Psychological Bulletin 2011, Vol. 137, No.

3, 421 442

2011 American Psychological Association 0033-2909/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022777

A Meta-Analysis of Self-Regulated Learning in Work-Related Training and Educational Attainment: What We Know and Where We Need to Go
Traci Sitzmann
University of Colorado Denver

Katherine Ely
Fors Marsh Group, Arlington, Virginia

Researchers have been applying their knowledge of goal-oriented behavior to the self-regulated learning domain for more than 30 years. This review examines the current state of research on self-regulated learning and gaps in the fields understanding of how adults regulate their learning of work-related knowledge and skills. Self-regulation theory was used as a conceptual lens for deriving a heuristic framework of 16 fundamental constructs that constitute self-regulated learning. Meta-analytic findings (k 430, N 90,380) support theoretical propositions that self-regulation constructs are interrelated30% of the corrected correlations among constructs were .50 or greater. Goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy were the self-regulation constructs with the strongest effects on learning. Together these constructs accounted for 17% of the variance in learning, after controlling for cognitive ability and pretraining knowledge. However, 4 self-regulatory processesplanning, monitoring, help seeking, and emotion control did not exhibit significant relationships with learning. Thus, a parsimonious framework of the self-regulated learning domain is presented that focuses on a subset of self-regulatory processes that have both limited overlap with other core processes and meaningful effects on learning. Research is needed to advance the fields understanding of how adults regulate their learning in an increasingly complex and knowledge-centric work environment. Such investigations should capture the dynamic nature of self-regulated learning, address the role of self-regulation in informal learning, and investigate how trainees regulate their transfer of training. Keywords: self-regulation, self-regulated learning, training, meta-analysis Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022777.supp

Scholars have been examining goal-oriented behavior for more than 100 years to understand how people regulate their behavior across a breadth of situations (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Selfregulation refers to processes that enable individuals to guide their goal-directed activities over time, including the modulation of affect, cognition, and behavior (Karoly, 1993). Self-regulation is designed to maximize the long-term best interest of an individual, resulting in people controlling their impulses and looking out for their well-being (Hayes, 1989; F. H. Kanfer & Karoly, 1972; Mischel, 1996; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). This literature base can be used to understand how people exert control over an extensive range of behaviors from dieting to religious practices (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Furthermore, self-regulation theory can be used to explain why both children and adults are willing to exert considerable mental effort to learn the alphabet, solve a math problem, or understand Newtons law of motion. For adults, the ability to

This article was published Online First March 14, 2011. Traci Sitzmann, University of Colorado Denver; Katherine Ely, Fors Marsh Group, Arlington, Virginia. We would like to thank Ruth Kanfer for her invaluable insights as we developed the theoretical framework for this article. Thanks also to Kristina Bauer for her assistance coding the articles included in the metaanalysis. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Traci Sitzmann, Business School, University of Colorado Denver, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217. E-mail: traci.sitzmann@ucdenver.edu 421

self-regulate may be their most essential asset (Porath & Bateman, 2006). Self-regulation enables people to function effectively in their personal lives as well as to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in higher education and the workforce. Researchers have been applying their understanding of goal-oriented behavior to self-regulated learning for the past 30 years, and the field of self-regulation has been instrumental in understanding how adults regulate their learning of work-related training. Self-regulated learning refers to the modulation of affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes throughout a learning experience to reach a desired level of achievement. This definition encompasses the core features of most definitions of selfregulation (e.g., Boekaerts, Maes, & Karoly, 2005; Karoly, 1993; Pintrich, 2000; Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1986): It reflects goaloriented behavior and includes multiple processes operating in concert. However, this definition is distinct because it focuses on goal striving within a learning context. The self-regulation literature has played a substantial role in shaping researchers understanding of the processes though which trainees systematically adapt their actions during training to achieve their learning goals. However, after more than 30 years of research, it is time to step back and examine the state of self-regulated learning research and identify gaps in the fields collective understanding of how adults regulate their learning of work-related knowledge and skills. Understanding the role of self-regulation in a learning context is increasingly important as the nature of training evolves. Over time, work has become progressively more complex and knowledgecentric, requiring employees to adapt to changing job demands (Bell

422

SITZMANN AND ELY

& Kozlowski, 2008). Furthermore, employees are often given control over which training courses they participate in and over the content, sequence, and pace of material in the training environment (Kraiger & Jerden, 2007; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006). Informal learning and peer production of training material (e.g., YouTube, Wikipedia) are also becoming more prevalent, increasing the requirement for employees to evaluate what they need to know and where they can obtain accurate information (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011). All these changes are escalating the demands placed on employees and higher education students to self-regulate their learning. As such, researchers need to stop and examine the current state of research on self-regulated learning and how this understanding needs to evolve to accommodate how learning occurs in the modern work and college environments. The first objective of the current review was to develop a heuristic framework of the self-regulated learning domain. The lack of a comprehensive, yet manageable, list of self-regulation constructs is one factor that hinders the fields understanding of how adults regulate their learning activities (Vancouver & Day, 2005). Thus, we examined several of the most frequently cited and influential selfregulation theories in the training and education literatures to educe a heuristic framework of the self-regulated learning domain. Our second objective was to use the heuristic framework as a foundation for a meta-analysis examining the interrelationships among the selfregulation constructs and their effects on learning (k 430, N 90,380). The results from the meta-analysis capture the degree of measurement overlap in self-regulation constructs and provide insight as to which constructs have the strongest effects on learning. In addressing these two objectives, this article provides an overview of the current state of research in the self-regulated learning domain and identifies gaps in the literature that preclude a comprehensive understanding of the domain. We conclude with an examination of how researchers understanding of self-regulated learning must be adapted to reflect the changing nature of knowledge and skill acquisition in the modern work environment.

Theoretical Overview and Heuristic Framework of Self-Regulated Learning

The self-regulated learning domain includes a range of theories that emerged from different disciplines. Some of the most influential theories have emerged from cybernetic engineering (control theory, Carver & Scheier, 1981), clinical psychology (self-efficacy theory, Bandura, 1977), industrial and organizational psychology (goal setting, Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; action regulation, Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1982; resource allocation, R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), and educational psychology (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1990). Despite their divergent backgrounds, the commonalities among these theories are vast, and together they provide a fairly comprehensive understanding of self-regulated learning. One commonality across all the theories is that goal setting triggers self-regulation. Locke and Latham (1984, 1990, 2002) are renowned in the goal-setting literature for examining the mechanisms through which goals operate and the moderators of the effects of goal setting on performance. Their meta-analytic results indicate a positive and linear relationship between goal level and performance with effect sizes (d effects) ranging from 0.52 to 0.82 (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goals operate by directing attention toward goal-related activity, which leads to increases in both effort

and persistence and stimulates the discovery and use of taskrelevant knowledge and strategies (Locke & Latham, 2002). Research has shown that goal setting is more effective when the goal is specific and when individuals are committed to reaching the goal, possess task knowledge, and receive feedback on their goal progress. Within a training context, performance goals can have a deleterious effect on the performance of complex tasks, whereas learning goals lead to higher levels of performance on such tasks (Seijts, & Latham, 2001; Winters & Latham, 1996). Self-efficacy theory evolved from Banduras (1977) work in clinical psychology. The theory focuses on the cognitive processes involved in the acquisition and retention of new behaviors. When trainees judge their self-efficacy for novel tasks, they rely on their past performance in similar situations (Bandura, 1991, 1997; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy then exerts a strong, positive effect on performance through goal setting, effort, and persistence (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Trainees with high self-efficacy engage in positive discrepancy creation by setting goals that are higher than their previous performance levels, exerting more effort, and persisting in stressful situations. The relationship between self-efficacy and performance tends to be stronger when an individual has knowledge of the task to be performed, when measures of self-efficacy are collected in temporal proximity to performance measures, and when the self-efficacy items are task specific (Bandura, 1997). Control theory is based on a machine model derived from cybernetic engineering (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1990; Powers, 1978). According to control theory, one source of motivation is a negative feedback loop that eliminates goalperformance discrepancies (Powers, 1978). Once a goal is reached, individuals turn their attention toward other goal pursuits. During training, trainees rely on their self-efficacy to determine how much effort to exert to reach their goals (Ilies & Judge, 2005; Thomas & Mathieu, 1994). Higher levels of self-efficacy result in trainees devoting more resources toward their goal. Moreover, trainees rate of goal progress influences their affect (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Affect is positive when trainees self-evaluation indicates that their progress is quicker than expected and negative when their progress is slower than expected.1 Action regulation theory originated in Germany (Hacker, 1985) and was translated to English by Frese and Zapf (1994). The theory proposes that the psychology of work should be concerned with actions, which are defined as goal-oriented behaviors. The action process begins with developing a goal and deciding between competing goals. Individuals must then decide on their orientation (i.e., collect information relevant to competing goals and develop a prognosis of future events), generate plans, make decisions by selecting a plan from the range of available plans, execute the plan while monitoring progress, and review feedback on progress toward their goals. External feedback is necessary for learning to occur. Errors also play an essential role in action regulation theory because they are a critical component of feedback and influence
There has been extensive debate regarding Banduras and Carver and Scheiers perspectives on positive discrepancy creation (for more information, see Bandura & Locke, 2003; Phillips, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 1996). Rather than restate the differences between these theories, the current review focuses on commonalities across theories to derive a heuristic framework that specifies the core constructs in the self-regulated learning domain.
1

SELF-REGULATION

423

the efficiency of action. When trainees are given the opportunity to make errors in training, it stimulates metacognition as trainees reflect on the causes of their errors (Ivancic & Hesketh, 2000; Keith & Frese, 2005). R. Kanfer and Ackermans (1989) resource allocation theory emerged from the industrial and organizational psychology literature. They proposed that attentional resources are an undifferentiated pool that must be allocated among competing task demands, such that trainees divide their attention between on-task activities, off-task activities, and self-regulation. Proximal and distal motivational processes are used to allocate resources among competing task demands. Distal motivational processes are antecedents to task engagement, referring to the choice of whether to pursue a goal and how much of ones resources to devote toward goal attainment. Proximal motivational processes comprise selfregulatory activity; they determine the distribution of attention across on-task and off-task activities during task engagement. Additional theories of self-regulated learning have emerged from the educational psychology literature, including theories by Pintrich (2000) and Zimmerman (1990, 2000). These researchers proposed phase models of self-regulation that focus on a broad range of self-regulatory processes. In addition to goal setting, self-efficacy, and the other processes included in the aforementioned theories, these theories include learning strategies, time management, and environmental structuring as part of the repertoire of strategies that trainees employ to succeed in learning situations. Zimmerman (1990, 1996, 1998, 2000) proposed a social cognitive model based on the work of Bandura (1986) and elaborated on the processes enacted in the forethought, performance, and reflection phases of learning. The forethought phase precedes performance and prepares trainees for learning. The performance control phase occurs during learning and affects trainees attention and action. Finally, self-reflection occurs after performance as trainees react to their efforts. Zimmerman (2000) acknowledged that learning conditions are constantly changing, necessitating continuous observation and monitoring of self-oriented feedback loops. Pintrich (2000) developed a framework that proposes that selfregulation occurs in four phases. Phase 1 involves planning, goal setting, and activation of knowledge and motivational factors relevant to the task. During Phase 2, trainees monitor various aspects of themselves, the task, and the context, which they subsequently control and regulate in Phase 3 and react and reflect upon in Phase 4. During the four phases of self-regulation, trainees focus on four areas: cognition, motivation, behavior, and the context. Pintrich then provided a 4 4 grid for classifying self-regulatory processes based on the phase and the focus area (e.g., pretraining self-efficacy occurs during Phase 1 and in the motivation focus area). Taken together, these theories focus on a wide range of selfregulation constructs. By examining their commonalities, it is possible to derive a heuristic framework of the fundamental constructs that constitute self-regulated learning. Our review of selfregulation theories suggests that there are 16 core self-regulated learning constructs.2 Table 1 lists the self-regulated learning constructs as well as the theories that indicate the construct is included in the self-regulation domain. Each of the constructs can be classified as a regulatory agent, regulatory mechanism, or regulatory appraisal. Trainees goal levels serve as regulatory agents; they

initiate self-regulated learning on a path toward achieving ones objectives. Regulatory mechanisms are the processes trainees use to maximize progress toward their goals in an efficient and organized manner. Looking across self-regulation theories, we identified 12 core regulatory mechanisms: planning, monitoring, metacognition, attention, learning strategies, persistence, time management, environmental structuring, help seeking, motivation, emotion control, and effort. Regulatory appraisals are instrumental in evaluating trainees progress and determining whether trainees will either begin or continue striving to make progress toward their goals. The three regulatory appraisals discussed in self-regulation theories are self-evaluation, attributions, and self-efficacy. In the following sections, we provide a broad theoretical overview of each of the regulatory agents, mechanisms, and appraisals and discuss whether the current state of the literature provides an avid understanding of the role of each construct in facilitating learning.

Regulatory Agents
Regulatory agents are instrumental for initiating self-regulated learning. Goals are regulatory agents, and numerous experiments have examined their effects on training outcomes. Goals reflect the standard for successfully accomplishing a task, and self-regulation theories agree that goals provide a criterion for monitoring, evaluating, and guiding self-regulatory activity (Bandura, 1977; Carver & Scheier, 2000; R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Locke & Latham, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1986). Goals initiate action (Frese & Zapf, 1994). They direct trainees attention, increase effort and persistence, and lead to the use of relevant task strategies (Locke & Latham, 2002). There is an extensive knowledge base on the effects of goal setting (see Locke & Latham, 2002, for a review). However, in research on self-regulated learning, goals are often experimentally
2 To develop the heuristic framework, we identified the most frequently cited and influential theories in the adult self-regulated learning domain. First, we identified 15 self-regulation theories that were included in previous self-regulation review articles (e.g., Diefendorff & Lord, 2008; Kanfer, 1990; Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Vancouver, 2000). From this list we eliminated content theories, which do not focus on the components of self-regulation (i.e., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Dweck, 1986; Higgins, 1997). Then the seven aforementioned theories as well as Boekaerts and Niemivirta (2000), Borkowski (1996), Corno (1993), Kuhl (1992), and Winne and Hadwin (1998) were compared in terms of their number of citations in Web of Science and Google Scholar. There was a clear cutoff in the number of hits per theory such that those included in our review received more than 100 citations in Web of Science and more than 200 citations in Google Scholar and those not included in the review fell below both of these criteria. After choosing the theories, each theory was reviewed by two independent raters to establish which constructs constitute the selfregulated learning domain. The raters independently developed a list of the core constructs in each of the theories (interrater agreement was .89) and then reached a consensus on the construct lists. There is a range of constructs included in self-regulation theories, and many theories include constructs that do not have analogous components in other theories (e.g., orientation in Frese & Zapf, 1994, and context evaluation in Pintrich, 2000). Thus, each of the constructs included in the heuristic framework was a component of at least two of the reviewed theories. The next step in the rating process involved classifying the constructs as regulatory agents, mechanisms, and appraisals. Interrater agreement was .93, and once again a consensus was reached regarding all coding discrepancies.

424

SITZMANN AND ELY

Table 1 A Heuristic Framework of the Self-Regulated Learning Domain

Bandura (1977, 1997, 1991) X Carver & Scheier (1981, 1990, 2000) X X X X X X X X X X Kanfer & Ackerman (1989) X X X X X Locke & Latham (1984, 1990, 2002) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Zimmerman (1990, 1996, 1998, 2000) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Construct Regulatory agent Goal level Regulatory mechanisms Planning Monitoring Metacognition Attention Learning strategies Persistence Time management Environmental structuring Help seeking Motivation Emotion control Effort Regulatory appraisals Self-evaluation Attributions Self-efficacy

Frese & Zapf (1994); Hacker (1985) X X X X

Pintrich (2000) X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X

Note. An X denotes the theory suggests that the construct is a component of self-regulation.

manipulated, as opposed to having trainees report the goals they are pursuing. Research on goals tends to focus on the effects of qualitatively different goals and how goal content influences selfregulatory processes. For example, researchers have manipulated whether trainees pursue learning or performance goals (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Kozlowski & Bell, 2006) and whether trainees strive for proximal or distal goals (e.g., Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Kozlowski & Bell, 2006; Kozlowski et al., 2001; Latham & Seijts, 1999). However, manipulating trainees goals in experimental research does not provide insight into the relationships between goals and other self-regulatory processes. When goals are assessed, most self-report measures assess the performance goal level that trainees are striving to achieve (Vancouver & Day, 2005). Thus, the construct included in this meta-analytic review is trainees self-set goal level for performance in the training environment. For example, Vancouver and Kendall (2006) asked trainees to report what grade they were aiming for on an upcoming test. Many studies have examined the effects of trainees self-set goal level on learning, but limited correlational research has examined how trainees self-set goal level is related to other self-regulated learning constructs.

Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms are the crux of self-regulated learning because they are largely under the control of trainees and have an instrumental role in determining whether trainees make progress toward their goals in an efficient and organized manner. Furthermore, the majority of these constructs have been subjected to extensive empirical investigations. Planning. When trainees engage in planning activities, they think through what they need to learn and set task-specific goals (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). When facing a novel task,

individuals create plans to determine which strategies they can use to reach their goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). Carver and Scheier (2000) acknowledged that people do not plan too far into the future (Anderson, 1990). Although individuals tend to have a general idea of how to reach their goals, they often have only a few specific steps planned out at a time, and the plan evolves as trainees carry out the task (Frese & Zapf, 1994). Monitoring. Monitoring refers to paying attention to ones performance and understanding of the course material (R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Monitoring is a critical component of selfregulation because it provides awareness of ones knowledge level, which then leads to changes in ones affect, cognition, and behavior (Pintrich, 2000). Accurate monitoring enhances the regulation of learning because it reveals what trainees already know and where they need to focus their resources (Dunlosky, Kubat-Silam, & Hertzog, 2003; Zimmerman, 2000). Metacognition. As its name implies, metacognition is a metaconstruct that subsumes various components of selfregulation. However, theories differ in the range of constructs that fall in the metacognition domain. R. Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) used the term extremely broadly, such that metacognition seems to include all aspects of self-regulation. Pintrich (2000) used the term to refer to an implicit awareness of various aspects of the self, task, and context. Zimmerman (2000) proposed that metacognition encompasses all aspects of cognitive self-regulation. Action regulation theory suggests that metacognition is an aspect of personality (Frese & Zapf, 1994). Attention. Attention refers to the degree to which trainees are able to maintain their cognitive focus and concentrate during training (Zimmerman, 2000). According to resource allocation theory, trainees divide their cognitive resources between on-task, off-task, and self-regulatory activities (R. Kanfer & Ackerman,

SELF-REGULATION

425

1989). Proximal motivational processes determine the distribution of resources across on-task and off-task activities, and goals direct trainees attention toward on-task activities (R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Locke & Latham, 2002). Learning strategies. A core cognitive control activity is the selection and use of learning strategies, including elaborating on the training material as well as integrating all the components of the material with each other and with ones existing knowledge (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Learning strategies are useful for breaking a task into smaller parts and reorganizing the parts (Zimmerman, 2000). They assist trainees in building knowledge structures that are meaningful and coherent so that information can be stored in long-term memory (Winne, 1996; Zimmerman, 2000). Persistence. Persistence enables trainees to devote effort to learning and concentrate on the training material, despite boredom or failure to make progress toward their goals (Elliot et al., 1999). Persistence is a function of trainees outcome expectancy for a given task (Carver & Scheier, 2000). Goal setting, self-efficacy, and feedback all have positive effects on persistence (Bandura, 1977; Frese & Zapf, 1994; Locke & Latham, 2002). Time management. Time management involves making study schedules and allocating time for study activities (Pintrich, 2000). Trainees monitor their time and effort levels to meet task deadlines. Procrastination is the opposite of time management and involves voluntarily delaying an intended course of action, despite expecting to be worse off for the delay (Steel, 2007). Zimmerman (2000) suggested that procrastination is a defensive self-reaction. Trainees procrastinate to avoid future dissatisfaction, but procrastination undermines successful adaptation and limits personal growth (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Zimmerman, 2000). Environmental structuring. Environmental structuring involves choosing a study location that is conducive to learning (i.e., quiet and free from distractions; Pintrich, 2000). Monitoring ones learning environment for distractions and removing the distractions to create an environment that is advantageous for studying are critical components of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1998). Environmental structuring is imperative in online training, as trainees tend to have control over where and when they review the training material (Lynch & Dembo, 2004). However, environmental structuring is mentioned only in two of the theories included in this review, the educational psychology theories of Pintrich (2000) and Zimmerman (1998). Help seeking. Help seeking refers to the degree to which trainees seek assistance when they have difficulty understanding concepts during training (Pintrich et al., 1991). Good students know when, why, and to whom they should turn when seeking help (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988). Help seeking plays an essential role in both Pintrichs (2000) and Zimmermans (1986) theories and has been included in research on action regulation theory (e.g., Brodbeck, Zapf, Pru mper, & Frese, 1993). Motivation. Motivation reflects trainees willingness to engage in learning and desire to learn the course content (Noe, 1986; Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Trainees beliefs about the incentives or value of learning have a direct effect on learning because trainees show little interest in activities that they do not value (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Specific, difficult, but attainable goals motivate performance as

long as trainees are committed to achieving the goal (Locke & Latham, 2002). Emotion control. Emotion control limits the intrusion of performance anxiety and other negative emotions during task performance (R. Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996). Trainees can engage in relaxation exercises, self-encouragement, and selftalk to regulate their emotional states (R. Kanfer et al., 1996; Pintrich, 2000). Emotion control facilitates performance by keeping off-task concerns from diverting attention away from the current task (Keith & Frese, 2005; Porath & Bateman, 2006). Effort. Effort reflects the amount of time that trainees devote to learning (Fisher & Ford, 1998; Wilhite, 1990; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Trainees regulate the amount of effort that they devote to learning by monitoring their behavior and feedback on their performance (Pintrich, 2000). When trainees detect a negative goalperformance discrepancy, they adjust their concentration or effort to reduce the discrepancy (Carver & Scheier, 2000). Current state of research on regulatory mechanisms. Extensive empirical research has examined the associations among multiple regulatory mechanisms (e.g., DiBattista & Gosse, 2006; Garcia, McCann, Turner, & Roska, 1998), their interrelationships with regulatory agents and appraisals (e.g., Orvis, Horn, & Belanich, 2008; Yeo & Neal, 2008), and their effects on learning (e.g., Nisbet, Tindall, & Arroyo, 2005; Quin ones, 1995). However, limited empirical research has focused on four regulatory mechanismsplanning, monitoring, environmental structuring, and emotion controland these regulatory mechanisms have not been examined in concert with the full range of self-regulation constructs. Only five studies have examined the role of environmental structuring in self-regulated learning (Al-Ansari, 2005; Klomegah, 2007; Kumrow, 2007, who reported correlations from two samples; Pintrich, 1989; Plant, Ericsson, Hill, & Asberg, 2005). Emotion control scales (Keith & Frese, 2005; Warr & Downing, 2000) recently appeared in the literature, and only 11 studies have adopted these scales or developed other measures of emotion control in self-regulation research (e.g., Bourgeois, 2007; Warr, Allan, & Birdi, 1999). Both planning and monitoring tend to be measured as part of metacognition scales (e.g., Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire [MSLQ], Pintrich et al., 1991), rather than as separate constructs. These metacognition scales assess a combination of planning and monitoring (as well as attention for the MSLQ) but do not include all aspects of self-regulation that are suggested by theory as belonging to the metacognition construct domain. Thus, there is a disconnect between theory and measurement that limits the fields understanding of the role of metacognition in self-regulated learning.

Regulatory Appraisals
Regulatory appraisals are instrumental in assessing goal progress as well as determining whether trainees will either begin or continue striving to make progress toward their goals. A scarcity of empirical evidence exists regarding the role of two regulatory appraisal constructsself-evaluation and attributionsin selfregulated learning, but extensive research has focused on the third regulatory appraisal: self-efficacy. It is also important to note that self-efficacy judgments can occur before trainees undertake a task

426

SITZMANN AND ELY

as well as during or after task engagement, whereas self-evaluation and attributions typically occur during or after task engagement. Self-evaluation. Self-evaluation refers to assessing goal progress by comparing ones current level of knowledge or performance with the desired goal state (R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Self-evaluation has important implications for affective states. Unfavorable self-evaluations diminish trainees selfefficacy, motivation, and self-satisfaction unless the individuals believe that they can adapt their self-regulatory processes by using different strategies, seeking help, or restructuring their environment (Bandura, 1977; R. Kanfer & Kanfer, 2001; Schunk & Ertmer, 1999, 2000). Attributions. People attempt to understand the causes of outcomes in achievement situations and attribute the outcome to several causal dimensions, including ability versus effort (Dweck, 1986). Trainees attribution analysis is one component that influences whether they continue to pursue their goals following selfevaluation (Carver & Scheier, 1982). Trainees react negatively and are unlikely to try to improve when errors are attributed to internal, stable factors, such as low ability (Zimmerman, 2000), but effective self-regulators tend to attribute failure to low effort and poor use of learning strategies (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to trainees beliefs regarding their capability to succeed in training and perform trainingrelated tasks (Bandura, 1997). Previous performance in similar situations is a powerful predictor of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1990). Compared with less efficacious trainees, trainees with high self-efficacy set challenging goals, develop useful task strategies, persist, expend effort, and perform at a high level (Bandura, 1977; Carver & Scheier, 2000; Locke & Latham, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Thomas & Mathieu, 1994; Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000). Current state of research on regulatory appraisals. Selfefficacy is one of the most extensively studied constructs in self-regulation research (Vancouver & Day, 2005) and is the only regulatory appraisal that has been examined in concert with the majority of self-regulation constructs. Attributions are included in the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991). Thus, attributions have been studied in concert with other MSLQ scales (e.g., learning strategies and persistence) but have not been widely researched outside educational psychology. As monitoring is an implied precursor to self-evaluation, it is difficult to tease apart trainees monitoring of their performance from their evaluation of their performance (Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000). As such, we are unaware of any studies that have measured self-evaluation as an independent construct; therefore, self-evaluation could not be included in the meta-analysis. In the following section, we outline the objectives of the meta-analytic investigation.

Meta-Analytic Objectives
The first goal of the meta-analysis was to examine the interrelations among the self-regulation constructs. As highlighted by the heuristic framework, theory suggests that self-regulation is a broad domain and encompasses 16 fundamental constructs. Thus, one cannot fully understand the self-regulated learning domain without understanding their associations. Our meta-analytic review examined the strength of the relations among self-regulation constructs

and identified where there are gaps in research regarding how these constructs are related. Second, we examined the effect of self-regulation on learning. Only 12 of the studies included in the review examined whether self-regulation during training predicted training transfer, which we are defining as the maintenance of trained skills after trainees leave the training environment (Bell & Roberson, 2006; Gardner, Moorcroft, & Metford, 1989; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Myers, 1997; Nietfeld & Schraw, 2002; Poteet, 1996; Ramirez, 2000; Simmering, 1999; Smith, 1996; Towler & Dipboye, 2001; Warr & Bunce, 1995; Yi & Davis, 2003). Furthermore, these studies focused on different self-regulation constructs, such that only three constructs (i.e., metacognition, motivation, and selfefficacy) have been examined in concert with training transfer in more than two studies, attention has been examined in concert with training transfer in one study, and the remaining 12 constructs have never been examined in concert with training transfer. Thus, we focused our meta-analytic investigation on posttraining assessments of learning. Third, one of the advantages of meta-analysis is that it allows for a comparison of studies that differ in experimental rigor and other methodological factors (Lipsey, 2003). The current meta-analysis examined whether five moderators influenced the associations between self-regulatory processes and learning: study population (college students or employees), length of the training course, publication status (published or unpublished), research design (experimental or correlational), and year of the publication, dissertation, or presentation. This set of analyses permitted an examination of whether the relations between self-regulation constructs and learning generalize across courses that differ in length, reports that differ in the population sampled and experimental rigor, and recent versus older research reports. Taken together, the heuristic framework and meta-analysis clarify the constructs that constitute the self-regulated learning domain, how these constructs are interrelated, their effects on learning, and gaps in the fields understanding of the self-regulated learning domain. A meta-analysis of the self-regulated learning domain is also valuable for determining whether the theoretical definitions of constructs correspond with how these constructs are measured in the literature. Next, we review discrepancies between construct definitions and measurement, followed by meta-analytic methods and results. One of the challenges in the self-regulated learning domain is developing reliable and valid measures that tap only the target construct. Several measures have been validated and employed in a breadth of studies for the majority of self-regulation constructs. However, some of the measures do not tap the full range of learning activities that theoretically fall in the construct domain, and a few of the scales include items that tap multiple selfregulation constructs. Researchers understanding of a domain is limited by the quality of the measures employed, so we begin the results section with a discussion of the construct validity of popular self-regulated learning measures, including criterion deficiency and contamination regarding some frequently used measures. Theoretically, metacognition is an umbrella construct that subsumes multiple self-regulatory processes (R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1990). The metacognition scales of Ford et al. (1998) and Schmidt and Ford (2003) assess a

SELF-REGULATION

427

combination of planning and monitoring, whereas Pintrich et al.s (1991) scale also assesses attention. Thus, we expect to see strong intercorrelations with these constructs due to common item content. Several measures of different constructs are also intricately related. Popular attention scales (e.g., R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987) ask trainees whether they focused their cognitive resources on the training material, whereas motivation scales (e.g., Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Pintrich et al., 1991; Yeo & Neal, 2004) assess trainees willingness to engage in learning and desire to learn the training material. Measures of persistence (e.g., Elliot et al., 1999; Pintrich et al., 1991; Warr & Downing, 2000) overlap substantially with these scales, except that they target trainees ability to concentrate and remain motivated specifically when they are bored or dissatisfied with the training material. Expectancy (Vroom, 1964), motivation to learn (Noe, 1986; Noe & Schmitt, 1986), and task value (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 1993) theories have all influenced the measurement and naming of motivation scales. However, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated that the various types of motivationincluding task value and motivation to learn have similar nomological networks (Bauer, Orvis, Ely, & Sitzmann, 2010). Thus, it is appropriate to average across these aspects of motivation when examining the role of motivation in self-regulated learning. Emotion control is an important construct in R. Kanfer and Ackermans (1989) and Pintrichs (2000) theoretical paradigms, but few measures have been developed to assess it. Keith and Frese (2005) developed an eight-item measure of emotion control, but several of the items tap attention (e.g., When difficulties arose, I was able to focus all of my attention on the task) and persistence (e.g., When difficulties arose, I was able to motivate myself to continue) when difficulties arose during training, as well as the degree to which trainees tried to combat feelings of anxiety and worry (e.g., When difficulties arose, I did not allow myself to lose my composure). This contamination may explain why two studies have found that Keith and Freses measure correlated .77 with attention (Sitzmann, Bauer, & Ely, 2008), .69 with a cognitive regulation scale, and .39 with an affective regulation scale (Yeo & Frederiks, in press). Thus, the scale may be capturing cognitive regulation to a greater extent than affective regulation. Measures of learning strategies ask trainees whether they used strategies such as elaboration and deep processing to help them learn the material (e.g., Pintrich et al., 1991). However, certain learning strategies may be more or less beneficial depending on situational factors, such as the nature of the training content and trainees preexisting knowledge of the course topic. Thus, the way in which learning strategies are measured does not account for the utility of different strategies across trainees and training contexts. Finally, the four items in Pintrich et al.s (1991) attribution scale assess both whether trainees believe that they can learn the course materialsimilar to self-efficacy scalesand the reasons why they are able to understand the material. A sample item is If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course material. Thus, the most popular attribution scale includes several double-barreled questions that assess both trainees confidence in their ability and whether their success is determined by factors within or outside their control.

In short, our review of self-regulation measurement suggests that there is evidence of criterion overlap in several of the most popular measures used to assess self-regulation constructs.3 Researchers collective understanding of the self-regulated learning domain is limited by the quality of the measures employed, and the meta-analytic findings must be interpreted in light of these validity issues. However, a meta-analysis of the domain is needed for diagnosing measurement problems and providing the empirical support needed to identify where further validation research is warranted.

Method Literature Search and Meta-Analytic Sample

Computer-based literature searches of PsycINFO, ERIC, ProQuest, and Digital Dissertations were used to locate studies in the training and education literatures. To be included in the initial review, abstracts had to contain terms relevant to self-regulation or one of the self-regulation constructs and training or education. Initial searches resulted in 26,767 possible studies. Next, we manually searched reference lists from meta-analyses in the training domain (e.g., Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; Sitzmann, Brown, Casper, Ely, & Zimmerman, 2008; Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). An extensive search for unpublished studies was also conducted. First, several conference programs (e.g., the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology) were manually searched. Second, practitioners and researchers with expertise in training were asked to provide leads on unpublished work. In all, we contacted 156 individuals. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if (a) participants were nondisabled adults ages 18 or older, (b) training facilitated potentially job-relevant or education-relevant knowledge or skills (i.e., not coping with physical or mental health challenges), and (c) relevant between-subjects correlations were reported or could be calculated given the reported data. The first two criteria support generalization to adults participating in workplace training or college education. The vast majority of studies that were not included in the meta-analysis were eliminated for the following reasons: participants were children, self-regulatory processes were discussed in the manuscript but were not measured, or the authors did not report correlations either among the self-regulatory processes or between self-regulation and learning. The 369 research reports contributing data to the meta-analysis included 210 published studies, 135 dissertations, and 24 unpubIt is imperative that a meta-analysis of the self-regulated learning domain use only scales that assess a single self-regulated learning construct. Thus, we excluded scales that assessed a combination of multiple constructs, with the exception of metacognition, which by definition is multidimensional. For example, the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory motivation scale (Weinstein et al., 1987) assesses a combination of planning (e.g., I set goals for the grades I want to get in my classes) and persistence (e.g., When work is difficult, I give up or only study the easy parts). Although Weinstein et al. (1987) labeled the scale motivation, we did not include it with the other motivation measures in the meta-analysis because the scale label does not match the construct assessed by other motivation scales. This scale, along with many others, was excluded from the meta-analysis because the only way to clarify this domain is to focus on clean measures of self-regulated learning constructs.
3

428

SITZMANN AND ELY

lished studies. These studies included 430 independent samples with data gathered from 90,380 trainees. Trainees were university students in 82% of studies, employees in 16% of studies, and military personnel in 2% of studies. Across all studies providing demographic data, the average age of trainees was 23 years, and 43% of participants were male.

Coding and Interrater Agreement

Table 2 presents definitions of the self-regulation constructs and examples of scales used to assess the constructs. All the constructs in the heuristic framework were included in the meta-analysis except for self-evaluation, for which correlational data were not available. Furthermore, learning was coded based on Kraiger, Ford, and Salass (1993) multidimensional framework and included assessments designed to measure whether trainees remembered concepts presented in training or their ability to perform the skills taught in training. Learning was assessed posttraining with a written test (e.g., Vancouver & Kendall, 2006) or through participation in a posttraining performance-based activity, such as a simulation (e.g., Yeo & Neal, 2004). Finally, five moderators were coded: population (college students vs. employees), length of the course (hours spent in training), publication status (published vs. unpublished), research design (experimental or quasi-experimental vs. correlational), and year of the publication, dissertation, or presentation. Two raters independently categorized the self-regulation measures and recorded the moderators, correlations, sample sizes, and reliabilities for the self-regulation and learning measures. The absolute agreement across raters was 99% for categorizing the study measures and 97% for moderators. Coders then discussed discrepancies and reached a consensus.

among the measures. Studies that included multiple independent samples were coded separately and treated as independent. There are a variety of techniques for detecting moderators in meta-analytic research. Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2002) demonstrated that weighted least squares regression provides the most accurate results. Thus, we used weighted least squares regression to examine the joint effect of the moderators on the self-regulation/ learning relationships. Correlations were weighted by the study sample sizes, and categorical variables were dummy coded. Population was dummy coded such that college students (coded 1) were compared to employees (coded 0). Publication status was dummy coded such that 0 indicates that the document was unpublished and 1 indicates that the document was published. Research design was dummy coded such that 0 indicates that the design was correlational and 1 indicates that the design was experimental or quasi-experimental.

Meta-Analytic Results and Discussion Relationships Among the Self-Regulatory Processes

Table 3 presents the corrected correlations among the selfregulatory processes. The corrected correlations ranged from .30 to .83. One of the strongest correlations was between metacognition and learning strategies ( .83, k 39, N 9,529). These two constructs also had similar patterns of association with other self-regulatory processes, and self-regulation theories suggest that they are distinct but intricately related constructs (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). For example, Zimmerman (2000) proposed that metacognition is a broad construct that encompasses all aspects of trainees cognitive self-regulation. Learning strategies are one aspect of cognitive self-regulation; they enhance learning by breaking a task down into its essential components and meaningfully reorganizing the parts. Pintrichs (2000) theory proposes that metacognitive monitoring of ones knowledge is closely related to the use of learning strategies for increasing ones knowledge levels. Thus, learning strategies are theoretically one component of the multidimensional construct of metacognition (Butler & Winne, 1995; Nelson & Narens, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989, 1994). In empirical research, both metacognition and learning strategies are captured with self-report measures, and meta-analytic evidence suggests that trainees may not distinguish between these processes. Thus, researchers should be aware that there is unlikely to be incremental validity in measuring both metacognition and learning strategies. Similar results are likely regardless of whether a metacognition or learning strategies scale is employed. The attentiontime management meta-analytic corrected correlation was .78, based on data from 29 effect sizes and 10,143 trainees. However, these constructs exhibited different patterns of relations with other self-regulatory processes, suggesting that there may be some (albeit minimal) incremental validity in assessing both of these constructs in self-regulation research. Six other correlations were .70 or greater (i.e., monitoring with persistence, planning with time management, monitoring with help seeking, metacognition with emotion control, persistence with time management, and motivation with emotion control), and 35 of the 116 (30%) correlations on Table 3 were .50 or greater. However, five of the correlations that were greater than .70 were based

Meta-Analytic Methods
The corrected mean and variance in validity coefficients across studies were calculated with formulas for a random-effects model from Hunter and Schmidt (2004). The mean and variance of the correlations across studies were corrected for sampling error and unreliability in the predictor and criterion. Artifact distributions of the reliability coefficients were created for each construct based on formulas from Hunter and Schmidt. Reliabilities for self-regulation constructs and learning measures from all coded studies were included in the distributions. Range restriction estimates were unavailable, so no attempt was made to correct for this bias. Prior to finalizing the analyses, a search for outliers was conducted with a modified Huffcutt and Arthur (1995) sampleadjusted meta-analytic deviancy statistic with the variance of the mean correlation calculated according to the formula specified by Beal, Corey, and Dunlap (2002). On the basis of the results of these analyses and inspection of the studies, no studies warranted exclusion. Some of the studies included in the meta-analysis reported correlations with multiple learning measures (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2006). However, single studies contributing multiple correlations to a single analysis can result in biased sampling error estimates. Thus, when multiple learning measures were present in a sample, the Hunter and Schmidt (2004) formula was used to calculate a single estimate that took into account the correlations

SELF-REGULATION

429

Table 2 Definitions of Self-Regulation Constructs, Representative Scales, and Sample Scale Items
Construct and definition Scale that assesses the construct Regulatory agent Goal level: Standards trainees aim to achieve during training Self-set goal level (1 item; Yeo & Neal, 2008) Goal level (1 item; Vancouver & Kendall, 2006) Regulatory mechanisms Planning: Thinking through what one needs to learn, setting task-specific goals, and deciding which strategies to employ to achieve the goals Planning (7 items; Schraw & Dennison, 1994) I think about what I really need to learn before I begin a task. I set specific goals before I begin a task. I think of several ways to solve a problem and choose the best one. I skim through the chapter to see how it is organized before I read it thoroughly. I set goals for myself in order to direct my study activities. As I read the text, I seldom checked my understanding by trying to solve practice problems. (Reverse) I ask myself questions about how well I am doing while learning. I made a special effort to check how well I understood what was being taught. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in each study period. (Planning) I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying in this class. (Monitoring) During class time I often miss important points because I am thinking of other things. (Attention; reverse) I thought ahead to what I would do next to improve my performance. (Planning) I tried to monitor closely the areas where I needed the most study and practice. (Monitoring) During this training program, I tried to think through each topic and decide what I was supposed to learn from it, rather than just jumping in without thinking. (Planning) During this training program, I asked myself questions to make sure I understood the things I have been trying to learn. (Monitoring) I concentrate fully when studying. I daydreamed while doing the task. (Reverse) When a theoretical point or conclusion is presented in lecture or in the text, I try to decide if there is good supporting evidence. When I study for this class, I pull together information from different sources, such as lectures, readings, and discussions. (table continues) I aim to achieve an error penalty of less than ___ on the next trial. What grade are you really aiming for on the upcoming test? Sample item

Planning (2 items; Young, 2005)

Monitoring: Paying attention to ones performance and understanding of the course material

Monitoring (3 items; Miller, Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993) Comprehension monitoring (7 items; Schraw & Dennison, 1994) Comprehension monitoring (5 items; Warr & Downing, 2000)

Metacognition: Planning and monitoring goal-directed behavior and devoting attention toward the course material

Metacognitive self-regulation (12 items; Pintrich et al., 1991)

Metacognitive activity (12 items; Ford et al., 1998)

Metacognitive activity (15 items; Schmidt & Ford, 2003)

Attention: Concentrating and maintaining ones mental focus during training Learning strategies: Techniques employed to elaborate on the training material as well as integrate all the components of the material with each other and with ones existing knowledge

Concentration (8 items; Weinstein et al., 1987) Off-task attention (2 items; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989) Deep processing (5 items; Elliot et al., 1999)

Elaboration (6 items; Pintrich et al., 1991)

430
Table 2 (continued)
Construct and definition

SITZMANN AND ELY

Scale that assesses the construct Information processing (8 items; Weinstein et al., 1987)

Sample item I try to find relationships between what I am learning and what I already know. Regardless of whether or not I like the material, I work my hardest to learn it. Even when course materials are dull and uninteresting, I manage to keep working until I finish. Whenever I was feeling bored, I forced myself to pay attention. When I decide to study, I set aside a specific length of time and stick to it. I procrastinated in my studying for the exam. (Reverse) Percentage of time trainees reported studying at the library versus at home. I turn off the TV/radio so I can concentrate on what I am doing. I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I dont understand well. I am motivated to learn the skills emphasized in the training program. It is important for me to learn the course material in this class. I am willing to exert considerable effort in the training program in order to improve my skills. I told myself not to worry when things were difficult. When difficulties arose, I calmly considered how I could continue the task. Total time spent learning. Total time spent in self-paced training. Trainees estimates of weekly study time.

Persistence: Continuing to allocate effort and attention toward the training material, despite boredom or failure to make progress toward ones goals

Persistence (4 items; Elliot et al., 1999)

Effort regulation (4 items; Pintrich et al., 1991) Motivation control (5 items; Warr & Downing, 2000) Time management (8 items; Weinstein et al., 1987) Procrastination (3 items; McGregor & Elliot, 2002) Study environment (2 items; Plant et al., 2005) Environmental restructuring (3 items; Gredler & Garavalia, 2000) Help seeking (4 items; Pintrich et al., 1991)

Time management: Making study schedules and allocating time for study activities Environmental structuring: Choosing a study location that is conducive to learning (i.e., quiet and free from distractions) Help seeking: Seeking assistance when one has difficulty understanding concepts during training Motivation: Willingness to engage in learning and desire to learn the course content

Motivation to learn (8 items; Noe & Schmitt, 1986) Task value (6 items; Pintrich et al., 1991) Expectancy (7 items; Noe & Schmitt, 1986)

Emotion control: Keeping negative emotions (e.g., anxiety and worry) at bay while learning

Emotion control (5 items; Warr & Downing, 2000) Emotion control (8 items; Keith & Frese, 2005)

Effort: The amount of time that trainees devote to learning

Effort (1 item; Fisher & Ford, 1998) Time on task (1 item; Brown, 2001) Study time (1 item; Wilhite, 1990) Regulatory appraisals

Attributions: Trainees beliefs about the causes of outcomes in achievement situations Self-efficacy: Trainees beliefs regarding their capability to succeed in training and perform training-related tasks

Control of learning beliefs (4 items; Pintrich et al., 1991) Self-efficacy for learning and performance (8 items; Pintrich et al., 1991) Performance expectations (3 items; Harackiewicz et al., 2000) Confidence expectancy (2 items; Elliot & Church, 1997)

If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course material. Im certain I can understand the basic concepts in this course. Considering the difficulty of this course and my skills, I think I will do well in this class. I expect to do well in this class.

Note. One sample item is provided when all the scale items are fairly similar and the exemplar is representative of all scale items; several sample items are provided for multidimensional scales. Self-evaluation was not included on the table because there are no existing measures of this construct.

SELF-REGULATION

431

on a single study, and one of the correlations was based on data from three studies. Basing a meta-analytic effect size on data from few studies is less likely to affect estimates of mean corrected correlations than to affect estimates of the variance of the correlations (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). This suggests that we can be confident that the effect sizes reported on Table 3 are close approximations of the actual population values. It is interesting to note that all the correlations that are .70 or greater are between pairs of regulatory mechanisms. It is likely that trainees are not able to mentally distinguish among all 12 regulatory mechanisms in the heuristic framework. Also, it may not be possible to engage in some of these self-regulatory processes without influencing other interrelated processes. For example, trainees who are managing their time during training should naturally focus their attention on the training material. Thus, there may be only limited incremental validity for measuring both time management and attention as well as other strongly related constructs in self-regulated learning research. There was also evidence that some of the self-regulation constructs were only weakly related. Twenty-two (19%) of the correlations reported on Table 3 were less than .20. However, several of these correlations were based on a limited number of studies. When we focused exclusively on meta-analytic correlations calculated from a minimum of three effect sizes, 10 correlations among the constructs were less than .20, and the majority of the weak correlations occurred with help seeking, effort, and pretraining self-efficacy. Effort is the only construct in the heuristic framework that is often collected with objective rather than selfreport measures. This construct was weakly related to six of the 16 other constructs in Table 3 and only strongly related to two constructs (i.e., goal level and time management). Relying on objective assessments of self-regulatory processes may reduce common method variance and, thus, the intercorrelations among the measures. There was great variability in the sample sizes for the relationships between self-regulatory processes. Specifically, the corrected correlations among 25% (29 out of 116) of the constructs were based on data from 15 or more studies. Conversely, only five studies reported correlations with environmental structuring, 11 studies with emotion control, and self-evaluation could not be included in the meta-analysis due to the lack of correlational research on this construct. Moreover, 17% (20 out of 116) of the correlations on Table 3 could not be calculated because of missing data, and 42% (49 out of 116) of the correlations were based on only one or two studies. Future research on self-regulation should examine these underresearched constructs to better understand the relationships among self-regulatory processes. The absence of empirical research on the interrelationships among the full range of self-regulation constructs precluded an empirical test of the optimal conceptualization of the self-regulated learning domain. For example, some researchers have focused on understanding self-regulation by grouping the constructs into different regulatory pathways (e.g., affective, cognitive, and behavioral), whereas others have used phase models of self-regulation, grouping constructs together based on when they occur during goal pursuit (Diefendorff & Lord, 2008). Understanding the correct specification of domains with multiple dimensions is necessary for demonstrating construct validity and for making correct inferences from empirical tests (Edwards, 2001; Law, Wong, & Mobley,

1998; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). As such, researchers need to examine the pattern of correlations among all 16 self-regulation constructs to inform theory as to which conceptualization is a more accurate representation of the domain.

Predicting Learning
Table 4 presents the meta-analytic correlations between each of the self-regulatory processes and learning.4 According to the heuristic framework, regulatory agents (i.e., goal level) had the largest effect on learning with a moderate to strong effect size. Both regulatory mechanisms and appraisals had effect sizes ranging from weak to moderate (0.08 0.28 and 0.18 0.35, respectively). The self-regulation constructs with the strongest corrected correlations with learning were goal level ( .44, k 24, N 3,565), self-efficacy ( .35, k 160, N 25,798), effort ( .28, k 61, N 8,569), and persistence ( .27, k 30, N 6,979). Each of the theories included in this review acknowledges the essential role of these four constructs in the selfregulated learning domain (the one exception is that self-efficacy is not mentioned as part of action regulation theory; Frese & Zapf, 1994). Goals initiate action (Frese & Zapf, 1994), whereas high self-efficacy leads to setting more difficult goals, developing useful task strategies, persisting, and expending effort to reach ones goals (Bandura, 1977; Carver & Scheier, 2000; Locke & Latham, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Thomas & Mathieu, 1994; Zimmerman, 2000). Learning requires considerable time; thus, trainees who exert substantial effort also learn more from training (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011). Finally, persistence enables trainees to continuously devote effort to learning and concentrate on the training material, despite boredom or dissatisfaction with their current performance (R. Kanfer et al., 1996). Meta-analytic true score regression analysis with maximum likelihood estimates was used to examine the joint effect of these four self-regulatory processes on learning. In this analysis, we controlled for cognitive abilitythe strongest predictor of learning (Ree & Earles, 1991)and pretraining knowledge to account for potential reciprocal effects between trainees knowledge levels and self-regulatory processes. Together cognitive ability and pretraining knowledge accounted for 32% of the variance in posttraining knowledge ( .24, .43, respectively, p .05). Goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy accounted for an additional 17% of the variance in learning ( .29, .37, .28, .07, respectively, p .05; total R2 .49; harmonic mean 796). Thus, collectively the most influential regulatory agent, mechanism, and appraisal constructs captured 17% of the variance in learning, after controlling for cognitive ability and pretraining knowledge. This finding confirms that self-regulatory processes play an independent and instrumental role in the learning process. It is also worth noting that the effect of goals on learning was positive when examined in concert with cognitive ability, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy ( .17). However, setting more challenging goals resulted in trainees learning less when pretraining knowledge was
Many trainees contributed data to multiple analyses (e.g., both pretraining and posttraining self-efficacy with learning). Thus, although 90,380 trainees contributed data to the meta-analysis, the total sample in Table 3 is 175,389.
4

432

SITZMANN AND ELY

Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlations Among the Self-Regulation Constructs

Goal level Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. k (N) .20 .51 .20 .05 .32 .43 .27 .53 .50 1 k (N) 9 (1,171) 3 (618) 1 (234) 6 (1,350) 1 (234) 1 (234) 1 (234) 1 (67) 2 (480) 2 (812) 1 (233) 3 (844) 3 (299) 8 (1,155) .66 .68 .33 .45 .69 .72 .51 .37 .30 .12 .38 .41 .05 .37 2 k (N) 2 (230) 2 (279) 5 (752) 1 (152) 1 (152) 2 (219) 3 (736) 1 (152) 2 (270) 3 (662) 2 (195) 8 (1,499) 3 k (N) 4 k (N) 5 k (N) 6 k (N) 7 k (N)

Planning Monitoring Metacognition 4 (650) Attention Learning strategies Persistence 1 (259) Time management Environmental structuring 1 (103) Help seeking Pretraining motivation 1 (26) Motivation 3 (331) Emotion control Effort 3 (388) Attributions 2 (592) Pretraining self-efficacy 4 (283) Self-efficacy 16 (2,632)

.47 .66 4 (753) .52 39 (9,529) .83 25 (7,168) 1 (164) .71 .32 .32 .53 .33 .33 .24 .27 19 (4,569) 8 (1,266) 26 (6,940) 3 (520) 10 (1,428) 17 (5,323) 15 (2,532) 48 (10,338)

.52 .83 28 (9,952) .69 1 (234) .28 29 (10,143) .45 .41 .55 .71 .19 .38 .30 .49 1 (234) 2 (339) 5 (708) 1 (234) 7 (1,657) 1 (279) 5 (853) 9 (2,076)

.31 .67 25 (8,204) .58 .78 26 (9,603) .24 .23 .40 .23 .12 .15 .59 .11 .38 17 (4,420) 3 (614) 27 (7,708) 2 (500) 3 (441) 22 (6,391) 6 (1,481) 33 (8,940) .36 .42 .54 .67 .29 .42 .21 .49

1 (235) 18 (3,837) 3 (685) 19 (5,609) 2 (386) 1 (234) 16 (5,560) 2 (533) 21 (6,353)

.72 .24 .30 .48 .35 .28 .36 .37 .49

2 (370) 1 (224) 7 (1,482) 1 (234) 1 (233) 3 (750) 1 (224) 8 (1,638)

.51 .06 .23 .09 .47 .55 .19 .23

Note. Self-evaluation was not included in the table, as correlations were not available from any of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Dashes (other than those on the diagonal) indicate that the meta-analytic correlation could not be calculated due to missing data.

also included as covariate in the model. Trainees with high pretraining knowledge are likely to set more challenging goals but also have less room for improvement. The self-regulation constructs with the weakest correlations with learning were help seeking ( .08, k 24, N 4,827), emotion control ( .08, k 9, N 13,051), and pretraining motivation ( .10, k 52, N 18,402). In addition, 76% (13 out of 17) of the confidence intervals did not include zero, indi-

cating that the corrected correlations are statistically significant. Planning, monitoring, help seeking, and emotion control had confidence intervals that included zero, suggesting that they are not significant predictors of learning, which is inconsistent with theories that support their role in self-regulation (e.g., R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Pintrich, 2000). For example, both Pintrich (2000) and Zimmerman (2000) proposed that planning occurs along with goal setting during the forethought phase of self-

Table 4 Meta-Analytic Correlations for Self-Regulation Constructs With Learning

N weighted mean r .37 .11 .12 .12 .19 .12 .20 .17 .14 .06 .08 .15 .06 .22 .14 .18 .29 Var (e) Var (a) .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 95% CI Population variance .03 .01 .05 .02 .01 .01 .03 .00 .00 .04 .01 .03 .00 .04 .02 .01 .04 Variance due to artifacts (%) 22.75 71.93 26.30 32.89 43.83 38.20 20.14 64.95 100.00 21.60 30.93 25.10 40.55 22.89 26.12 28.95 19.65 LL .33 .08 .04 .11 .17 .10 .18 .13 .08 .04 .03 .12 .02 .21 .12 .17 .31 UL .56 .38 .38 .21 .31 .22 .37 .30 .31 .21 .16 .24 .17 .35 .24 .27 .38 80% CrI LL .22 .05 .13 .02 .12 .02 .04 .14 .20 .16 .03 .03 .02 .02 .00 .06 .10 UL .66 .25 .46 .34 .36 .30 .50 .29 .20 .33 .22 .39 .13 .54 .37 .37 .59

Construct Regulatory agent Goal level Regulatory mechanisms Planning Monitoring Metacognition Attention Learning strategies Persistence Time management Environmental structuring Help Seeking Pretraining motivation Motivation Emotion control Effort Regulatory appraisals Attributions Pretraining self-efficacy Self-efficacy

k 24 9 12 77 39 72 30 31 6 24 52 67 9 61 35 86 160

Total N 3,565 1,022 1,185 12,996 9,949 16,613 6,979 8,518 779 4,827 18,402 11,612 13,051 8,569 8,667 22,857 25,798

.44 .15 .17 .16 .24 .16 .27 .21 .20 .08 .10 .18 .08 .28 .18 .22 .35

Note. Self-evaluation was not included in the table as correlations were not available from any of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Var (e) Var (a) sampling error variance plus variance due to unreliability in the predictor and criterion; CI confidence interval; CrI credibility interval; LL lower limit; UL upper limit.

SELF-REGULATION

433

Table 3 (continued)
8 k (N) 9 k (N) 10 k (N) 11 k (N) 12 k (N) 13 k (N) 14 k (N) 15 k (N) 16 k (N)

4 (848) 15 (4,459) 3 (549) 1 (234) 13 (2,632) 3 (696) 17 (4,934) .05 .25 .54 .26 .10 .04 .11 19 (2,503) 3 (14,779) 3 (362) 36 (20,594) 12 (2,251) .68 .51 .22 .53 .29

1 (224) .04 1 (336) .04 1 (83) .30 1 (336) .37 1 (224) .21 2 (439) .22

1 (372) 1 (234) 18 (5,514) 8 (2,816) 45 (11,765)

.76 .36 .60 .23 .48

1 (233) 2 (14,627)

.13 .47

1 (184) 8 (615) 18 (3,428)

.12 .03 .10

2 (164) 29 (6,929)

.09 .53

54 (7,821)

.51

regulation and influences subsequent self-regulatory activity and, thus, learning. However, there may be mediators of the effects of these self-regulatory processes on learning. For example, the quality of trainees plans and whether they follow through on their plans may explain the effect of planning on learning. Examining whether the effects of these nonsignificant self-regulatory processes (as well as other processes) on learning are indirect via the quality of self-regulatory activity is an essential avenue for future research.

magnitude, direction, or significance of a studys results (Begg, 1994). Three of the constructspretraining motivation, pretraining self-efficacy, and posttraining self-efficacytended to have stronger relationships with learning in published than unpublished research ( .40, .47, .47, respectively). Thus, there is some evidence that weaker results are less likely to be published than stronger results.

Meta-Analytic Conclusions
Self-regulation theories tend to be extremely broad, and together seven of the most influential theories suggest that there are 16 core constructs that account for the extent to which trainees learn from adult work-related training. Moreover, in examining which constructs were included in each theory, we found that the number of theories that discussed a given construct was significantly related to the strength of the self-regulation/learning relationship (r .48). That is, the constructs included in more theories are also the ones that have stronger effects on learning. This provides initial evidence that by examining communalities across theories, a concise list of core self-regulation constructs might be derived. Ideally, a heuristic framework of self-regulated learning should be comprehensive, parsimonious, and internally consistent (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). However, the meta-analytic results provide evidence that trainees may not mentally distinguish among all the processes when regulating their learning activity, as suggested by the strong intercorrelations among the constructs. Thus, we propose a parsimonious framework, which focuses on nine selfregulatory processes (see Figure 1). To develop the framework, we started by identifying the constructs that had significant effects on learning. We then combined constructs if they met three criteria: strong intercorrelations with one another, similar patterns of correlations with the other self-regulation constructs and learning, and self-regulation theories suggest that the constructs are strongly related.

Moderator Results
Next, we examined whether the relationships between selfregulatory processes and learning were influenced by five potential moderators: study population (college students or employees), length of the training course, publication status (published or unpublished), research design (experimental or correlational), and year of the publication, dissertation, or presentation. Together the five moderators accounted for between 4% and 49% of the variance in the relationships between self-regulatory processes and learning (see Table 5). However, the impact of four of the moderatorsstudy population, length of course, research design, and yearwere minimal. The population and research design moderator results were never statistically significant. The length of course analysis was significant only for goal level, such that trainees goal level had a stronger effect on learning in shorter than longer courses ( .49, p .05). The year of publication moderator was significant only for self-efficacy: Self-efficacy had a stronger effect on learning in recent than older publications ( .21, p .05). Thus, the effects of self-regulatory processes on learning tend to generalize across trainee populations, shorter and longer courses, experimental and correlational designs, and recent and older publications. In contrast, there was some evidence of publication bias in self-regulated learning research. Publication bias is often referred to as the file-drawer problem and occurs when the probability that a study is published is dependent on the

434

SITZMANN AND ELY

Table 5 Weighted Least Squares Regression Results for Moderators of the Relationships Between Self-Regulation Constructs and Learning
Moderator Populationa Hours spent in training Publication statusb Research designc Year of publication R2 Goal level .49 .06 .11 .25 Planning .17 .09 .04 Monitoring .21 .17 .10 .60 .46 Metacognition .21 .18 .21 .13 .17 .13 Attention .29 .20 .33 .11 .17 .21 Learning strategies .10 .17 .01 .09 .05 Persistence .26 .24 .10 .01 .15 Time management .43 .04 .49 .05 .40

Note. Dashes indicate that the effect of the moderator could not be examined due to limited variability in the moderator variable. a 1 college students, 0 employees. b 1 published, 0 unpublished. c 1 design was experimental or quasi-experimental, 0 design was correlational. p .05.

The outer ring of Figure 1 includes goal level and self-efficacy, which have moderate to strong effects on learning and are not redundant with other self-regulatory processes. Effort is included in the center ring of the framework because of its moderate effect on learning. As noted earlier, metacognition measures routinely assess a combination of both planning and monitoring.5 Also, metacognition and learning strategies are strongly interrelated, have similar patterns of correlations with other constructs, and are linked theoretically (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, we propose that metacognition (and its narrower components of planning and monitoring) should be combined with learning strategies into a broader construct, which we label metacognitive strategies. Attention and time management are also strongly related and have similar relationships with learning, but their pattern of correlations with other self-regulatory processes differs, so these constructs are included separately in the center ring of the framework. Although persistence is among the constructs with the strongest effects on learning, it also has strong correlations with nine self-regulatory processes: goal level, planning, monitoring, metacognition, attention, learning strategies, time management, motivation, and selfefficacy. Persistence and metacognition have the greatest evidence of criterion overlap with the other self-regulatory processes, but persistence does not have a similar pattern of relationships with any other construct, suggesting that persistence should not be combined with other constructs. Thus, persistence is excluded from the parsimonious framework to reduce criterion overlap across constructs. Finally, the remaining constructs in the framework with weak to moderate effects on learning are environmental structuring, motivation, and attributions. Two self-regulated learning constructs help seeking and emotion control had nonsignificant effects on learning and were therefore not included in the parsimonious framework of adult self-regulated learning. Help seeking may influence learning only if trainees are able to find the correct answers to their questions. Thus, future research on help seeking should examine the mechanisms that mediate and moderate the effect of seeking help on learning. Emotion control may be beneficial in learning situations only if trainees are able to control their emotions without pulling significant attentional resources away from task engagement while gaining control over their emotional responses. Finally, given the strong theoretical link between monitoring and self-evaluation and the weak effect of monitoring on learning, self-evaluation is not included in the framework.

This reduced list of nine self-regulatory processes allows for a more parsimonious explanation of how trainees regulate their learning activity. Furthermore, it may help to guide self-regulation research by providing a manageable list of the processes that explain meaningful components of the learning process. Future research should elucidate how trainees self-direct their learning activities outside training environments and how these core processes interact over time as adults strive to acquire work-related knowledge and skills.

Integrating Meta-Analytic Findings

Several previous training meta-analyses have examined predictors of learning. Comparing our results with the results of previous meta-analyses provides a comprehensive understanding of the predictors of learning and how self-regulation constructs compare with other predictors. Colquitt et al. (2000) used meta-analytic techniques to test a model of motivation to learn. They found moderate relationships between pretraining self-efficacy and both declarative knowledge ( .30, k 16, N 2,806) and skill acquisition ( .32, k 20, N 2,745) and between motivation and both declarative knowledge ( .27, k 11, N 1,509) and skill acquisition ( .16, k 9, N 1,615). Although we found slightly weaker relationships ( .22, k 86, N 22,857, for pretraining self-efficacy and .18, k 67, N 11,612, for motivation with learning), our results are based on data from about 4 times as many trainees, adding confidence in our results. Compared with goal orientations and trainee reactions, the majority of self-regulation constructs are stronger predictors of learning. Payne et al. (2007) examined the effects of goal orientations on learning and found small meta-analytic relationships (mastery goal orientation, .12, k 43, N 8,676; prove performance goal orientation, .01, k 38, N 7,598; avoid performance goal orientation, .13, k 13, N 2,856). Thus, the relationships between the goal orientation dimensions and learning tend to be weaker than the relationships between
The MSLQ metacognition scale (Pintrich et al., 1991) also includes items assessing attention. To reduce criterion overlap with attention, metacognition scales should eliminate items that tap attention and focus more narrowly on planning and monitoring.
5

SELF-REGULATION

435

Table 5 (continued)
Environmental structuring .55 .33 .34 Help seeking .05 .30 .40 .20 .34 .12 Pretraining motivation .09 .06 .40 .22 .09 .23 Emotion control .74 .08 .48 .49 Pretraining self-efficacy .01 .13 .47 .12 .01 .26

Motivation .06 .01 .24 .22 .07 .09

Effort .07 .17 .22 .27 .12 .07

Attributions .07 .06 .37 .08 .30 .34

Self-efficacy .10 .06 .47 .16 .21 .30

self-regulatory processes and learning. However, Payne et al. noted that learning is a distal outcome of trainees goal orientations and suggested that the effects of goal orientations on learning are likely mediated by self-regulatory processes, such as goals, learning strategies, and self-efficacy. Sitzmann, Brown, et al. (2008) found small meta-analytic relationships between trainee reactions and both declarative ( .12, k 78, N 11,005) and procedural knowledge ( .15, k 43, N 4,688). This pattern suggests that the majority of self-regulation constructs have stronger relationships than trainee reactions with learning. Together these findings indicate that self-regulation has a substantial role in predicting learning and may mediate the effects of trainees goal orientations on learning. Furthermore, self-regulatory processes collectively account for more variability in learning than the strongest independent predictor: cognitive ability (Ree & Earles, 1991). In addition to previous training meta-analyses, a meta-analysis was conducted in the performance domain to examine the effect of regulatory agents. Specifically, Wood, Mento, and Locke (1987) found evidence of a moderate positive effect of goal level on performance (d 0.58, k 72, N 7,548). Converting the d to an r to aid comparison with our findings yields a corrected correlation of .28. Although our study is not directly comparable to Wood et al. in that we examined the effect of self-set goal levels on learning (whereas they focused on the effect of assigned goal levels on performance), our results are generally consistent with these findings and support the benefits of goals in enhancing learning. Overall, the current findings and previous research point out the instrumental role of self-regulation in predicting learning and suggest that trainees who engage in self-regulatory activity tend to learn more than those who fail to self-regulate. Goals are a central construct in all self-regulation theories (e.g., Locke & Latham, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000), yet a paucity of research has examined the interrelationships between trainees self-set goal levels and the majority of self-regulation constructs. In most self-regulation studies, trainees goals are implied (e.g., to learn the course material) rather than explicitly measured. However, trainees may be striving for different goals. Some may be trying to outperform other trainees, whereas others may be striving for an A in the course or want to improve their knowledge of the training material. As demonstrated by Payne et al. (2007), these goals have different relations with self-regulation constructs and learning. It is also likely that the interrelationships among self-regulation constructs differ based on the goals trainees

are pursuing. Thus, future research should explicate the goals trainees are striving for by measuring trainees goals (including both the level that they are striving for and the content of their goals) and examine the relationships between goal level and content with self-regulatory processes.

Study Limitations
As with any research, there are limitations to the current study. First, although we identified 16 core constructs in the heuristic framework, gaps in existing primary research resulted in missing correlations among self-regulatory processes. This limitation can be addressed only when more primary studies are conducted that assess these understudied constructs and measure them in concert with other self-regulatory processes. Second, correlations between some of the self-regulation constructs are likely inflated by common method bias, as many of the measures are self-reported and completed at the end of training. To reduce this bias in the future, researchers should examine which processes can be assessed with non-self-report measures. Third, according to self-regulation theory, self-regulation is a dynamic and cyclical process (Carver & Scheier, 2000; R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). However, our meta-analytic results cannot provide evidence of causal or reciprocal relationships. Longitudinal research is needed to further examine the relationships among the self-regulatory processes and how these relationships change over time. We return to this point in the next section.

Directions for Future Research

After reviewing theoretical models of self-regulation and conducting a meta-analysis of the self-regulated learning domain, we believe that the field is on the verge of a paradigm shift in the topics examined and methods used to collect data. Specifically, we believe that the future of self-regulation research involves examining the optimal timing of measurement and using longitudinal designs to capture the dynamic nature of self-regulated learning. Our review also suggests that as organizational training shifts away from instructor-driven classroom learning, theory and research need to adapt to address the role of self-regulation in informal learning. Finally, we must begin to examine how selfregulation after trainees leave the training environment influences training transfer. The following sections review some of the ques-

436

SITZMANN AND ELY

Figure 1. A parsimonious framework of adult self-regulated learning. Metacognitive strategies encompasses metacognition (including planning and monitoring) and learning strategies.

tions that need to be answered in the next generation of selfregulation research. Dynamic nature of self-regulated learning. The majority of research included in the current review assessed self-regulation constructs pre-, mid-, or posttraining. However, research is needed to better understand the progression of self-regulation over time and to determine the right episodic unit of analysis in different learning situations. For example, in academic learning, where a typical undergraduate course might include two or three tests spread across the semester, self-regulatory processes are likely to look different across the semester. Gersicks (1988) punctuated equilibrium model proposes that groups undergo periods of stagnation punctuated by concentrated periods of activity. Selfregulation may also entail long periods of inactivity followed by spurts of intense activity. For example, college students may go several weeks without engaging in self-regulated learning only to fervently begin to regulate as a key milestone approachessuch as in the weeks (or days) before a testand then return to a period of decreased regulation immediately following the test. In contrast, during organizational training, trainees may be motivated to continually regulate to ensure that they are learning the knowledge and skills that are necessary for their jobs. These examples highlight the need for qualitative research to better understand how selfregulation plays out over time in different environments. Research in this area could provide insight as to when self-regulatory pro-

cesses should be measured as well as the optimal timing for implementing training interventions designed to induce selfregulation. Furthermore, quantitative research needs to collect more data at the point in training when changes in self-regulatory processes are likely to occur, rather than equally space the waves of data (Singer & Willett, 2003). Additionally, limited research has examined differences in the effects of self-regulatory processes at the within- and betweensubjects levels of analysis. Theoretically, self-regulation is a cyclical process by which trainees establish training goals, develop metacognitive strategies, channel their attention toward learning, and subsequently modify their self-regulatory processes over time (Carver & Scheier, 2000; R. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, it is a within-person process that evolves over time. Switching from the between- to within-subjects level of analysis requires researchers to rethink self-regulated learning theory, adopt new research methodologies and analytic techniques, and contemplate how self-regulatory processes evolve over time and in the context of work and family demands that may compete for trainees time (Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010). Some progress has been made in this area. Sitzmann and Ely (2010) found that trainees learning performance had a positive effect on self-regulatory activity in the subsequent module. Both Vancouver and Kendall (2006) and Yeo and Neal (2006) found that self-efficacy was negatively related to performance at

SELF-REGULATION

437

the within-subject level but positively related to performance at the between-subjects level.6 Moreover, Vancouver and Kendall found a cyclical relationship between self-efficacy and test performance: Past performance was a positive predictor of subsequent selfefficacy magnitude, but self-efficacy was negatively related to future performance. Furthermore, Sitzmann and Johnson (2011) found a cyclical relationship between the amount of time that trainees planned to devote to studying, effort, and learning performance. Planned time on task had a positive effect on effort, which led to higher learning performance. However, performing well resulted in trainees planning to allocate less time to the subsequent module, relative to when they performed poorly on the learning assessment. Future research should continue in this direction, employing longitudinal designs to examine changes in selfregulatory processes as well as the dynamic interplay between learning and self-regulatory processes over time. Informal learning. All the studies in the meta-analysis focused on formal learning, that is, a planned and systematic effort to teach knowledge and skills. However, the majority of learning in the workplace is informal, via looking up information online, experimentation (i.e., trial and error), and discussions with colleagues (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011). It is likely that self-regulation has a stronger effect on learning in informal than formal settings. Although learning opportunities are explicitly defined in formal settings, in informal settings employees must engage in selfregulation to identify or create learning opportunities (Enos, Kehrhahn, & Bell, 2003). Additionally, the self-regulatory processes with the strongest effects on learning may differ across these contexts (Boekaerts & Minnaert, 1999). For example, trainees may receive less externally generated feedback when engaged in informal than formal learning where feedback on exams and assignments is built into the curriculum. Thus, in informal learning environments, monitoring may be the sole source of feedback on trainees knowledge, suggesting that the accuracy of monitoring has an essential role in determining the effectiveness of informal learning. Moreover, in informal settings employees must independently identify knowledge gaps, determine where they can access relevant and accurate information, monitor the accuracy of information obtained, and control their emotions if relevant information is difficult to obtain. Given the prevalence of informal learning in the modern work environment, researchers should begin to examine the effect of self-regulation in this context. New measures need to be developed or existing measures adapted to capture the nuances of informal learning. For example, measures should capture the psychological process by which trainees self-assess their training needs and the types of planning activities that they engage in to locate accurate and relevant information. Research should also examine the effects of self-regulation failure in informal learning. What are the negative effects of trainees acquiring inaccurate information and applying them on the job? Additionally, are there environmental factors, such as strong mentor relationships, that may minimize the effect of self-regulated learning failure on job performance? Self-regulation of transfer. Only 12 of the studies included in the review examined the effect of self-regulation during training on the maintenance of trained skills posttraining. Furthermore, none of the studies examined the effect of self-regulation after trainees left the training environment on training transfer. This is a critical gap in researchers understanding of the self-regulation

process, because an implicit assumption underlying training is that learning will transfer to the work environment (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011). However, some researchers have offered dismal assessments of training transfer, specifically that only 10% of training transfers (e.g., Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Examining how trainees regulate their transfer of material from training to the job may explain essential variance in the transfer process. Action regulation theory is the only self-regulation theory in our review that discusses training transfer (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1982). This theory focuses on job design and changing employees mentality during training to enhance training transfer. However, we are not aware of any theories that address how engaging in self-regulation after returning to the job enhances training transfer. That is, what is the role of self-regulation after leaving the training environment in determining whether trainees transfer knowledge and skills learned in training to the job? We propose that self-regulation of transfer after trainees return to the job is essential for ensuring meaningful change in workrelated knowledge and skills. Self-regulation of transfer refers to striving to apply knowledge and skills learned in training to the job via control over affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes. Motivational outcomes of training may be key factors for initiating self-regulation of transfer. During training, motivation and selfefficacy are essential for initiating a wide range of self-regulatory activities (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). This should also hold true for self-regulation of transfer: Employees will not set transfer goals if their motivation and self-efficacy are low. Just as goals catalyze self-regulation in training, when returning to the work environment, employees must set specific transfer goals and devise plans for how to achieve them. Specifically, trainees must develop plans to unlearn their old work routines and replace them with the routines taught in training (Frese & Zapf, 1994). This argument suggests that the majority of self-regulation of transfer processes have analogous self-regulated learning components. Research examining self-regulation of transfer would aid the fields understanding of the role of self-regulation in the modern work environment and help researchers design interventions to increase the transfer of trained knowledge and skills back to the job.

Conclusions
The past 30 years of research on self-regulated learning have been extremely fruitful. Self-regulation theories provide a tremendous knowledge base for understanding how adults regulate their acquisition of new information. They clarify the fundamental constructs that constitute self-regulated learning, how these constructs are interrelated, and how they work in concert to predict knowledge acquisition. Our review of self-regulation theories identified 16 core self-regulated learning constructs. These constructs can be classified as regulatory agents, mechanisms, and appraisals based on whether they are instrumental in initiating self-regulated learning, ensuring goal progress proceeds in an efficient and organized manner, or determining whether trainees sustain their goal-striving behavior.
Recent research suggests that performance ambiguity moderates this relationship, with self-efficacy having a negative effect on performance when ambiguity is high and a positive effect when ambiguity is low (Schmidt & DeShon, 2010).
6

438

SITZMANN AND ELY of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586 598. doi:10.1037/00223514.41.3.586 Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706 722. doi:10.1037/00223514.80.5.706 Bauer, K. N., Orvis, K. A., Ely, K., & Sitzmann, T. (2010, April). Re-examining training motivation: A meta-analytic investigation of differential validity. Poster presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthurs (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in meta-analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 583589. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.583 Begg, C. B. (1994). Publication bias. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399 409). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296 316. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.93.2.296 Bell, B. S., & Roberson, Q. M. (2006, August). Diversity training research: Current perspectives and future directions. Panel discussion conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA. Boekaerts, M., Maes, S., & Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulation across domains of applied psychology: Is there an emerging consensus? Applied Psychology, 54, 149 154. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00201.x Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (1999). Self-regulation with respect to informal learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 533544. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00020-8 Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417 450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978012109890-2/50042-1 Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: Theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 391 402. doi:10.1016/S10416080(96)90025-4 Bourgeois, N. T. (2007). Error training: An examination of metacognition, emotion control, and knowledge as mediators of performance effects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Brodbeck, F. C., Zapf, D. Pru mper, J., & Frese, M. (1993). Error handling in office work with computers: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 303317. Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why? Personnel Psychology, 54, 271296. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00093.x Brown, K. G., & Sitzmann, T. (2011). Training and employee development for improved performance. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 469 503). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12170-016 Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245281. doi:10.2307/1170684 Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag. doi:10.3102/00346543065003245 Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personalitysocial, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111135. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111 Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive

Together the meta-analytic findings and heuristic framework of the self-regulated learning domain provide insight as to the current state of the literature. Meta-analytic findings revealed that the majority of self-regulatory processes have moderate to strong relationships with one another, suggesting that the processes are highly interrelated. Additionally, examining the intercorrelations between self-regulation constructs suggests that there is measurement overlap in the assessment of some constructs (e.g., metacognition and learning strategies). Furthermore, most of the selfregulatory processes exhibited positive relationships with learning, goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy having the strongest effects. Together these four constructs accounted for 17% of the variance in learning after controlling for cognitive ability and pretraining knowledge. However, counter to self-regulation theory, several key regulatory mechanismsplanning, monitoring, help seeking, and emotion control did not have significant effects on learning. Thus, we presented a more parsimonious framework of the self-regulated learning domain, focusing on a subset of selfregulatory processes that have both limited overlap with other core processes and meaningful effects on learning. We are hopeful that self-regulation research will continue to progress over the next 30 years. To make this goal a reality, researchers must collectively regulate their efforts toward advancing a parsimonious theory of self-regulated learning and adjust their focus to accommodate how learning occurs in the modern work and higher education environments.

References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the metaanalysis that are also discussed in the text. For a complete list of studies included in the meta-analysis, go to http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0022777.supp Al-Ansari, E. M. (2005). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the College of Education students at Kuwait University. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 341350. doi:10.2224/ sbp.2005.33.4.341 Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338 375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338 Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer in training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63105. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191215. doi:10.1037/0033295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 69 164). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 8799. doi:10.1037/00219010.88.1.87 Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, selfefficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal

SELF-REGULATION and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19 35. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19 Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 41 84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50032-9 Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678 707. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.85.5.678 Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions and educational research. Educational Research, 22, 14 22. doi:10.3102/ 0013189X022002014 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 DiBattista, D., & Gosse, L. (2006). Test anxiety and the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique. Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 311327. doi:10.3200/JEXE.74.4.311-328 Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Goal-striving and self-regulation processes. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. G. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 151196). New York, NY: Routledge. Dunlosky, J., Kubat-Silam, A. K., & Hertzog, C. (2003). Training monitoring skills improves older adults self-paced associative learning. Psychology and Aging, 18, 340 345. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.340 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040 1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144 192. doi:10.1177/109442810142004 Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218 232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218 Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549 563. doi:10.1037/00220663.91.3.549 Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 369 387. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1074 Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397 420. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00731.x Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218 233. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.218 Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 271340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Garcia, T., McCann, E. J., Turner, J. E., & Roska, L. (1998). Modeling the mediating role of volition in the learning process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 392 418. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0982 Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gardner, R. C., Moorcroft, R., & Metford, J. (1989). Second language learning in an immersion programme: Factors influencing acquisition and retention. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 287305. doi:10.1177/0261927X8985002

439

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9 41. doi:10.2307/256496 Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of selfefficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44, 837 861. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00701.x Gredler, M. E., & Garavalia, L. S. (2000). Students perceptions of their self-regulatory and other directed study strategies: A factor analysis. Psychological Reports, 86, 102108. doi:10.2466/PR0.86.1.102-108 Hacker, W. (1982). Action control. On the task dependent structure of action-controlling mental representations. In W. Hacker, W. Volpert, & M. Cranach (Eds.), Cognitive and motivational aspects of action: Selected International Congress papers (pp. 137149). Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. Hacker, W. (1985). Activity: A fruitful concept in industrial psychology. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal directed behavior: The concept of action in psychology (pp. 262284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316 330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316 Hayes, S. C. (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York, NY: Plenum. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280 1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327334. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.327 Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453 467. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.453 Ivancic, K., & Hesketh, B. (2000). Learning from errors in a driving simulation: Effects on driving skill and self-confidence. Ergonomics, 43, 1966 1984. doi:10.1080/00140130050201427 Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. (1972). Self-control: A behavioristic excursion into the lions den. Behavior Therapy, 3, 389 416. doi:10.1016/S00057894(72)80140-0 Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation and individual differences in learning: An integration of developmental, differential and cognitive perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 221239. doi:10.1016/10416080(90)90023-A Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657 690. doi:10.1037/00219010.74.4.657 Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 185209. doi:10.1016/S10416080(96)90014-X Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, F. H. (2001). Goals and self-regulation: Applications of theory to work settings. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 7. New directions in measures and methods (pp. 287326). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 2352. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44 .020193.000323 Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management training: Emotion control and metacognition as mediators of perfor-

440

SITZMANN AND ELY McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.381 Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 214. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1993.1002 Mischel, W. (1996). From good intentions to willpower. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 197218). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247 Myers, S. D. (1997). The role of person, outcome, environmental, and learning variables in training effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125173). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5 Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 131142. doi:10.1080/00220670209596583 Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 100 107. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720 .2005.tb02457.x Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736 749. doi:10.2307/258393 Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497523. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00950.x Orvis, K. A., Horn, D. B., & Belanich, J. (2008). The roles of task difficulty and prior videogame experience on performance and motivation in instructional videogames. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2415 2433. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.016 Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128 150. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128 Phillips, J. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Prevalence and prediction of positive discrepancy creation: Examining a discrepancy between two self-regulation theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 498 511. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.498 Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & C. Ames (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 6. Motivation enhancing environments (pp. 117160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3 Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33 40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Tech. Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801 813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024

mance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 677 691. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.677 Klomegah, R. Y. (2007). Predictors of academic performance of university students: An application of the goal efficacy model. College Student Journal, 41, 407 415. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 900 916. doi:10.1037/00219010.91.4.900 Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 131. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2930 Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311328. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 Kraiger, K., & Jerden, E. (2007). A meta-analytic investigation of learner control: Old findings and new directions. In S. M. Fiore & E. Salas (Eds.), Toward a science of distributed learning (pp. 6590). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11582-004 Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology, 41, 97129. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00688.x Kumrow, D. E. (2007). Evidence-based strategies of graduate students to achieve success in hybrid web-based course. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 140 145. Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1999). The effects of proximal and distal goals on performance on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 421 429. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10991379(199907)20:4::AID-JOB8963.0.CO;2-# Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741 755. doi:10.2307/259060 LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of the teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273307. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570 .2008.00114.x Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69 81. doi:10.1177/0002716202250791 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543568. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314 Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5. Retrieved from http:// www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/189/271 Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 314. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.3 McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2009). Religion, self-control, and self-regulation: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 69 93. doi:10.1037/a0014213

SELF-REGULATION Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 4397). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Plant, E. A., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 96 116. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.06.001 Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185192. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185 Poteet, M. L. (1996). The training transfer process: An examination of the role of individual, motivational, and work environmental factors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological Review, 85, 417 435. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.417 Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269 286. doi:10.1080/00313830120074206 Quin ones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226 238. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.80.2.226 Ramirez, A. E. (2000). Individual, attitudinal, and organizational influences on training effectiveness: A test of Noes model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g. Personnel Psychology, 44, 321332. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.1991.tb00961.x Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performance ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 572581. doi:10.1037/ a0018289 Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Learning within a learner control training environment: The interactive effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56, 405 429. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00156.x Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460 475. doi:10.1006/ ceps.1994.1033 Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 251260. doi:10.1037/00220663.91.2.251 Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631 649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0121098902/50048-2 Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291307. doi:10.1002/job.70 Simmering, M. J. (1999). The effects of learner control and individual differences on learning outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sitzmann, T., Bauer, K. N., & Ely, K. (2008, April). Distractions in training: Effects on self-regulation and learning. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA. Sitzmann, T., Brown, K. G., Casper, W. J., Ely, K., & Zimmerman, R. D.

441

(2008). A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 280 295. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.280 Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 132144. doi:10.1037/ a0018080 Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Selfassessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169 191. Sitzmann, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2011, April). The best laid plans: Examining the conditions under which a planning intervention improves learning and reduces attrition. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623 664. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.2006.00049.x Smith, E. M. (1996). The effects of individual differences, discovery learning, and metacognition on learning and adaptive transfer (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 6594. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96 111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96 Thomas, K. M., & Mathieu, J. E. (1994). Role of causal attributions in dynamic self-regulation and goal processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 812 818. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.812 Towler, A. J., & Dipboye, R. L. (2001). Effects of trainer expressiveness, organization, and trainee goal orientation on training outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 664 673. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.664 Tracey, J. B., Hinkin, T. R., Tannenbaum, S., & Mathieu, J. E. (2001). The influence of individual characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 523. doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12: 15::AID-HRDQ23.0.CO;2-J Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings: A tale of two paradigms. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 303341). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50039-1 Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and organisation research on self-regulation: From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology, 54, 155185. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00202.x Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1146 1153. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146 Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Warr, P., Allan, C., & Birdi, K. (1999). Predicting three levels of training outcome. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 351375. doi:10.1348/096317999166725 Warr, P., & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of open learning. Personnel Psychology, 48, 347375. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.1995.tb01761.x Warr, P., & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning anxiety and knowledge acquisition. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 311333. doi:10.1348/000712600161853 Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). LASSI: Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H. Wilhite, S. C. (1990). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memory ability, and study activities as predictors of college course

442

SITZMANN AND ELY the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307 313. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5 Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329 339. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 317. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep2501_2 Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 321). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10213-000 Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional methods. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 119). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1339). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7 Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29 36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29 Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614 628. doi: 10.2307/1163093 Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284 290. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.284 Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 105125). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012554255-5/50005-3

achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 696 700. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.696 Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173187. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3004_2 Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327 353. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90022-9 Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus complex task. Group and Organization Management, 21, 236 250. doi:10.1177/1059601196212007 Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407 415. doi:10.1037/00223514.56.3.407 Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 416 425. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.416 Yeo, G., & Frederiks, E. (in press). Cognitive and affective regulation: Scale validation and nomological network analysis. Applied Psychology. Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231247. doi:10.1037/00219010.89.2.231 Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1088 1101. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1088 Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2008). Subjective cognitive effort: A model of states, traits, and time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 617 631. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.617 Yi, M. Y., & Davis, F. D. (2003). Developing and validating an observational learning model of computer software training and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research, 14, 146 169. doi:10.1287/ isre.14.2.146.16016 Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 25 40. doi:10.1177/0273475304273346 Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are

Received November 4, 2009 Revision received December 13, 2010 Accepted December 20, 2010