Beyond goal setting and planning: An examination of college students’ self-regulated learning forethought processes
Open accessAbstract
This study aimed to identify and evaluate major processes college students engage in as they begin their active engagement in learning. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 college students. Then, a grounded theory approach was used to identify the forethought processes students described. These processes included identifying goals, ordering and prioritizing tasks, scheduling, storing goals and plans, and regulating goals and plans. Additionally, findings indicated that students perceived their engagement in these forethought processes as connected to their beliefs about the subject domain, prior experiences, and subject domain and context. These results highlight processes that have not been thoroughly captured previously by self-regulated learning frameworks. Thus, articulating these processes provides a deeper understanding of students’ active engagement in self-regulated learning.
Verified 2026-10-05 · 1 reference not checked yet
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
1 of 12 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
The criteria participants used to decide task order differed across students.
“Thus, although many students described ordering and prioritizing, the specific criteria they used to identify which tasks to complete first varied.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Short-term assignment goals fed into longer-term goals concerning exam grades or overall achievement.
“The short-term assignment goals directly led to a long-term goal related to their exam grades or their overall achievement.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Scheduling often linked to ordering and prioritizing, as students first set task order and then set completion times.
“Oftentimes, scheduling tasks connected to ordering and prioritizing, where students identified the order of their tasks and then identified when they would complete those tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Schedules established a routine with set days for regularly completing calculus work.
“These schedules created a routine where students developed days to consistently complete calculus.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Participants linked their forethought processes to their subject-domain beliefs, earlier experiences, and the subject domain and context.
“Additionally, findings indicated that students perceived their engagement in these forethought processes as connected to their beliefs about the subject domain, prior experiences, and subject domain and context.”
- Also stated in: § Findings · plain
“In addition, students described the ways in which their beliefs about the subject domain, prior experiences, and subject domain and context influenced their forethought and other SRL processes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Findings · plain
- Findingown data
Some students saw understanding homework as central to their broader aim of earning a good course grade.
“For some students, understanding homework assignments was key to their larger goal of getting a good grade in the course.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
The study identified five forethought processes: goal identification, task ordering and prioritization, scheduling, storage of goals and plans, and regulation of goals and plans.
“These processes included identifying goals, ordering and prioritizing tasks, scheduling, storing goals and plans, and regulating goals and plans.”
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · plain
“The five forethought processes that emerged from the evaluation of student interviews were identifying goals, ordering and prioritizing tasks, scheduling, storing goals and plans, and regulating goals and plans.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · plain
- Findingown data
Some participants deliberately built a buffer between deadlines and planned work times by working ahead to gain extra time.
“As a part of the scheduling process, some students intentionally scheduled a buffer between deadlines and when they planned to work on their tasks.”
- Also stated in: § Scheduling. · plain
“Students reported working ahead on assignments to allow additional time to complete an assignment.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Scheduling. · plain
- Findingown data
How students prioritized was closely tied to their particular goals.
“Students' approaches to prioritizing were closely related to their specific goals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
The reasons students gave for completing calculus work or the course fell into performance and mastery categories.
“There were two underlying reasons that students were focused on completing calculus assignments or the course in general: performance and mastery.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Choosing days or times for completing academic tasks was a forethought process.
“Based on student descriptions, identifying days and/or times they would complete academic tasks appears to be a third important forethought process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
When describing performance goals, students said their main reason for doing assignments was instructor requirement.
“When describing performance goals, students noted that their primary reason for completing their assignments was because they were required by the instructor.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Many participants' responsibilities shifted during the semester, altering their academic strategies and approaches.
“Many students also noted that their responsibilities changed throughout the semester, thus changing their strategies and approaches to academics.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Participants recalled that their beliefs and strategies changed over time.
“Students recollected that both their beliefs and strategies changed over time.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Participants expressed varied domain-related beliefs, from broad views about math to specific views about calculus.
“The domain of students' beliefs ranged from broader beliefs about math to more specific beliefs about calculus.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Regulation usually happened when an obstacle challenged the initial goal or plan.
“Typically, this regulation occurred because students encountered an obstacle challenging their initial goal/plan.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Participants used tools to help with ordering, prioritizing, and scheduling.
“Students also relied on tools to assist in their ordering, prioritizing, and scheduling.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Beyond reacting to obstacles, participants proactively regulated them by creating backup goals and plans.
“In addition to reacting to obstacles, students seemed to proactively regulate obstacles by forming backup goals and plans.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Regulating goals and plans was a forethought process involving reassessment and alteration of initial goals or plans.
“A final forethought process that emerged was regulating goals and plans.”
- Also stated in: § Regulating goals and plans. · plain
“Students characterized scenarios where the initial goal/plan they identified was later reassessed and altered.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Regulating goals and plans. · plain
- Findingown data
Many participants faced shifts in their academic paths because opportunities changed.
“Many students were experiencing changes in their academic trajectories due to altered opportunities.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Participants' domain-related beliefs appeared to shape their forethought processes, especially goal setting.
“These beliefs seemed to shape students' forethought processes, particularly their goal setting.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Other participants adopted more effective strategies as the semester went on.
“Other students recounted that as the semester progressed, they started to use more effective strategies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
For some participants, the buffer provided room for unforeseen or expected events and challenges.
“For some students, this buffer allowed space for unexpected or anticipated events or challenges.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Goal identification, ordering and prioritizing, and scheduling shaped how goals and plans were stored.
“Identifying goals, ordering and prioritizing, and scheduling informed the storage of these goals and plans.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Findingown data
Participants' beliefs and strategies were not static; they developed as students advanced through college and calculus.
“Overall, it was clear that students' beliefs and strategies were not stagnant.”
- Also stated in: § Factors influencing forethought · plain
“Instead, students' beliefs and strategies developed as students progressed through college and, more specifically, through their calculus course.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Factors influencing forethought · plain
- Findingown data
The COVID-19 pandemic was a particularly common obstacle mentioned in interviews.
“One especially prevalent obstacle that was discussed in interviews was the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Premisecitation
Prompts focused on planning for remedial strategies increased students' planning statements and use of remedial strategies compared to no planning prompts.
“Similarly, in a study focused on comparing the impact of different aspects of SRL, Nückles et al. (2009) found that prompts focused on planning for remedial strategies increased students' planning statements and the use of remedial strategies compared to students who did not receive planning prompts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Nückles et al. (2009) source
- Premisenone given
Empirical research usually examines one or two forethought processes instead of forethought as a whole.
“In addition, although it is clear that these processes are interrelated, empirical studies tend to focus on one or two forethought processes rather than investigating forethought as a whole.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Goal setting is an outcome of developing perceptions of a task.
“Goal setting is an outcome of developing perceptions of a task (Winne & Hadwin, 1998).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Winne & Hadwin, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Higher-quality planning seems connected to students' strategy usage.
“Higher-quality planning also seems connected to students' strategy usage (Greene et al., 2012).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Greene et al., 2012 source
- Interpretationown data
Prior SRL frameworks have not thoroughly captured the forethought processes identified in this study.
“These results highlight processes that have not been thoroughly captured previously by self-regulated learning frameworks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The forethought processes described by these 23 calculus students are representative of college students' forethought processes more generally.
- Premisecitation
Students who planned were more effective in their task completion.
“Students who planned were also more effective in their task completion.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Eilam and Aharon (2003) source
- Premisecitation
The implementation of planning prompts predicted students' performance.
“In addition, the implementation of planning prompts predicted students' performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Nückles et al. (2009) source
- Premisecitation
Students who set proximal learning goals and distal learning goals use the greatest number of strategies when approaching a scheduling task.
“Seijts and Latham (2001) found that students who set proximal learning goals and distal learning goals use the greatest number of strategies when approaching a scheduling task.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Seijts and Latham (2001) source
- Interpretationreasoning
Describing these processes yields a deeper understanding of how students actively engage in SRL.
“Thus, articulating these processes provides a deeper understanding of students' active engagement in self-regulated learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The forethought processes described by these 23 calculus students are representative of college students' forethought processes more generally.
- Interpretationown data
Identifying these processes and their influences updates knowledge of self-regulatory forethought in current real-world settings.
“Identification of these forethought processes and the influencers of these processes adds to existing understandings of SRL because it updates our understanding of self-regulatory forethought processes in contemporary, real-world contexts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Rests on an assumption: The forethought processes described by these 23 calculus students are representative of college students' forethought processes more generally.
- Premisecitation
The quality of students' task definitions was negatively related to the amount of monitoring they engaged in.
“Also, the quality of students' task definitions was negatively related to the amount of monitoring they engaged in, which could suggest that better task definitions lead to less need for monitoring.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Greene et al., 2012 source
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 13
- May combine two claims. 10
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationMost self-regulated learning frameworks contain at least three phases: forethought, performance, and appraisal.
“Most frameworks tend to include at least three different phases: a forethought phase that occurs as students begin to initiate work on academic tasks, a performance phase that occurs while students are actively engaged in a task, and an appraisal phase that follows students' completion of their task (Panadero, 2017).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2017 source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataParticipants described ordering and prioritizing tasks as a forethought process, arranging responsibilities both inside and outside calculus.
“A second forethought process that students described was ordering and prioritizing tasks.”
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · plain
“Specifically, students described creating a sequence of their responsibilities both within and outside of calculus.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe forethought processes were not ordered in a fixed sequence but interacted and overlapped.
“Analyses of students' responses did not convey a specific order of the forethought processes; instead, students' processes were interactive and overlapping.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataPrioritizing applied both to broader academic and personal obligations and to calculus-specific tasks.
“Prioritizing occurred both in the broader sense of ordering academic and personal obligations, as well as more specifically in ordering calculus tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataImportance and difficulty were two criteria participants used when ordering tasks.
“Importance and task difficulty were two criteria students used to order their tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataParticipants also prioritized the steps needed for larger calculus tasks, revealing a particular structure or system.
“In addition to prioritizing separate academic tasks, students also prioritized the steps required to complete larger calculus tasks.”
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · hedged
“These steps indicated a specific structure or system that students developed to approach their academic tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · hedged
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataParticipants frequently reported several interconnected goals, at times combining performance and mastery aims.
“Importantly, students oftentimes described multiple, interrelated goals.”
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · plain
“Some students' interrelated goals included a focus on performance and a focus on mastery.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
- Also stated in: § Major forethought processes · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAfter the first code test, the coders agreed that students' process descriptions were interrelated and hard to distinguish.
“The consensus was that students' descriptions of processes were interrelated and, thus, challenging to distinguish between.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataStrategies changed over the semester; some students began with intentional strategy use but became less intentional later.
“For some students, the beginning of the semester prompted intentional strategy use, but over time students became less intentional.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataMost participants stored goals and plans in external tools, while some used memory.
“Although some students relied on their memory to keep track of their goals and plans, most students utilized external tools.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningIn authentic settings, students' forethought processes are probably interconnected.
“When students engage in forethought in authentic environments, these processes are likely interconnected.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationProximal goals tend to be less complex and quickly achieved, whereas distal goals are more complex and require more time and effort.
“Proximal goals tend to be less complex and can be quickly achieved, whereas distal goals are more complex and require more time and effort to achieve (Latham & Locke, 2007).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Latham & Locke, 2007 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenThe forethought processes are interrelated.
“In addition, although it is clear that these processes are interrelated, empirical studies tend to focus on one or two forethought processes rather than investigating forethought as a whole.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataAfter code revision, a second reliability check produced an intercoder reliability of 74%.
“The codes were revised and a second reliability check was conducted (intercoder reliability = 74%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataAgreement between the first author and second coder was 62%.
“The percentage of agreement between the first author and the second coder was 62%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisereasoningActive engagement in an academic task starts with forethought processes like goal setting and planning.
“The inclusion of these three different phases stresses that students' active engagement in an academic task begins with forethought processes, such as goal setting and planning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationStudents' task definitions improved over time and are updated based on new information.
“Greene et al. (2012) found that students' task definitions improved over time, meaning that their task definitions are updated based on new information as they engage in an academic task.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Greene et al., 2012 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationUndergraduates perceived goal setting as influential on their motivation and academic performance.
“Similarly, Travers et al. (2015) found that undergraduates perceived goal setting as influential on their motivation and academic performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Travers et al. (2015) source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThroughout coding, the lead author held regular check-ins with coauthors to support trustworthiness.
“Throughout the coding process, the lead author facilitated regular check-ins with the coauthors of this study to ensure trustworthiness.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Interpretationnone givenDescribing these processes helps researchers and practitioners better understand college students' learning experiences.
“Characterizing these processes allows researchers and practitioners to better understand college students' learning experiences.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The forethought processes described by these 23 calculus students are representative of college students' forethought processes more generally.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation79% of college computing students perceived goal setting as facilitating their academic success.
“For example, Cheung (2004) found that 79% of college computing students perceived goal setting as facilitating their academic success.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cheung (2004)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe lead author checked and corrected the Zoom-generated transcripts to fix inaccuracies.
“First, the lead author reviewed and revised the Zoom-generated transcripts rectifying any inaccuracies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Students' interview descriptions accurately reflect their actual forethought processes.
“Data were collected using a demographic survey and a semi-structured Zoom interview.”
“The interview included questions aimed at better understanding the specific processes students engaged in prior to starting academic assignments.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The forethought processes described by these 23 calculus students are representative of college students' forethought processes more generally.
“Beyond goal setting and planning: An examination of college students’ self-regulated learning forethought processes”
“Participants were undergraduates (N = 23) at a public university in the Midwest United States.”
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136 · cited 6× · see citing works
“These codes were created through open coding by comparing descriptions of processes across interviews and looking for commonalities (Belgrave & Seide, 2019; Corbin & Strauss, 2008).”
InfluentialZimmerman, B. J. (2000) · Handbook of Self-Regulation · doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7 · Cited by 6,069 · see citing works
The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning
Pintrich, P. R. (2000) · Handbook of Self-Regulation · doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3 · Cited by 5,173 · see citing works
A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students
Pintrich, P. R. (2004) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x · Cited by 3,269 · see citing works
A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research
Panadero, E. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 · Cited by 2,915 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…to include at least three different phases: a forethought phase that occurs as students begin to initiate work on academic tasks, a performance phase that occurs while students are actively engaged in a task, and an appraisal phase that follows students’ completion of their task (Panadero, 2017).”
The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781848607941 · Cited by 2,798 · see citing works
Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J. T., & Graesser, A. C. (1998) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410602350 · Cited by 2,138 · see citing works
Studying as Self-Regulated Learning
(1998) · Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice · doi:10.4324/9781410602350-19 · Cited by 1,589 · see citing works
Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x · Cited by 1,479 · see citing works
Wolters, C. A. (2004) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236 · Cited by 1,386 · see citing works
Self-citationEfklides, A. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538645 · Cited by 1,211 · see citing works
Boekaerts, M. (1997) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(96)00015-1 · Cited by 1,164 · see citing works
Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706 · Cited by 900 · see citing works
Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2015) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8 · Cited by 887 · see citing works
A 3 × 2 achievement goal model.
Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. H. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023952 · Cited by 855 · see citing works
The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2019) · doi:10.4135/9781526485656 · Cited by 614 · see citing works
New Developments in and Directions for Goal-Setting Research
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.290 · Cited by 596 · see citing works
The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories
Terenzini, P. T., Rendón, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., & Jalomo, R. (1994) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf02496662 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry
Schwandt, T. A. (2015) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483398969 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
College Students’ Time Management: a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective
Wolters, C. A., & Brady, A. C. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09519-z · Cited by 317 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Wolters and Brady (2021) suggested that, when considering time management within a framework of SRL, students consider deadlines and identify time management strategies during forethought.”
Self-citationAssessing and Predicting College Students’ Use of Strategies for the Self-Regulation of Motivation
Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.699901 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
Self-citationSelf-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2007) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Student Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in the College Classroom
Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2007) · The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective · doi:10.1007/1-4020-5742-3_16 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols
Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.002 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Multiple goals, motivation and academic learning
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Rodríguez, S., & Piñeiro, I. (2003) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1348/000709903762869923 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Self-Regulated Learning: The Interactive Influence of Metacognitive Awareness and Goal-Setting
Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.1992.9943867 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning
Eilam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00042-5 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.70 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Effects of motivational regulation on effort and achievement: A mediation model
Schwinger, M., & Stiensmeier‐Pelster, J. (2012) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.07.005 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Bouchet, F., & Khosravifar, B. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.018 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
McCardle, L., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9132-0 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Self‐reflection, growth goals, and academic outcomes: A qualitative study
Travers, C. J., Morisano, D., & Locke, E. A. (2015) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjep.12059 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Kim, Y., Brady, A. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2020) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101872 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationYang, T., Chen, M. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.025 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Yazedjian, A., Toews, M. L., Sevin, T., et al. (2008) · Journal of college student development · doi:10.1353/csd.2008.0009 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry
(2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.190250 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Greene, J. A., Hutchison, L. A., Costa, L.-J., & Crompton, H. (2012) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.002 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
The What, Why, and How of Distractions from a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective
Brady, A. C., Kim, Y., & Cutshall, J. (2021) · Journal of College Reading and Learning · doi:10.1080/10790195.2020.1867671 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationBelgrave, L. L., & Seide, K. (2019) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781526485656.n10 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-regulatory processes within and between diverse goals: The multiple goals regulation framework
Kim, Y.-E., Yu, S. L., Wolters, C., & Anderman, E. M. (2023) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/00461520.2022.2158828 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationEndedijk, M., Vermunt, J. D. H. M., Meijer, P. C., & Brekelmans, M. (2013) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.777402 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Kim, Y., Yu, S. L., Wolters, C. A., & Anderman, E. M. (2021) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102018 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationBarbero (2014) · doi:10.1016/j · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (n.d.) · The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods · doi:10.4135/9781446268261.n14
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Garavalia L. S., Gredler M. E. (2002). An exploratory study of academic goal-setting, achievement calibration and self-regulated learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 222–230.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teachers’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning practices in elementary school classrooms
Greenquist-Marlett, S., Bol, L., & Hill, C. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1464350 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Ning, Y., Seah, W. T., Chen, J., Liu, J., & Tan, P. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105572 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Bruna, D., Oñate, A. S., & Ramírez-Azócar, P. (2025) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-025-01580-3 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“This ability is not only crucial for academic success but also for lifelong learning and professional achievement, as it equips individuals with the tools to navigate complex and dynamic environments (Brady et al., 2024; Wong et al., 2021).”
Hsu, P.-C., Chang, I.-H., & Chen, R.-S. (2026) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874261437074 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Gao, J., Li, S., Zhang, J. N., et al. (2026) · International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3785022.3785089 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Osathanunkul, R., Suree, N., Woradit, K., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1647901
Gladstone, J. R., & Beymer, P. N. (2026) · Journal for STEM Education Research · doi:10.1007/s41979-026-00193-4
- Authors
- Brady, A. C., Wolters, C. A., Pasque, P. A., Yu, S. L., & Lin, T.-J.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Southern University (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brady, Anna C
- Venue
- Active Learning in Higher Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-08-22
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 557-573
- ISSN
- 1469-7874 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-2625
- OpenAlex
- W4401792988
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 4.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Active Learning in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Keywords
- student self-regulation, university students, goal setting, task prioritization, scheduling, goal regulation, student beliefs, prior experience
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-01.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-01.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
