STOPPING UNDERACHIEVEMENT:
HOW CAN WE GUIDE STUDENTS TO
SELF-REGULATE THEIR OWN
CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE
TOWARDS GREATER ACADEMIC
SUCCESS?
A GED624 Action Research Project by:
Kristin Baker
Robin Iaione
Jamesetta Long
Metacognitive Self-Regulation as an Intervention
for Underachievement
Having observed an increasing number of students
who do not work to ability and who seem excessively
dependent on teacher direction,
the authors propose a cyclical model of
metacognitive self-regulation.
Initially, teachers will establish the cyclical pattern
through explicit instruction and modeling.
Later, students will assume responsibility for
applying metacognitive strategies
and self-regulating their learning.
“When good thinkers study a text, they feel a sense of investigation, a deep
curiosity, and an insistence on being accurate.
Although most of my students seemed to have the same ability to probe and
discover the text why didn’t they?” (Costa, & Kallick, 2000).
Have you noted an increase of the following behaviors in your
students?



Off task
Just “get it done” attitudes
Inability to sustain effective efforts
Why are so many of our students satisfied
with being simply “good enough”?
Whether in general education or gifted classes, whether in
academic or music studies, there are many students who simply
do not seem to invest themselves in their work.
A GROWING NUMBER OF STUDENTS STRUGGLE
WITH SELF-REGULATION IN THE CLASSROOM.
Underachievement in boys…
“is currently a universal phenomenon
which leads educators and parents to find
ways to assuage this problem.”
(Majzub,& Rais, 2010).
We suspect that lack of self-regulation and lack of metacognition skills
contribute to underachievement. Increasing student self-direction and
teaching metacognitive strategies may improve academic success.
The purpose of this action plan is to help students of mid to high ability
whose classroom behaviors include two or more of the following:
1. Low scores/grades compared to potential ability
and either
2. Dependent work habits (i.e. frequent requests for teacher
clarification and reinforcement)
or
3. Inability to effectively sustain on-task behavior (i.e.,
misdirected "rabbit trails," off-task behaviors)
TEACHER SURVEYS INDICATE A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF
STUDENTS WHO SHOW SIGNS OF UNDERACHIEVEMENT.
MAYBE YOU HAVE STORIES OF YOUR OWN…
 A young girl, recognized as a gifted writer, scores Below
Proficiency on NJ ASK LAL.
 A boy, classified as gifted in mathematics, scores a “D” on a test,
yet declines to correct his errors to raise his grade.
 A teacher, regarding issues of underachievement, says, “You
mean, like what I see with my whole class?”
We recognized that “it is not enough to be aware of one's understanding
or failure to understand--a learner must be able to self-regulate his or
her reading process in order to read for comprehension” (Collins, 1994).
Focus Question:
How can we help guide students to self-regulate their own
classroom performance towards greater academic success?
Goal Setting
“STUDENTS MUST ASSUME INCREASING
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLANNING AND REGULATING
THEIR LEARNING.
IT IS DIFFICULT
FOR LEARNERS TO BECOME SELF-
DIRECTED WHEN LEARNING IS PLANNED AND
MONITORED BY SOMEONE ELSE.
STUDENTS CAN
BE TAUGHT TO MAKE PLANS FOR
LEARNING ACTIVITIES INCLUDING;
ESTIMATING TIME REQUIREMENTS,
ORGANIZING MATERIALS, AND
SCHEDULING PROCEDURES NECESSARY TO
COMPLETE AN ACTIVITY”.
(BLAKELY & SPENCE, 1990)
“Self-regulated learners are those who possess a systematic approach to
their actions, including the acts of absorbing knowledge, mastering a
performance, or thinking metacognitively” (Abromitis, 2010).
Harris, Reid, and Graham (Reid, 2006), describe four cornerstones
of self-regulation:
goal setting
self-monitoring
self-instruction
self-reinforcement.
Self-instruction includes various forms of self-talk, such as internal
monologue of problem-solving and self-praise.
Journals, checklists, charts, providing written objectives, and goal
setting are just some of the ways one can teach a student to stay on
task and self regulate.
Goal-setting is a key aspect of self-regulation and
should be challenging yet attainable.
“Setting goals that can be achieved with little or no effort will not increase
a student's motivation; setting goals that are too difficult will be
overwhelming for students,” (Reid, 2006).
Siegle (2003) emphasizes the importance of student responsibility for
identifying, managing, and rewarding goals:
(Students should…)
“Practice using goals by setting them,
clarifying them,
assessing them,
developing methods for meeting them,
and rewarding themselves for reaching them:
self-consequating,
self-encouraging,
self-talk, self reward/consequence lists.”
Students become empowered through managing their own goals,
fostering self-efficacy.
Goal Management
Empowerment
Self-Efficacy
“EVEN THOUGH METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES ARE CONSIDERED TO
BE OF VALUE FOR ADEQUATE TEXT COMPREHENSION, CLASSROOM
TEACHERS OFTEN FAIL TO TEACH THIS PROCESS”
( BOULWARE-GOODEN, CARREKER, THORNHIL, & MALATESHA, 2007).
“I don’t know what to write,” stated one student while staring
down at his essay question.
“Where are you stuck?” asked the teacher who realized that
the question was just discussed and explained at great length
with the class.
“I don’t know,” was his dull response as he continued to stare
down at the blank paper, elbow on paper and hand on cheek
with legs sprawled out.
What went wrong?
How does this student not know where to even begin?
METAGOGNITIVE STRATEGIES
Teachers use the process of thinking aloud,
explaining their own thought process in all content areas.
1. Teachers model their own thought process to get students to begin
to evaluate and implement their own thought processes…
Teachers talk about thinking in a deliberate, thought-out manner.
"Students need a thinking vocabulary (Blakely S. &Spencer S.)
METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES, CONT.
2. Students foster their own metacognition skills by explaining
their thought process in small and large group setting…
Paired problem solving…
Students talk through a problem, describing their thinking
processes. Partners listen to and ask questions to each other to help
clarify thinking.
WHY?
"Children who observe a model
similar to themselves are likely
to believe that they can perform
as well as the model and thereby
experience higher self-efficacy"
(Siegle, 2010)
METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES, CONT.
3. Students use recording devices to record their explanations so
that they can hear how they responded. This helps them to develop
their own process clarification.
a. Audacity is a free online resource
at http://audacity.sourceforge.net/.
b. Handheld devices
c. Classroom recorder
4. Students can keep a Process Journal, also called a “thinking
journal.” The journal or "learning log" allows them to write down
and reflect on their thought processes.
This reflection process allows the student to be "aware of their own
ambiguities and inconsistencies and comment on how they dealt with
difficulties.” (Blakely & Spence, 2004)
DID YOU KNOW?.......
Underachievement has been linked to self-regulation for several decades.
“While the ability to self-regulate has long been considered an essential
part of a child’s healthy emotional development, self-regulation is
increasingly being seen as a good predictor of a child’s academic
success,”(Hoffman, 2010).
Self-regulation was initially understood as self-control, "the ability to
control one's own actions in the absence of immediate external constraints"
(Bandura and Waiters, 1963; Thoresen and Mahoney, 1974; cited in
Zimmerman, 1990).
The term self-regulation was first defined by Bandura and Waiters (1963),
to include standard-setting, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement in
addition to performance elements.
Research on underachievement was often behavioral in scope, with
interventions focused on increasing appropriate classroom behaviors such
as time on task, (Goodlet and Goodlet,1969; Broden et al, 1971; cited in
Zimmerman 1990).
“THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS TO REVERSE
UNDERACHIEVEMENT BEHAVIORS WILL PROVIDE A MENU OF
INTERVENTION OPTIONS …(INCLUDING) SELF-REGULATION
TRAINING ACTIVITIES” (SIEGLE, REIS ET AL, 2010).
Targeting underachievement
through metacognitive self-regulation…
Our own classroom observations have led us to probe further into the
qualitative aspects of time-on-task:
Even “gifted students ” appear to be satisfied handing in work of mediocre to poor
quality simply because it is “done.”
It has been noted that when several underachievers are grouped together, the
prevailing ethic becomes the “Gentleman’s C,” an informal teacher’s code for work
completed quietly and in compliance with classroom routines, yet of fair quality,
produced with minimal effort.
Another troubling pattern is the capable yet dependent worker, who continually seeks
affirmation or direction from the teacher instead of self-directing efforts to a clearly
structured task.
ADDITIONALLY RESEARCHERS HAVE NOTED THAT….
o “Guidance in recognizing, and practice in applying, metacognitive
strategies will help students successfully solve problems
throughout their lives” (Blakely, Spence 1990).
o “Self-regulated learners are those who possess a systematic approach to their
actions, including the acts of absorbing knowledge, mastering a performance, or
thinking metacognitively” (Abromitis, 2010).
o
Journals,
checklists,
charts (providing written objectives), and
goal setting
are just some ways one can teach a student to stay on task and self regulate.
o Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) identified 14 types of self-regulated
learning strategies, many of which can be classified as metacognitive in
nature. When evaluating students for evidence of these traits, they found
a 93% correlation to advanced placement, evidencing successful
achievement.
“STUDIES SHOW THAT INCREASES IN LEARNING
HAVE FOLLOWED DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN
METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES.”
(SCRUGGS, 1985).
“Since Flavell’s (1971) coining of the term metamemory, and especially
since the seminal metacognition research of Flavell and Wellman (1977),
many have investigated the phenomenon surrounding cognition about
cognition,” (Cox, 2005).
Researchers like Blakely and Spence elaborated on strategies introduced by
Palinscar, Ogle, Jones, Carr, & Ransom in 1986 which highlighted ideas
about “reciprocal teaching, paired problem solving, and teacher thinkalouds,” (Blakey & Spence, 1990).
“Research examining the relationship between metacognitive skills and
educational instruction have made significant progress. For example,
Forrest-Pressley, MacKinnon, and Waller (1985) and Garner (1987) report
successful instruction procedures related to both problem solving and
reading comprehension (see also Ram and Leake 1995) (Cox, 2005).
Articles and studies continued to give teachers
a variety of strategies, established by a plethora of researchers.
Is Self-Regulation simply controlling one’s behavior?
Combining metacognition with self-regulation addresses
the subjective, qualitative aspects of student learning.
“Teachers need to focus student attention on how tasks are accomplished.
Process goals, in addition to content goals, must be established and
evaluated with students so they discover that understanding and transferring
thinking processes improves learning, (Blakey & Spence 1990).
 Ghatala (1986, cited in Zimmerman, 1990) proposed that monitoring,
a metacognitive process, is essential for effective implementation of
self-regulation strategies.
 Zimmerman (1990) states, “Self-regulated learning occurs to the degree that
a student can use personal (i.e., self) processes to strategically regulate his
behavior and immediate learning environment through feedback loops.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
A TWO CYCLE PROCESS
Time to
Unpack
Plan of
Attack
Time to
Unpack
Plan of
Attack
• Reflection &
Outcome
Monitoring
• Forethought Preaction for
guided selfregulation
• Self Reflection
• Self –Directed
Goal Setting
& Strategic
Planning
Are We On Track?
•Performance
Control
Cycle 1:
Explicit Instruction
(Teacher Directed)
Are We On Track?
• Self-Regulated
Performance Control
Cycle 2:
Practice in Process
(Student Performed)
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
A TWO CYCLE PROCESS
Cycle One
During Cycle I, the teacher provides explicit
instruction and modeling in each of the three
phases of metacognitive self-regulation. This first
cycle will last for a full marking period,
familiarizing students with the repeated cycling
of the three phases, with each completed,
processed task informing the planning for the
next new challenge.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
A TWO CYCLE PROCESS
Cycle Two
Cycle II follows, as students are ready to assume
responsibility for their own self-regulation. The
teacher acts as “Guide on the Side,” coaching and
providing support but continually urging the
students to demonstrate self-efficacy. This second
cycle is also one full marking period in duration.
At the end of this second cycle, the students will
have received half of an academic year of training
and support aiming to increase self-regulation of
their own learning.
GUIDED METACOGNITION
CYCLE ONE: PHASE ONE

Time to
Unpack
• Reflection &
Outcome
Monitoring
Plan of
Attack
•Forethought Preaction for
guided selfregulation
Are We On Track?
•Performance
Control
Forethought –
Teacher models thinkaloud of what do I
know, what do I need
to know; labels the
thinking processes.
Peer partners co-write
Process Log after
teacher modeling.
GUIDED METACOGNITION
CYCLE ONE: PHASE ONE

Time to
Unpack
• Reflection &
Outcome
Monitoring
Plan of Attack
•Forethought Preaction for
guided selfregulation
Are We On Track?
•Performance
Control
Preaction –
Goal setting, forming
a plan
Teacher models how
to break down a large
task into small steps,
identifying interim
goals, selecting
strategies.
GUIDED METACOGNITION
CYCLE ONE: PHASE TWO
Peer practice of
metacognition

Time to
Unpack
• Reflection &
Outcome
Monitoring
Plan of
Attack
• Forethought
- Preaction
for guided
selfregulation
Are We On
Track?
•Performance Control

Reciprocal Teaching: Teacher directs
Reciprocal Teaching, organizing
turns and suggesting content. One
student does the think-aloud; other
acts as listener, prompting with
steps, asking questions to clarify,
summarizing. The listener’s
prompts, praise and encouragement
model effective self-talk (Blakey &
Spence, 1990).
Paired problem solving: Students
talk through a problem while
describing their thinking
processes. Partners listen to and ask
questions to help each other clarify
thinking. "Children who observe a
model similar to themselves are
likely to believe that they can
perform as well as the model and
thereby experience higher selfefficacy" (Siegle, 2003).
GUIDED METACOGNITION
CYCLE ONE: PHASE TWO
Performance monitoring and
adjustment

Time to
Unpack
• Reflection &
Outcome
Monitoring
Plan of Attack
• Forethought
- Preaction
for guided
selfregulation

Are We On Track?
•Performance Control
Teacher prompts students to
check their progress and
effectiveness of their
strategies, using checklist or
Process log.
Teacher discusses
adjustments of time frames,
suggests appropriate
rewards/consequences, such
as 3 minute break, checking
computation with calculator,
etc. (All Kinds of Minds,
2010).
GUIDED METACOGNITION
CYCLE ONE: PHASE THREE
Strategic Outcome Monitoring:

Time to
Unpack
•Reflection &
Outcome
Monitoring
Plan of Attack
• Forethought
- Preaction
for guided
selfregulation


Are We On Track?
•Performance
Control
Closure activities:
"Debriefing the thinking
process" (Blakey & Spence,
1990)
Teacher models outcome
monitoring (All Kinds of
Minds, 2010)
Examination of various
strategies by which quality of
completed work can be
assessed:



Rubric
General checklist
Check back on task
guidelines
GUIDED METACOGNITION
CYCLE ONE: PHASE THREE
Guided use of Process Log:
o
Time to
Unpack
•Reflection &
Outcome
Monitoring
Plan of Attack
• Forethought
- Preaction
for guided
selfregulation
Are We On Track?
•Performance
Control
o
Teacher guides discussion on
effectiveness of process, leading
students to identify what worked
well and what needs adjustment
for future tasks.
Teacher provides direct instruction
and modeling on use of the Process
Log tool, including…



Checklists
Self-assessment
"Notes to self"
Suggested formats for Process Log:
•Written notebook
•Folder with notes, handouts, checklists
•Digital audio: Handheld devices, Audacity software
Selected format depends on classroom resources.
SELF – DIRECTED METACOGNITION
CYCLE TWO: PHASE ONE
Forethought/Preaction…
focuses on the content of the
task (Siegle, 2003)
Time to
Unpack
•Self Reflection
Plan of Attack
•Self-Directed
goal setting &
Strategic
Planning



Are We On Track?
•Self-Regulated
Performance Control

Determine goals
Break up larger goals into
smaller attainable ones
Estimate time
requirements, set time
frame for short-term
objectives
Plan interim selfrewards/consequences to
support adherence to time
frame
SELF – DIRECTED METACOGNITION
CYCLE TWO: PHASE ONE
Time to
Unpack
•Self Reflection
Plan of Attack
•Self-Directed
goal setting &
Strategic
Planning
Are We On Track?
•Self-Regulated
Performance Control
Strategic Planning focuses
on where, when, and how
tasks will be addressed
What resources/processes
are needed?
 Schedule procedures;
organize materials;
structure environment

SELF – DIRECTED METACOGNITION
CYCLE TWO: PHASE TWO
Metacognitive strategy
implementation and
monitoring –
Is the task proceeding according
to plan? (NRC/GT, 2010)
Time to
Unpack
• Self Reflection
Plan of Attack
• Self –
Directed
Goal Setting
& Strategic
Planning

Students use…


Are We On
Track?
•Self-Regulated
Performance
Control

Process Logs, checklists to
monitor effectiveness of goals,
plans, and strategies
Self-talk, including selfrewards, self-consequences,
plan adjustments
Resources, peers, environment
appropriately as supports to
task completion.
SELF – DIRECTED METACOGNITION
CYCLE TWO: PHASE TWO
Behavioral self-regulation: Are
objectives accomplished on
schedule? If not, check...
Time to
Unpack
• Self Reflection
Plan of Attack
• Self –
Directed
Goal Setting
& Strategic
Planning
Are We On
Track?
•Self-Regulated
Performance
Control



Is there distraction?
Time management?
(perseveration, or rushing
through and then needing to
go back and "fix")
Problems with working
conditions (environment)?

Can problem be corrected or
is change of venue needed?
SELF – DIRECTED METACOGNITION
CYCLE TWO: PHASE THREE
Outcome monitoring:
evaluating product
(All Kinds of Minds, 2010)
Time to
Unpack
• Self Reflection
Plan of Attack
• Self –
Directed
Goal Setting
& Strategic
Planning
Are We On Track?
•Self-Regulated
Performance Control

Recall strategies used
What worked to support task
completion?
 What did not support task
completion?


Evaluate quality of work
completed
What worked to support task
quality?
 What did not support task
quality?

SELF – DIRECTED METACOGNITION
CYCLE TWO: PHASE THREE
Process Log
(Blakey & Spence, 1990)
Time to
Unpack
• Self Reflection
Plan of Attack
• Self –
Directed
Goal Setting
& Strategic
Planning
Are We On Track?
•Self-Regulated
Performance Control
Identify and classify
strategies, evaluate
effectiveness
 Notes-to-self for future
tasks
 1:1 Student-teacher
conferences to discuss
Process Log and review
outcomes

POTENTIAL IMPACT
Anticipated changes in
classroom behaviors:

Having implemented
metacognitive selfregulation skills in the
classroom students
will be able to utilize
their own thinking
skills to process
questions, thoroughly
respond to questions,
and stay on task.
Alignment with
curriculum:
Our plan works along
with all content
curriculum.
 Following through on
metacognitive self
regulation skills
enhances
understanding and
application of skill
sets entrenched in
curriculum.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Potential incentives:
Students will gain
awareness of their
own ability to selfregulate during tasks
and to evaluate and
synthesize
concepts. This
accomplishment alone
is the reward.
 Teachers will benefit
from students’ greater
independence.

Costs:
There are no costs
involved in the
implementation of
this plan.
 Dedicated time and
consistency of practice
are necessary for
effective
implementation.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
Measuring Effectiveness:



Results of this Action Plan can be noted via both
formative and summative classroom assessments.
This includes: quizzes, tests, rubrics for various
projects and writing assignments, and portfolios
which would include the work from the student
showing progress.
The original teacher survey will be distributed again
after the conclusion of the program (two marking
periods). Results of this questionnaire will help the
research committee make conclusions about the
success of the implemented solution.
ANTICIPATED OUTCOME
WHAT RESULTS MAY OCCUR?
Short-term, proximal results in student
behaviors within the school year
 Increased student autonomy and enhanced
performance outcomes in classroom tasks
 Increased standardized test scores, as a positive
consequence of heightened awareness and selfevaluation strategies

Classroom practice is transformed
into a model centering on student responsibility.
The teacher will guide the students to plan, to
explore, and to assess their own learning.
ANTICIPATED OUTCOME
HOW WILL THE CURRICULUM CHANGE?
Instructional practices may shift to greater
student empowerment, such as student-designed
projects or self-directed study times.
 An increase in student self-monitored activities
such as…



Student-centered investigations
Student-shaped study practice
RESOURCES



_____. Self regulating learning. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2010 from
http://www.allkindsofminds.org/learningBaseSubSkill.aspx?lbssid=104
_____. (2010). “Diving in Deeper”: Bringing basic writers’ thinking to the
surface. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.8.5, (pp.
668–676).
Abromitis, B. (2010). Promoting self-regulated learning in elementary aged
children. Retrieved from http://www.suite101.com/content/promoting-selfregulated-learning-in-elementary-aged-children-a212513#ixzz12CAm3iP7

Allday, R., & Pakurar, K. (2007). Effects of Teacher Greetings on Student OnTask Behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 317-320.

Arritola, K., Breen, J., & Paz, E. (2009, May 1). Increasing On-Task Behavior
through the Development of Classroom Social Skills.

Baker, L. (n.d.). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/#A
RESOURCES






Baugous, K., & Bendery, S. (2000, May 1). Decreasing the Amount of Classroom
Disruptions in Order To Increase the Amount of Time on Task in Elementary Students.
Blakely, E. & Spence E..(1990.). Developing Metacognition:Thinking for the Future,
excerpted in Emergency Librarian, 17(5), May-June 1990, 11-14. Retrieved October 2010
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Dev_Metacognition/
Boulware-Gooden, R, Carreker, S, & Thornhil, A, Malatesha Joshi, R. (2007). Instruction
of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of
third-grade students. Reading Rockets, Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/21160#strategies
Chiu, M. (2004). Adapting Teacher Interventions to Student Needs during Cooperative
Learning: How to Improve Student Problem Solving and Time On-Task. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 365-399.
Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B.K. (1999). Metacognition, Learning, and Educational
Computer Environments. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual,
Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-72984158.html
Coil, Carolyn. The Hidden Gifted Underachiever. E-zine Vol.2, No. 4; retrieved October
2010 from http://www.carolyncoil.com/ezine24.htm
RESOURCES

Collins, N.D. (1994). Metacognition and reading to learn. Eric Digest, ED376427 .
Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-2/reading.htm

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Activating & engaging habits of mind. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cox, M.T. (2005). Metacognition in computation: a selected research review. JournalArtificial Intelligence, 169(2), Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1644571

Hoffman, Todd. (2010). Self Regulation: The Key to Successful Students? Retrieved October
2010 from http://www.education.com/magazine/article/self-regulation-children/.



Martin, Garry. Behavior Modification: What It Is and How to Do It. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1988, cited in Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders, retrieved November 2010
from http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Behavior-modification.html.
McDevitt|, T.M., & Ormrod , J.E. (n.d.). Developmental trends: cognitive strategies and
metacognition at different age levels. Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/developmental-cognitive-different-age/
Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. (2010). Fostering the Development of Critical Thinking
Skills, and Reading Comprehension of Undergraduates Using a Web 2.0 Tool Coupled with
a Learning System. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 263-276. Retrieved from
ERIC database.
RESOURCES



Nash-Ditzel, Initials. (2010). Metacognitive reading strategies can improve self regulation.
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40, 45-63.
Pelco, Lynn E.; Reed-Victor, Evelyn. Self-Regulation and Learning-Related Social Skills:
Intervention Ideas for Elementary School Students. Preventing School Failure, v51 n3 p3642 Spr 2007.
Reid, Bob. (2006).Cognitive Strategy Instruction: Self Regulation. UNL: Dept. of Special Ed
and Communication Disorders. Retrieved October 2010 from
http://www.unl.edu/csi/self.shtml.

Reis, Sally M. Underachievement of Gifted Students: Many Frustrations and Few Solutions.
Retrieved October 2010 from oagct.org/wpcontent/uploads/droppingoutwithdignity.doc

Reis, S. & McCoach, D. The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and
where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly (NAGC) Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 152-170. Summer 2000


Siegle, D. (2003).Using the achievement-orientation model to reverse underachievement.
NRC:GT at University of CT, Storrs. Retrieved from
http://selfregulation.pbworks.com/f/MotivationHandout.pdf
Siegle, D. Reis, Sally M., and others. Self-Regulation Module. Neag Center for Gifted
Education and Talent Development, NRC: GT, Univ CT, Storrs. Retrieved October 2010
from www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/SelfRegulation/printversion.pdf.
RESOURCES

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated academic learning and achievement: The
emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173-201.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners:
Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association