Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals.

Zimmerman, Barry J.; Kitsantas, Anastasia

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29

Cited by 410 publications

(328 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

253

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bandura and Schunk (1981) found that students' mathematical self-efficacy beliefs were predictive of their choice of engaging in subtraction problems rather than in a different type of task: The higher the children's sense of efficacy, the greater their choice of the arithmetic activity. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997;1999) also found self-efficacy to be highly correlated with students' rated intrinsic interest in a motoric learning task as well as in a writing revision task. Furthermore, measures of self-efficacy correlate significantly with students' choice of majors in college, success in course work, and perseverance (Hackett & Betz, 1989;Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984).…”

Section: Role Of Self-efficacy In Academic Motivationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn

Zimmerman

2000

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Self Cite

2,759

1,657

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past two decades, self-efficacy has emerged as a highly effective predictor of students' motivation and learning. As a performance-based measure of perceived capability, self-efficacy differs conceptually and psychometrically from related motivational constructs, such as outcome expectations, self-concept, or locus of control. Researchers have succeeded in verifying its discriminant validity as well as convergent validity in predicting common motivational outcomes, such as students' activity choices, effort, persistence, and emotional reactions. Self-efficacy beliefs have been found to be sensitive to subtle changes in students' performance context, to interact with self-regulated learning processes, and to mediate students' academic achievement. © 2000 Academic PressEducators have long recognized that students' beliefs about their academic capabilities play an essential role in their motivation to achieve, but selfconceptions regarding academic performance initially proved difficult to measure in a scientifically valid way. Initial efforts to study students' selfbeliefs gave little attention to the role of environmental influences, such as specific features of performance contexts or domains of academic functioning. In the late 1970s, a number of researchers began to assess self-beliefs in a more task-specific way, and one of the most important of these efforts focused on self-efficacy. In 1977(a) Bandura proposed a theory of the origins, mediating mechanisms, and diverse effects of beliefs of personal efficacy, and he provided guidelines for measurement of self-efficacy beliefs for different domains of functioning. In the present article, I define self-efficacy and distinguish it from related conceptions in the literature, describe its role in academic motivation and learning (with special attention to students' capabilities to regulate their own learning activities), and discuss its susceptibility to instruction and other social-cultural influences. Because of space limitations, I cite only key studies and do not consider other issues such as theoreti-I express my gratitude to Frank Pajares and Manuel Martinez-Pons for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.Address correspondence and reprint requests to Barry

show abstract

Section: Role Of Self-efficacy In Academic Motivationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn

Zimmerman

2000

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Self Cite

2,759

1,657

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another argument for this alternative prediction comes from organizational research, which suggests that the adoption and adaptiveness of goal focus depends on skill level (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997, which, in turn, is often associated with age. In many domains of life, young adults are still in the process of acquiring the means and skills relevant for goal pursuit, such as the skills or knowledge needed in the professional/work domain or that needed to establish a long-term partnership and family.…”

Section: A Developmental Perspective On Goal Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-related differences in outcome and process goal focus

Freund

Hennecke

Riediger

2010

European Journal of Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies report initial findings on age-related differences in goal focus. Study 1 compared younger (n ¼ 23, 19-25 years) to older (n ¼ 20, 57-78 years) adults regarding their preference for representations of goals in terms of the means (process focus) or the associated outcomes (outcome focus). As expected, older adults chose process descriptors of goals more frequently than younger adults. Study 2 investigated the emotional consequences of goal focus. Whereas younger adults (n ¼ 49, 18-25 years) reported higher negative affect when they focused on the outcomes of a goal, older adults (n ¼ 40, 60-88 years) reported higher positive affect when they focused on the process. Study 3, a 4-month longitudinal study, applied the distinction between process and outcome focus to the context of a personal goal in everyday life (starting to exercise). Older adults (n ¼ 46, 55-78 years) reported having a stronger process focus than younger adults (n ¼ 55, 19-25 years). Again, older adults were more likely to adopt a process than an outcome focus. For both age groups, process focus predicted positive goal-related development and affective well-being. In contrast, outcome focus was either not or negatively related to these outcomes.

show abstract

“…, determine what needs to change, develop action plans, formulate and implement new approaches, and begin the process again (54,55). While the adolescent in this stage can perform these functions independently, feedback from coaches or trainers remains valuable.…”

Section: Cognitive Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%