"Self-Regulation Involves more than Metacognition" by Barry J. Zimmerman, is an article exploring the approach of Winnie from the social cognitive perspective. It is an examination of the ways in which students are impacted by self-esteem, behavior, emotional processes and their social environment. Zimmerman and Winnie refute the argument that self-regulation is strictly based upon metacognition. The social influences involved in self-regulation greatly contribute to the student's performance. As a result of these influences students are able to become more or less motivated and therefore more or less efficient. Children with high self-esteem, in a positive social environment will most likely always out perform those with low self-esteem in a negative social environment. An individual employing self-regulation does not merely depend on metacognition but social cognitive influences as well.

Further summary:

An article by Barry J. Zimmerman wrote about the problems that Winne had with the student failures to self-regulate from a social cognitive perspective. An essay that was written by Winne raised many interesting questions of the effectiveness of self-regulated learning and how it can be further developed by students; this will help motivate them to do better in school. Winne wrote in his essay that there are many obstacles for the student from that Self-Regulation method (SRL). "SRL combines deliberate and non deliberative forms of cognitive engagement, that knowledge is a powerful and pervasive determinant of SRL method, and that there are inherent obstacles hampering students learning to self-regulate. Some of the obstacles include a learner's (a) failure to apply sufficient effort to academic self-regulation, (b) engaging in self-monitoring when it conflicts with acquisition, (c) expecting quick learning epistemically, (d) making inaccurate predictions of learning based on massed practice, and (e) failing to coordinate study tactics as one practices behaviorally." (Zimmerman, 217)

The first problem that Winne sees in the SRL method is the basic willingness of the student to put forth the effort necessary to engage in this process. The second problem in the potential for conflict between metacognitive self-monitoring and cognitive acquisition processes. In an experiment with an airplane simulator, students were given a challenging goal after doing the task five times thus ensuring that they had cognitively monitored the task differently from those who were told simply "to do their best." (Zimmerman, 218) The final results showed that the students who were given specific challenging goals did better than those who were not. "Winne argues that the actual experimental manipulation was goal setting rather that self-monitoring, and that metacognitive self-monitoring was not directly measured but instead was inferred." (Zimmerman, 218)

Winne's argument brought up many important issues dealing with the role of motivation, self-monitoring, and strategic adaptation during SRL. His essay as Zimmerman writes reveals the complexity of the SRL method. "SRL involves more than metacognitive knowledge and skill, it also involves a sense of personal agency to regulate other sources of personal influence, such as emotional processes, as well as behavioral and social environmental sources of influence."(Zimmerman, 218) Many of the questions that Winne stated in his essay are that the SRL method failed to recognize the role of social context on the students functioning and reasoning. Winne argues that "the SRL method is profoundly affected by social-contextual variables, such as task features and setting conditions." (Zimmerman, 220) Zimmerman does agree that there are instances when a student will not choose to self-regulate studying despite the known advantages of the SRL method. "Understanding these limits in self-regulated functioning, educational psychologists must direct their attention beyond metacognitive knowledge and skill to other issues, especially students' underlying sense of self-efficacy and personal agency." (Zimmerman, 220)