships through such an integrative review makes it possible to suggest a causal model that can be used in the identification and design of educational interventions which help learners (a) overcome basic impediments to self-esteem maintenance, (b) foster perceptions of personal control for learning, and (c) engender feelings of personal competence that underlie both the development of self-regulation capabilities and the motivation to use self-regulated learning strategies in particular learning situations. The review has also indicated the correspondence between the functioning of self-esteem maintenance processes and information transformation, encoding, and retrieval. Work in the area of the self and self-processes clearly indicates that the self-referent nature of our informationprocessing activities forms a set of filters (self-schemata) that can enhance or deter our abilities to feel efficacious or in control of our learning processes. Without these positive self-perceptions, expectations, and feelings, the stage cannot be set for the emergence of self-regulation processes, or for the generation of intrinsic motivation to engage in these processes. In my earlier work (McCombs, 1084), 1 stressed the importance of metacognitive, cognitive, and affective processes in generating students’ perceptions of personal control, efficacy expectations, and outcome expectations that lead to an initial level of intrinsic motivation or interest to engage in self-regulated learning activities. I alluded to the potential role of the self-system in this process. I would now like to elaborate this model with insights provided by the preceding integrative review, building on the theoretical and empirical findings reported. First, the self-system is the causal agent in perceiving, transforming, encoding, and retrieving information. In this active and powerful role, the self selectively processes information in a manner that allows for self-esteem, feelings of self-worth, and the creation of a stable personal identity (or self-concept). When developmental or experiential factors make the maintenance and enhancement of self difficult to achieve, distortions can occur in the way information about the self is processed and stored. These distortions are internally consistent, but may not be valid from an external perspective (e.g., as viewed by teachers or significant others). What is important, however, is that the striving for self-esteem maintenance is adaptive from a self-preservation standpoint. When the process fails to be adaptive, we have a case where self-distortions become too great to be believable by either the self or others. It is in these cases that interventions are required to bring the system into balance and congruity with external reality.

326

BARBARA

L.

MC COMBS

Assuming that the self-system structures and processes are developing normally, the capability emerges to orchestrate (take responsibility for) attentional and regulatory learning processes such that control over learning activities and outcomes can occur. This development of a concept of self-determination and control further feeds perceptions of competence, which give rise to positive affect and form the basis for motivation to engage in self-regulated learning processes necesary to succeed in learning. As the orchestrater or causal agent in information processing, the self calls into play the metacognitive, cognitive, and affective processes necessary for successful levels of task mastery. What is important to keep in mind is that successfir will have idiosyncratic meanings based on what students judge to be most self-enhancing. In other words, the standards for success are internal and may not match those imposed by teachers, parents, or other external factors. Although internalization of self-regulatory behaviors and various levels of achievement may be deemed desirable by others, unless they fit with a student’s developmental capabilities, emerging self-identity, judgments of competency and control as well as values and perceptions of what is required to enhance the self, these standards will not be accepted or acted upon. Based on the foregoing, the causal model being suggested here is one which assumes that the self-system is the base set of filters (schemata) through which all information is acted upon. The self is both causal agent and the object of self-system processes, the most important of which are self-awareness, self-evaluation, and self-monitoring. The outputs of these self-system processes are perceptions, expectations, and judgments about self-capabilities (control and competence) to perform specific kinds of learning tasks. The global and specific nature of self-evaluations of competence and control reciprocally influence the resulting perceptions, expectations, and judgments. If the output of the self-system processes engaged as students begin a learning task is positive, the processes of self-regulation and self-reinforcement can also be engaged during the learning process. Within this framework, the self makes use of and controls the entire set of processing capabilities available (including metacognitive, cognitive, and affective processes)-first directing these processes inward at the self and then outward at the required learning activities. Schematically, this preliminary causal model can be represented as shown in Fig. 1. What this model adds to the one I have presented earlier (McCombs, 1984) is the structural and functional role of the self-system and its processes in self-regulated learning in general, and in the initiation and execution of specific self-regulated learning processes and activities. The self-system structure is viewed as the central and the first memory

SELF-SYSTEM

-

IN SELF-REGULATED

327

LEARNING

SELF-SYSTEM STRUCTURES

i FIG. I. Preliminary

causal model of the role of the self-system

in self-regulated

learning.

structure through which all information flows. In addition, the self is conceived as the “builder” of its knowledge structures whose “plan” or goal is self-esteem enhancement and maintenance. This self-serving bias is functionally adaptive in meeting individual needs to be self-determined and to create a positive identity. The role of the self-system in self-regulated learning is thus that of creating and maintaining positive self-evaluations before, during, and after learning activities that contribute to the motivation to employ necessary self-regulated learning processes and activities. IMPLICATIONS

FOR EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS FUTURE RESEARCH

AND

Assuming the validity of the preceding role of the self-system and its processes in self-regulated learning, a number of implications for educational interventions aimed at the self can be derived. First, supports to students can be focused on both the development of internal self-system processes and on modifications to the external learning environment. In either case, it is assumed that provision of these supports would be based on assessments of students’ global and specific self-system structural variables (e.g., self-esteem, self-worth, self-concept) and the extent to which self-system processes (e.g., self-awareness, self-evaluation, selfmonitoring) are present and being used. At the highest level, internal self-system structures may require interventions aimed at modification

328

BARBARA

L. MC COMBS

(e.g., via cognitive restructuring approaches) to help students change dysfunctional self-beliefs, values, or motives. In this regard, Harter (198.5)has suggested that interventions to alter self-beliefs are best if addressed to domain-specific competencies rather than global self-worth. The next level of intervention suggested by the causal model in Fig. I is self-system processes. Thus interventions would be focused on helping students acquire strategies for self-awareness, self-evaluation, and selfmonitoring. A focus on interventions that teach self-evaluation strategies (e.g., through information gathering, compiling, and checking strategies that assist students in achieving a balance of “objectivity” and self-esteem enhancement) may well be necessary for those students whose past histories of failure or developmental level have precluded them from engaging in and/or developing adaptive self-evaluation strategies on their own. Jacobsen, Lowery, and DuCette (1986) have recently pointed out that this may be particularly true for students classified as learning disabled who have nonadaptive attributional patterns for success and failure. In addition, Baird and White (1984) have suggested that self-evaluation strategies also be focused on evaluation of one’s understanding during the learning process and that interventions stress the functionality of these strategies for increasing students’ feelings of competence (confidence) and of being in control. Internal process interventions can also be directed at helping students cope with negative affect such as test anxiety and fear of failure. Additional interventions aimed at internal self-system processes in the area of self-regulation were discussed at some length in my recent work on continuing intrinsic motivation to learn (McCombs, 1984, in press). Let me briefly summarize some of these interventions. They would include assisting students in self-regulated learning activities such as maintaining attention/alertness, planning, performance monitoring, encoding and retrieval of information, and ongoing self-evaluations of performance and internal states. Goal setting and problem-solving training would also be selected as interventions that would assist students in maintaining both positive self-focused attention and personal control over specific learning tasks. Students can also be trained in performance evaluation strategies and strategies for self-reinforcement that maximize feelings of self-worth. A careful application of attributional retraining might be suggested, depending on students’ attributional patterns and existing levels of general and specific self-worth. Furthermore, Harter (1982) has suggested that for enhancing students’ abilities to engage in self-reinforcement strategies, they need to be taught to reward both their performance and the personal attributes (their sense of personal responsibility and control) that produced the outcome. Interventions that can support positive self-system variables under-

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

329

lying motivation and self-regulated learning can also be provided in the external context or learning environment. Generally, these interventions are most successful when they embody a whole philosophy such as the mastery-learning model recommended by Covington (1985) or Wang (1983), in which students do not have to judge their capabilities against those of other students, but can judge them against their own goals. Such a model, it is argued, promotes self-validation and self-accuracy. Other supports for promoting self-regulation in the learning environment have been suggested by Connell and Ryan (1984). These include providing optimal challenges, opportunities for self-determination, as well as providing information on expectancies and consequences of meeting or not meeting learning requirements and information on alternative strategies for being successful. Connell and Ryan suggest that providing a context of choice and support (autonomy) and information (structure) will help students see activities as important and to experience regulation as their own. A much more thorough analysis and description of educational interventions is obviously needed. Equally important and preceding such a complete analysis, however, are a number of future research directions. These include careful empirical validations of the causal self-system linkages with self-regulated learning suggested here and their differential implications for students of differing developmental levels, abilities, and histories of academic successes and failures. In addition, research is needed on the most effective types of interventions for students who differ along these individual difference dimensions. What I hope has been established in the context of this integrative reivew is first and foremost the validity of self-system’s role in self-regulated learning. What remains to be accomplished is the further definition of how best to adapt (intervene) in helping all students-regardless of their developmental or experiential limitations-to establish the necessary and positive self-system structures and processes to generate the intrinsic motivation to engage in the types of self-regulated learning activities that have repeatedly been shown to maximize the learning process. REFERENCES BAIRD, J. R.. & WHITE, R. T. (1982). Promoting self-control of learning. Instrlrc~tioncrl Science, 11, 227-247. BAIRD, J. R., & WHITE, R. T. (1984). Impr-o\,ing Ierrr-ning through enhunced metcrcognition: A classroom study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. BANDURA, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Ps~clrological Review, 84(2), 191-215. BANDURA, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychologicrrl perspectives on rlze se!f(Vol. I, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

330

BARBARA

L. MC COMBS

BROWN,A. L., BRANSFORD,J. D., FERRARA, R. A., & CAMPIONE.J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. H. Markman (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology: Cogntiive development (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley. BROWN, A. L., CAMPIONE, J. C., & DAY, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educutional Researcher, 10(2), 14-21. COHEN, J. L., DOWLING, N., BISHOP, G., & MANEY, W. J. (1985, December). Causal attributions: Effects of self-focused attentiveness and self-esteem feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 369-378. CONNELL. J. P., & RYAN, R. M. (1984). A developmental theory of motivation in the classroom. Teacher Edrrcation Qualify, 11(4), 64-77. COVINGTON, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu (pp. 77-l 13). New York: Academic Press. ECCLES, J. (1983). Expectancies, values. and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement

und achievement

motives:

Psychological

and soc.iologic,al

approaches

(pp. 75- 146). San Francisco: Freeman. FINDLEY, M. J., & COOPER.H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44(2). 419-427. GIBBS, J. C., & SCHNELL, S. V. (1985. October). Moral development “versus” socialization: A critique. American Psychologist, 40( IO), 107I - 1080. HARTER, S. (1982). A developmental perspective on some parameters of self-regulation in children. In P. Karoly & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.). Sc!flmantrRc~ment and behavior charge: From theory to pracrice (pp. 165-204). New York: Pergamon. HARTER, S. (1985). Processes underlying self-concept formation in children. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspec,/ives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. HARTER, S., & CONNELL, J. P. (1984). A model of children’s achievement and related selfperceptions of competence. control, and motivational orientation. Advanc,es in Motivution and Achie\~ernet~t, 3, 219-250. IRAN-NEJAD, A., CLORE. G. L. & VONDRUSKA, R. J. (1981). A,ffictt AJirnc,tioncl/perspec,tive (Tech. Rep. 222). Urbana-Campaign, IL: University of Illinois. Center for the Study of Reading. JACOBSEN,B., LOWERY, B.. & DUCETTE, J. (1986). Attributions of learning disabled children. Journal ofEdurariona/ Psychology, 78(l), 59-64. KINCH, J., & FALK, R. F. (1983). A self-image inventory: Its theoretical background. reliability and validity. Symbolic Interaction, 6(2), 229-242. LEWIS, M., & BROOKS,J. (1978). Self-knowledge and emotional development. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The del~elopment ofqffect. New York: Plenum. MAEHR, M. L. (1985). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in edacation: The c~lassroom milieu (pp. I l5- 146). New York: Academic Press. MARKUS, H., & SENTIS, K. (1982). The self in social information processing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on rhe se!f(Vol. I, pp. 41-70). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. MARSH, H. W., CAIRNS, L., RELICH, J., BARNES, J., & DEBUS, R. L. (1984). The relationship between dimensions of self-attribution and dimensions of self-concept. Journal o.f Educational Psychology, 76(l), 3-32. MARSH, H. W., PARKER, J., & BARNES, J. (1985). Multidimensional adolescent self-concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and academic measures. American Educafional Research Journal,

22(3), 422-444.

MCCLELLAND, D. C. (1985, July). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist. 40(7), 812-824. MCCOMBS. B. L. (1984). Processes and skills underlying continuing intrinsic motivation to

SELF-SYSTEM

IN SELF-REGULATED

LEARNING

331

learn: Toward a definition of motivational skills training interventions. Educutional 19(4), 199-218. MCCOMBS, B. L. (in press). Motivational skills training. Combining metacognitive, cognitive, and affective learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein. E. T. Goetz & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategie.s: 1s.sue.s in assessment. instruction. und ewluation. New York: Academic Press. MINEKA, S., & HENDERSEN, R. W. (1985). Controllability and predictability in acquired motivation. Annual Re\+e,l, of Psyc~hology. 36, 495-529. OKA, E. R., & PARIS. S. G. (1985). In S. .I. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cogniti\v, swiul und neuropsyclzO/oRicu/ aspects of leurning disabilities. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. PARIS, S. G., & CROSS, D. R. (1983). Ordinary learning: Pragmatic connections among children’s beliefs, motives. and actions. In J. Bisanz, G. L. Bisanz. & R. Kail (Eds.), Learning in children: Pro,qress in c,ogniti\,e dc~~elopment reseurch (pp. 137- 169). New York: Springer-Verlag. PARIS, S. G., NEWMAN, R. S.. & JACOBS. J. E. (1985). Social contexts and functions of children’s remembering. In M. Pressley & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.). Cognitive Ieurnina und memory in children (pp. 81-l IS). New York: Springer-Verlag. PERVIN, L. A. (1985). Personality: Current controversies. issues. and directions. Annnrrl Psychologist,

Rel,ie\cj of P.syc’/rology. 36, 83- 1 14.

ROGERS.T. B., KUIPER, N. A.. & KIRKER, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Jownal of Personulity and Sock/ P.~ycho/o,qy. 35(9). 677-688. SCHEIER, M. F.. & CARVER, C. S. (1983). Cognition, affect, and self-regulation. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.). Tc~trcher und student perceptions: Implicutions fi~r /earning (pp. 157-183). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. SCHMECK, R. R. (in press). Individual differences and learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.). Leurning und study .strutegie.s: I.s,s~e~ in usses.sment. instruction, clnd evulrcution. New York: Academic Press. SCHMECK, R. R.. & MEIER. S. T. (1984). Self-reference as a learning strategy and a learning style. Human Leurning, 3, 9- 17. SCHUNK, D. H. (1984. April). Self-elf I( uc._Y und classroom /earning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Symposium on Motivating Academic Work in Classrooms. New Orleans. SHAVELSON, R. J.. & BOLUS. R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journal of Educutionul Psyc~ho/ogy, 74, 3- 17. SHAVELSON, R. J.. HUBNER, J. J.. & STANTON, G. C. (1976). Validation of construct interpretations. Reiliea, of Educationul Re.seurch, 46, 407-441, SHOWERS,C., & CANTOR, N. (1985). Social cognition: A look at motivated strategies. Annutrl Re\,ieM, of Psychology.

36, 275-305.

STIPEK, D. J. (1985). The development of achievement motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Reseurch on rnoti\,ution in edncution: The clussroorn milieu (pp. 145- 174). New York: Academic Press. rnuintenance processes and inditsidnul TESSER,A., & CAMPBELL, J. (1982). Se/jk\‘a/uution d$ferences in se[f-esteem. Paper presented at the Symposium on Functioning and Measurement of Self-Esteem, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. WANG, M. C. (1983). Development and consequences of students’ sense of personal control. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for /earning (pp. 213-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. WANG, M. C., & LINDVALL, M. (1984). Individual differences and school /earning enr’ironments (Rep. No. 1984132).Pittsburg. PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center. WANG, M. C., & PEVERLY, S. T. (in press). The role ofthe leurner:An individual differenc,e variable in school leuming and frcnctioning. Pittsburgh. PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.

332

BARBARA

L. MC COMBS

WATKINS, D. (1984). Student learning processes: An exploratory study in the Philippines. Human Learning, 3, 33-42. WEINER, B. (1980). The role of affect in rational (attributional) approaches to human motivation. Educationul Researcher, 9(7), 4- 1 I. WEINER, B. (1983). Speculations regarding the role of affect in achievement-change programs guided by attributional principles. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Impliccrtions for leer-ning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ZIMMERMAN, B. J. (1985). The development of “intrinsic” motivation: A social learning analysis. Annals of Child Development, 2, 117- 160. ZIMMERMAN, B. J., & PONS, M. M. (in press). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. Americun Edrrccrtionc~l Research Journal.