Goals for the Future: The Research and Development of Questions, Models, Issues, and Applications 275Many of these newer models focus on conceptions of broad
theoretical and applied interests in the area of self-regulation.
Some of these models are instructional, emphasizing the devel-
opment of self-regulation skills through specific instruction;
other models provide teachers with directions for implement-
ing specific tools and strategies (Zimmerman, 1998).
An example of a model based on this integrative approach
to student learning that incorporates both the cognitive and
motivational aspects of learning was developed by Pintrich
and his associates (Hofer, Yu, & Pintrich, 1998). This model,
which draws on the earlier work of Garcia and Pintrich (1994),
is based on a four-by-four matrix. The resulting cells, cogni-
tive knowledge/beliefs, cognitive and metacognitive strate-
gies for regulation, motivational/self-knowledge beliefs, and
motivational strategies for regulation, can be conceptually
separated from each other. More importantly, perhaps, the
cells can be combined and recombined by students as they
learn the specific strategies congruent with each cell (Hofer
et al., 1998).
An example of a conceptual model being widely used in
practice is the Model of Strategic Learning (Weinstein,
Husman, & Dierking, 2000). Variations of this model have
been used successfully in university “learning to learn”
courses for more than 20 years. This model focuses on vari-
ables impacting strategic learning, that is, learning that is
goal driven. Weinstein’s Model of Strategic Learning has at
its core the learner: a unique individual who brings to each
learning situation a critical set of variables, including his or
her personality, prior knowledge, and school achievement
history. Around this core are four broad components focusing
on factors that, in interaction, can tremendously influence the
degree to which students set and reach learning and achieve-
ment goals. These four components are referred to as skill
(i.e., learning strategies and prior knowledge and skills), will
(i.e., motivation and positive affect toward learning), self-
regulation (i.e., metacognitive comprehension monitoring
and time management) and the academic environment (i.e.,
available resources and social support). Although instruction
is encouraged in each of the elements, the interaction among
the elements for different learning tasks and goals is most
important.
The models developed by Pintrich, Weinstein, Zimmerman,
and their associates also provide a useful illustration for
another trend in educational psychology. As previously men-
tioned, many current models in educational psychology use
theoretical underpinnings as a base from which to expand to
real-life and real-world educational and training settings.
However, these real-life and real-world settings are no longer
composed solely of formal educational settings, nor do they in-
corporate only the typically aged K–12 or college student.
A recently published book, Handbook of Self-Regulation
(2000), incorporates chapters on the relationship between per-
sonality factors and self-regulation (Kuhl, 2000; Matthews,
Schwean, Campbell, Saklofske, & Mohamed, 2000); commu-
nal models of self-regulation (as opposed to the Western, tra-
ditionally individualistic models of self-regulation) (Jackson,
MacKenzie, & Hobfoll, 2000); the use of self-regulatory
strategies in organizational settings (Vancouver, 2000); the
examination of the relationship between self-regulation and
health behaviors (Brownlee, Leventhal, & Leventhal, 2000;
Maes & Gebhardt, 2000); and the function of self-regulation
in clinical settings for the treatment of distress (Endler &
Kocovski, 2000) and chronic illnesses (Creer, 2000). Al-
though it could be argued that what has changed is more a
matter of terminology than of substance—in the early 1900s,
for example, “will psychologists” used the termsvolitionand
will-powerin much the same way as we now use the term self-
regulation—what has changed is that in the 2000s we are
attempting to identify and describe the components of self-
regulation empirically, using sound research and statistical
methodology in favor of earlier, often faulty methods of intro-
spection and self-report (Kuhl & Beckman, 1985). We are
also focusing on these components in interaction in these
varied educational settings.
Perhaps one of the most important trends in educational
psychology has been the move away from viewing the learner
as a generic template and toward viewing the learner as an in-
dividual, each with his or her own cognitive, metacognitive,
affective, and motivational strengths and weaknesses. Part of
the task here is for educational psychologists to work to ex-
pand and move beyond the current concept of education,
which tends to focus on the core of learning, cognition, and
motivation, to a model of education that also encompasses an
individual’s affect, values, caring, mental health, adjustment,
coping, and adaptation (Pintrich, 2000b).
One way educational psychologists have succeeded in
expanding the core concepts of learning, cognition, and moti-
vation has been to use these constructs as nuclei around which
more detailed constructs are built and can revolve. Already
mentioned is the idea of a strategic learner, a student or trainee
of any age, in any setting, who becomes skilled at learning to
learn. In contrast to many earlier conceptions of education, it
is now accepted that meaningful learning is not simply the
ability to memorize chunks of material but the ability to learn,
develop, transfer, and use a wide variety of strategies that can
be adapted to both content and context in the service of learn-
ing, achievement, and performance goals. Any student’s
desire to learn, practice, and apply these strategies, however,
must also be accompanied by an appropriate motivational
system (Pintrich, 2000a). Not surprisingly, therefore, research