tion to learn (Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987), but which self-regula-
tory processes influence a user’s self-perceptions of strategic effectiveness?
The self-regulatory process of self-monitoring is a metacognitive form of
self-observation, and it refers to online mental tracking of strategic processes
and their outcomes (Schunk, 1983). There is evidence that self-monitoring is
neither an easy nor a straightforward process. For example, researchers have
found that many students fail to monitor their test preparation accurately
and tend to overestimate their learning (e.g., Ghatala, Levin, Foorman, &
Pressley, 1989), which leads students to study insufficiently and perform
poorly on tests. Yet there is evidence that training students to attribute their
learning outcomes to strategy use results in more accurate self-monitoring of
strategic outcomes (Ghatala, Levin, Pressley, & Goodwin, 1986). Anderson
and Jennings (1980) found that students who were taught to attribute failure
to ineffective strategies displayed higher expectations for success than stu-
dents who were taught to attribute failure to ability. These researchers also
discovered that participants who attributed task outcomes to their strategies
monitored the effectiveness of their strategy outcomes more closely and mod-
ified their strategies more frequently than participants who attributed out-
comes to personal talent or ability. The latter participants failed to attend to
strategic outcomes and did not believe they could improve their performance.
There is also evidence that attributing adverse outcomes to strategy use
sustains student motivation more effectively than attributing outcomes to ef-
fort. Clifford (1986) hypothesized that strategy attributions will sustain stu-
dent motivation in the face of negative results better than effort attributions
because strategies enable changes in the direction of learning attempts where-
as effort attributions produce only changes in the intensity of learning at-
tempts. Clifford gave a self-rating form wherein hypothetical students attrib-
uted course outcomes to ability, effort, and strategy use, and she asked the
respondents to rate their expectancy regarding future course outcomes. The
data revealed that strategy attributions for academic failures were associated
with more positive student judgments and greater expectations for future suc-
cess than effort or ability attributions. Clearly, attributions of failure to a spe-
cific strategic method (or means that the students used to learn) were more
effective in preserving expectations about eventually attaining successful out-
comes. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1999) found that self-monitoring the
strategic quality of one’s writing processes not only leads to more frequent
strategy attributions and higher achievement but also to increased percep-
tions of self-efficacy and valuing of the intrinsic properties of the task.
Intrinsic Motivation Beliefs
Research on intrinsic motivation is also based on a means–ends distinction
(Lepper & Greene, 1978). Intrinsic motivation describes self-initiated task en-
gagement with no apparent extrinsic rewards beyond the activity itself (Deci,
- SELF-REGULATION 329