result of their selective process-outcome monitoring, proactive self-regulators
know how far they have progressed in their learning without waiting for de-
layed outcomes.
Self-Reflection Phase. There are two major classes of self-reflection
processes. One type of self-judgment, self-evaluation, refers to comparing
self-monitored information with a standard or goal, such as when an aspiring
spelling contestant compares daily practice outcomes to her best previous ef-
fort (i.e., a self-improvement criterion), to the efforts of local competitors
(i.e., a social comparison criterion), or to national spelling bee records (e.g., a
mastery criterion). Self-evaluations are not automatic outcomes of perform-
ance but rather depend on learners’ motivation to improve and on their selec-
tion and interpretation of an appropriate criterion. Proactive self-regulators
prefer to self-evaluate using a self-improvement or mastery criteria because
of their learning process goals. The self-improvement criterion involves com-
paring current learning efforts with earlier ones, and the resulting self-
evaluations are likely to reveal improvement with time. A mastery criterion
involves comparing daily improvements against a stable standard, and these
self-evaluations are also likely to show improvement with practice. In con-
trast, reactive self-regulators tend to self-evaluate using a comparative crite-
rion because of their focus on outcomes and lack of forethought (Zim-
merman & Kitsantas, 1997, 1999). They turn to social comparison criteria,
such as the performance of competitors, because they lack an alternative cri-
terion for self-judgment, such as self-improvement or mastery goals (Festing-
er, 1954). The resulting self-evaluations are often unfavorable because one’s
competitors may start ahead or progress faster. In addition, adverse social
comparisons can be publicly stigmatizing (i.e., being perceived as a loser) and
lead to the debilitating ego goal orientation described by Nicholls (1984).
A second self-judgment also plays a pivotal role in self-reflection because
causal attributions of errors to uncontrollable sources, such as a fixed
method or fixed ability, prompt learners to react negatively and discourage
further efforts to improve (Weiner, 1979). By contrast, attributions of error
to personally controllable sources, such as strategies for writing an essay,
have been shown to sustain motivation during periods of deficient perform-
ance (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997, 1999). According to Weiner (1986),
personal perceptions of high controllability over adverse outcomes lead to a
sense of guilt whereas perceptions of low controllability lead to a sense of
shame. Fortunately, attributions are not automatic products of favorable or
unfavorable self-evaluations, but rather, they depend also on preceding self-
regulatory processes and beliefs, such as task analysis, goal setting, and per-
ceptions of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991). Reactive self-regulators are prone
to attributing causation for errors to uncontrollable sources, such as ability,
task difficulty, or luck because they lack process goals and strategy process
342 ZIMMERMAN AND SCHUNK