Cognitive structure and/or development	235

Pintrich’s general framework for self-regulated learning

Description and intended use

Pintrich produced his framework in an edited text (Boekaerts, Pintrich and Zeidner, 2000) devoted to issues concerning aspects of selfregulation. In his chapter, he seeks to synthesise common features of several SRL models in order to provide a means of examining learning and motivation in academic contexts. Pintrich (2000) defines selfregulated learning (SRL) as ‘an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate and control their cognition, motivation and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment’ (p. 453). Table 5.3, closely modelled upon that provided in the chapter, displays a framework for classifying the different phases of, and areas for, regulation.

It can be seen that Pintrich differentiates between regulation in four domains, cognition, motivation and effect, behaviour and context.

Regulation of cognition

Although cognitive skills are clearly central to thinking skills, they also play a part in the regulation of motivation and affect, behaviour and context.

Cognitive planning and activation

The framework proposes three general types of planning or activation.

1.Target goal setting: once task-specific goals have been identified, they can then be used to guide cognition and monitoring processes. These goals may need to be adjusted or changed during task performance as part of the monitoring, control and reflection processes.

2.Prior content knowledge activation: refers to when learners actively search their memory for relevant prior knowledge (both content and metacognitive) before performing the task.

3.Metacognitive knowledge activation: metacognitive task knowledge concerns understanding about the influence of different types and forms of task upon cognitive demands (e.g. the more information that is provided, the easier the task becomes). Knowledge of

Table 5.3. Pintrich’s phases and areas for self-regulated learning

Areas for regulation

Phases	Cognition	Motivation/affect	Behaviour	Context
1. Forethought,	Target goal setting	Goal orientation adoption	Time and effort	Perceptions of task
planning and	Prior content	Efficacy judgments	planning	Perceptions
activation	knowledge activation	Ease of learning judgments;	Planning for	of context
	Metacognitive	perceptions of task	self-observations
	knowledge	difficulty	of behaviour
	activation	Task value activation
		Interest activation
2. Monitoring	Metacognitive	Awareness and	Awareness and	Monitoring and
	awareness and	monitoring of	monitoring of effort,	changing task
	monitoring of	motivation and affect	time use, need for help	and context
	cognition		Self-observation of	conditions
			behaviour

3. Control	Selection and adaptation
	of cognitive strategies
	for learning, thinking

Selection and adaptation of strategies for managing motivation and affect

Increase/decrease effort	Change or
Persist, give up	renegotiate task
Help-seeking behaviour	Change or leave
	context

4. Reaction and	Cognitive judgments	Affective reactions	Choice behaviour	Evaluation	of task
reflection	Attributions	Attributions		Evaluation	of context

Source: (Pintrich (2000), p. 454)

Cognitive structure and/or development	237

strategy variables concerns those procedures that might help with cognitive processes such as memorising and reasoning. As with prior content knowledge, this activation can be automatic, can be prompted by particular features of a given task or context, or can be employed in a more controlled and conscious fashion.

Cognitive monitoring

This involves both being aware of and monitoring one’s cognition, so it closely resembles what has traditionally been understood by the term ‘metacognition’. Pintrich contrasts metacognitive knowledge, a relatively static element that one can claim either to have or to lack, with metacognitive judgments and monitoring, which tend to be more dynamic and relate to processes that occur as one undertakes a given task.

Pintrich highlights two important types of monitoring activity: judgments of learning which refer to gauging personal success at learning something and feeling of knowing (e.g. when one feels one knows something but cannot quite recall it – the ‘tip of the tongue’ phenomenon).

Cognitive control and regulation

This refers to the cognitive and metacognitive activities that individuals engage in to adapt and change their cognition. These are closely tied to monitoring and involve the selection and use of various cognitive strategies for memory, learning, reasoning, problem-solving and thinking. Specific techniques include the use of visual imagery, mnemonics, advanced organisers, and specialised methods of note taking. Located within this cell are the strategies that learners employ to help them with their learning, though, as Pintrich indicates, these can be both cognitive and metacognitive.

Cognitive reaction and reflection

These processes are concerned with personal reflection on performance and involve both evaluation and attribution. According to Zimmerman (1998), evaluating one’s performance is a characteristic of superior selfregulation. Similarly, ‘good’ self-regulators are more likely to make attributions for performance outcomes that emphasise the influence of the learner’s efforts and strategies (internal and controllable), rather than features beyond the learner’s control, such as a lack of ability.

238 Frameworks for Thinking

Regulation of motivation and affect

While there has been much research examining awareness and control of cognition (metacognition), there has been much less work concerning similar processes with respect to motivation.

Motivational planning and activation

Bandura’s work on self-efficacy (1997) has highlighted the way an individual’s beliefs about likely success in undertaking a particular task will influence the effort subsequently employed. Other factors highlighted in the motivation literature, such as the value of the task to the learner, personal interest in the task or content domain, and fear of failure, can all be made susceptible to student regulation and control in ways that can improve the quality of the learning.

Motivational monitoring

While the literature in this domain is more sparse than that for metacognitive awareness and monitoring, it is reasonable to assume that to engage effectively in the control and regulation of efficacy, value, interest and anxiety, students need first to be consciously aware of their beliefs and feelings and to monitor them. Approaches that have been employed in the scientific literature include attempts to make explicit, and subsequently change, students’ maladaptive self-efficacy and attributional beliefs. Other studies have sought to reduce student anxiety by increasing coping skills or by showing how one may change aversive environmental conditions.

Motivational control and regulation

Pintrich lists several methods that students can employ to heighten their motivation. These include increasing your sense of self-efficacy (e.g. telling yourself that you can succeed in the task); promising yourself extrinsic reinforcers (e.g. going to the pub once the assignment has been completed); or attempting to heighten intrinsic motivation by restructuring the task to make it more interesting. Other strategies involve overcoming the tendency to avoid working hard because of a concern that poor performance may suggest a lack of natural ability, a phenomenon known as self-worth protection (Covington, 1992).