CHAPTER 39
Development and Adaptation of
Expertise: The Role of Self-Regulatory
Processes and Beliefs
Bany 1Zimmerman
The attainment of expertise in diverse fields
requires more than nascent talent, initial
task interest, and high-quality instruction;
it also involves personal initiative, diligence,
and especially practice. Both the quality
and quantity of an expert's practice have
been linked directly to acquisition and
maintenance of high levels of performance
(Ericsson, 1996, Ericsson, Chapter 38).
Regarding its quality, the practice of experts
is characterized by its conscious deliberate
properties - narnely, a high level of con-
centration and the structuring of specific
training tasks to facilitate setting appropriate
personal goals, monitoring informative feed-
back, and providing opportunities for repeti-
tion and error correction [Ericsson, Krampe,
& Tesch-Romer, 1993)' Deliberate attention
(i.e., strategic awareness) is believed to be
necessary to overcome prior habits, to self-
monitor accurately, and to deterrnine neces-
sary adjustments.
Although a skilled teacher typically struc-
tures these desirable dirnensions of prac-
tice episodes, a student must implement
them on his or her own before retum-
ing to the teacher for evaluation and new
assignments. Expert musicians rated both
lessons with their teacher and their solitary
practice as two keys to their improvernent,
but only the latter was solely under their
control [Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Rorner,
1993)' Interestingly, the quantity of deliber-
ate practice, but not total amount of music-
related activity, was predictive of the mus i-
cians' acquisition and maintenance of expert
performance. Ericsson (2003) has discussed
a persori's attempts to acquire expertise
as deliberate problem solving because they
involve forming a cognitive representation of
the task, choosing appropriate techniques or
strategies, and evaluating one's effectiveness.
These properties of deliberate practice (e.g.,
task analysis, goal setting. strategy choice,
self-monitoring, self-evaluations, and adap-
tations) have been studied as key compo-
nents of self-regulation (Boekaerts, Pintrich,
& Zeidner, 2000; Schunk & Zirnmerrnan,
1998; Winne, 1997; Zimmerman & Schunk,
2001). Self-regulation is defined forrnally
as self-generated thoughts, feelings, and
actions that are strategically planned and
adapted to the attainment of personal goals
(Zimmerman, 1989)' Feedback from one's
 THE CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE
performance is used cyclically to make
strategi c adjustments in future efforts.
In this chapter, I review research on the
development of personal expertise in diverse
areas of functioning, such as music, writ-
ing, and sport, with particular attention to
the role of self-regulatory processes and
supportive self-motivational beliefs. Exper-
tise involves self-regulating three personal
elements: one's covert cognitive and affec-
tive processes, behavioral perforrnance, and
environmental setting. These triadic ele-
ments are self-regulated during three cyclical
phases: forethought, performance, and self-
reflection (see also Feltovich, Prietula, &
Ericsson, Chapter 4, "Expertise is Reftec-
tive"}, Then I discuss research on ph ase
differences in self-regulatory processes and
motivation al beliefs of novices and experts,
and finally, I describe the development
of expertise through multi-ph ase self-
regulation training.
Expertise is defined as a sequence of
mastered challenges with increasing level s
of difficulty in specific areas of function-
ing [Ericsson, 2003). In this chapter, the
terms expert and novice refer to high or low
positions respectively on this continuum of
task difficulty, without limiting the term
expertise to the pinnacle of performance.
Expertise involves more than self-regulatory
competence; it also involves task knowledge
and performance skil1. Self-regulatory pro-
cesses can assist a person to acquire both
knowledge and skill more effectively, but
improvements in one's use of self-regulatory
processes will not immediately produce high
levels of expertise. What then is the role of
self-regulatory processes in the development
of expertise?
A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulation.
From this perspective, expertise develops
from both external support and self-directed
practice sessions. A child's acquisition of
expertise in both common and more esoteric
activities emerges from modeling, instruc-
tion, monitoring, and guidance activities by
his or her parents, teachers, and peers within
the social milieu of the farnily, the school,
and the community. In his classic study of
AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
4
talented concert pianists, sculptors, mathe-
maticians, neurologists, Olympic swimmers,
and tennis players, Bloom (1985) found that
their parents not only nurtured the child's
initial interest and provided or arranged
high-quality instruction, they also empha-
sized the importance of dedicated practice:
"To excel, to do one's best, to work hard,
and to spend one's time constructively were
emphasized over and over again" (p. 10).
Because high leveis of skill must be practiced
and adapted personally to dynamic con-
texts, aspiring experts need to develop a self-
disciplined approach to learning and prac-
tice to gain consistency (Nicklaus, 1974).
As children attain higher leveis of per-
formance, parents and teachers gradually
eliminate external supports (Glaser, 1996).
Parental activities that foster children's self-
regulatory control of learning have been
found to increase the social and cognitive
competence of the children (e.g., Brody
& Flor, 1998; see also Horn & Masunaga,
Chapter 34).
Social cognitive researchers view self-
regulatory competence as involving three
elements: self-regulating one's covert per-
sonal processes, behavioral performance, and
environmental setting (Bandura, 1986). Suc-
cessful learners monitor and regulate these
triadic elements in a strategically coordi-
nated and adaptive manner. Because each
of these triadic elements fluctuates during
the course of learning and performance, it
must be monitored and evaluated using a
separate self-oriented feedback loop, which
is depicted in Figure 39.1 (Zimmerman,
1989).
During behavioral self-regulation, an indi-
vidual self-observes and strategically adjusts
his or her overt performance, such as when
a tennis player double faults when serv-
ing and decides to adjust his or her ball
toss. With environmental self-regulation, a
person observes and adjusts his or her envi-
ronmental conditions or outcomes, such as
when a golfer has trouble with sun glare
and decides to wear sunglasses. During
covert self-regulation, an individual monitors
and adjusts cognitive and affective states,
such as when a basketball player begins
to "choke" under pressure and decides to
 DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION OF EXPERTlSE 707

.- Strategy Use

Feedback Loop

Behavioral
Self-Regulation

Environmental
Self-Regulation

Figure 39.1. Triadic forms of self-regulation. From "Asocial cognitive view of

self-regulated academic learning," by Barry 1. Zimmerman, 1989, Journalof
Educational Psychology, 8J, p. 330. Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological
Association. Adapted with permission.

form a relaxing mental image to counter-
act the pressure. For all three self-regulatory
elements, people's accuracy and constancy
in self-monitoring of outcomes positively
influence the effectiveness of their strate-
gic adjustments and the nature of their
self-beliefs, such as perceptions of self-
efficacy - their self-belief in their capabil-
ity to perform effectively [Schunk, 1983 b;
Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). The lat-
ter belief, in turn, is a major source of
motivation to self-regulate one's functioning
(Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 1995), and
its cyclical role during self-regulation, along
with that of other key self-motivational
beliefs, is discussed next.
A Cyclical Phase View of Self-Regulatory
Processes and Motivational Beliefs
Bloorri's (1985) study revealed that tal-
ented youth were distinguished by their
initial attraction to their field from first
exposure and by their increasing practice
time. Their successes led them or their
parents to seek instruction from master
teachers. But why does the initial task inter-
est of these talented youths' lead to self-
enhancing cydes of motivation, whereas the
initial task interest of their undistinguished
peers fails to sustain dedicated learning and
practice? To explain self-enhancing cydes of
learning, social cognitive researchers (Ban-
dura, 1991; Zimmerman, 2000) have pro-
posed that self-regulatory processes are
linked to key self-motivational beliefs dur-
ing three cyclical phases: forethought, per-
formance control, and self-reflection (see
Figure 39.2).
The forethought phase involves learn-
ing processes and motivation al beliefs that
precede and can enhance efforts to learn,
practice, and perform. The performance
phase involves use of processes to improve
the quality and quantity of learning, prac-
tice, and perforrnance, and the self-reflection
phase involves processes that occur after
efforts to learn, practice, or perform that
influence a learner's cognitive and behav-
ioral reactions to that experience. These
self-reflections, in turn, influence a person's
forethought proces ses and beliefs regard-
ing subsequent learning, which completes
the se1f-regulatory cycle, Although all learn-
ers attempt to self-regulate their personal
functioning in same way, developing experts
 ------------ ......-
THE CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE

Performance Phase

Self-Control
Task strategi es
Imagery
Self-instructions
Time management
Environmental structuring
Help seeking

Self-Observation
Metacognitive self-monitoring
Self-recording

Forethought Phase Self-Reflection Phase

Task Analysis
Self-Judl:ment
Goal setting
Self-evaluation
Strategic planning
Causal attribution

Self-Motivation
Self-Reaction
Self-efficacy Self-satisfaction/affect
Outcome expectations Adaptive/defensive
Task value/interest
Goal orientation

Figure 39.2. Phases and subprocesses of self-regulation. From "Motivating self-regulated problem
solvers," by B. 1. Zimmerman & M. Campillo, 2003, in 1. E. Davidson & R. 1. Sternberg (Eds.), The
nature of problem solving (p. 239)' New York: Cambridge University Press. Copyright by Cambridge
University Press. Reprinted with permission.

focus proactively on leaming processes (i.e.,
as a means to an end) during the forethought
and performance control phases, rather than
only reactively on personal outcomes during
self-reflection (Clea ry & Zimmerman, 2001).
We address these issues next.
FORETHOUGHT PHASE
To prepare to perform at their desired level,
aspiring leamers or their instructors analyze
the leaming tasks in orde r to set appropri-
ate practice goals and plan an effective strat-
egy for attaining those goals (Ericsson, 1996).
The self-regulatory process of goal setting
refers to specifying intended actions or out-
comes (Locke & Latham, 2002). Research
on women volleyball players (Kitsantas &
Zimmerman, 2002) has shown that experts
set more specific technique or processes
goals for themselves than non-experts. For
example, experts reported technique goals
such as "toss the ball properly," whereas
non-experts reported general goals such as
"concentrate," and novice leamers fail to set
goals for themselves at all. In other research,
leamers who set a combination of process
and outcome strategies perforrned better
than leamers who set singular goals (Filby,
Maynard, & Graydon, 1999; Kingston &
Hardy, 1997)' Process goals refer to improv-
ing one's strategy or technique, whereas out-
come goals refer to enhancing the results of
performance, such as points won or applause
 DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION
from an audience. An exclusive focus on out-
come goals can detract from one's technique
on an athletic task (Zimmerman & Kitsantas,
1996), and coaches often try to alter this
rnind-set. For example, to reduce the pres-
sure on European team members of the 2004
Ryder Cup, the successful captain, Bernhard
Langer, advised them to avoid looking at the
scoreboard unless their team was way ahead
(Anderson, September 19,2004).
Strategic planning refers to decisions
about how one can accomplish a particu-
lar goal, and there is evidence that experts
select more technique-oriented strategies.
For exarnple, Natalie Coughlin is an extraor-
dinary Arnerican swimmer who broke four
world records during 2002 and was a gold
medallist in the 2004 Olympics in Athens.
She credits her success to her staunch work
ethic and her strategic planning. Her prac-
tice strategy focuses on swimming technique
rather than brute effort. "There's so much
technique involved in swimming ... You're
constantly manipulating the water. The
slightest change of pitch in your hand makes
the biggest difference" (Grudowski, August,
2003, p. 73). As a result of her disciplined
practice strategy, she could complete each
leg of her races with fewer but more effi-
cient strokes, which gives her exceptional
stamina. In support of Coughlin's strategic
planning, researchers have found that learn-
ers' use of technique-oriented strategi es sig-
nificantly improves their athletic and aca-
dernic learning (Zimmerman & Kitsantas,
1996; 1999)
The willingness of talented youths to
engage in effective forms of goal setting and
strategy use depends on their high levels
of motivation (Bloorn, 1985), and coaches
and expert performers have ranked desire
to succeed as the most important factor
for eventual success in a domain (Starkes,
Deakin, Allard, Hodges, & Hayes, 1996).
Social cognitive researchers have identi-
fied four key self-motivational beliefs that
underlie efforts to self-regulate: self-efficacy,
outcome expectations, task interestl
valuing, and goal orientation. Expert bas-
ketball free-throw shooters have reported
higher self-efficacy beliefs - in their capability
OF EXPERTISE
to perform effectively - than non-experts
or novices (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001).
Learners with high self-efficacy beliefs have
been found to set high er goals for them-
selves (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-
Pons, 1992) and are more committed to
those goals than learners with low self-
efficacy beliefs (Locke & Latham, 2002).
For ex am ple, the Arnerican actress Geena
Oavis took up archery as an adult. She has
developed such a high level of skill that
she was invited to try out for the 2000 u.s.
Olympic team, but she narrowly missed
being selected. She described the role of
her self-efficacy beliefs in motivating her
practice efforts in the following way, "You
have to be very self-motivated. You have to
have faith in yourself and believe in your
abilities" (Litsky, 1999, August 6, p. 04).
Outcome expectations refer to self-moti-
vational beliefs about the ultimate ends of
learning, practice, and performance, such
as Geena Oavis' hope of making the
Olympic team. Because successful learn-
ers view strategic processes as effective
means to an end, they are motivated more
by the attraction of positive outcomes of
these processes than by the fear of adverse
outcomes (Pintrich, 2000). Outcomes that
reflect increases in one's learning compe-
tence have been found to increase the per-
ceived value of a task (Karniol & Ross, 1977;
Zimmerman, 1985). Because of their valu-
ing of a task, experts are more motivated
to continue striving, even in the absence of
tangible rewards (Kitsantas & Zimmerman,
2002). Geena Oavis described her growing
task interest from practicing in the follow-
ing way, "I guess I just got hooked. It is really
fun to try to see how good you can get, and
I don't know how good that is. I haven't
maxed out. I haven't peaked. I'm trying to
get better" (Litsky, 1999, August 6, p. 04).
A mastery or learning goal orientation
refers to self-motivational beliefs about valu-
ing learning progress more than achievement
outcomes (Arnes, 1992). There is evidence
that students with strong learning goals dis-
play higher levels of cognitive engagement
and performance on learning tasks than stu-
dents with weak learning goals (Graham &
 -----------------~
THE CAM BRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE
Golen, 1991; Nolen, 1988). The tennis cham-
pion Monica Seles described her learning
goal orientation in the following way: "I
really never enjoyed playing matches, even
as a youngster. I just love to practice and drill
and that stuff. I just hate the whole thought
that one [player] is better than the other. It
drives me nuts" (Vecsey, 1999, p. Dl).
PERFORMA CE PHASE
Experts' advantageous goals, strategic plan-
ning, and motivation al beliefs during the
forethought phase lea d to the self-controlled
and self-observed implementation of these
strategi es, methods, or techniques during the
performance ph ase. However, forethought
phase task analyses that are superficial or
inaccurate, like those of many novices, can
lead to ineffective or even counterproduc-
tive efforts to control performance phase
processes. Because strategies vary in their
situational effectiveness, they must be con-
stantly self-observed and adjusted, which
is the second class of performance phase
processes.
The first self-control process to be dis-
cussed is self-instruction. This form of self-
talk refers to vocal or subvocal guidance of
one's performance, and there is evidence
of its effectiveness in enhancing academic
(Meichenbaum, 1977; Schunk, 1986) and
athletic (Hardy, Garnrnage, & Hall, 2001)
expertise. For example, with athletes who
have trouble controIling their negative out-
bursts, Loehr (1991), a sports psychologist
at the elite Nick Bolletierri Tennis academy,
recommended listing all of their negative
responses and finding a positive alternative
for each one, such as saying "let it go" or
"come on" (p. 47) when they lose a point.
However, self-directive verbalizations must
be adapted to task outcomes and gener-
ally should be faded as a skill is mastered
(Meichenbaum, 1977), or they can limit
further improvement (Zimmerman & Bell,
1972).
The self-regulatory process of imagery is
used to create or recall vivid mental images
to assist learning and performanee (Paivio,
1986). Approximately 80 to 85% af expert
AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
athletes, such as the diver Greg Louganis,
the decathalete Bruce Jenner, the golfer Jack
Nicklaus, and the tennis player Chris Evert,
consider mental imagery to be an asset in
their training (Loehr, 1991). Athletic per-
formers who imagine themselves as success-
ful have reported high er leveis of motivation
and performance than those who do not use
this technique (Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, &
Weinberg, 2000). Donald Murray (1990), a
Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, used imagery
in similar fashion: "I see what I write and
many times the focus of my writing is in my
image" (p. 97).
Task strategies refer to advantageous
methods for learning or performing particu-
lar tasks. In the domain of academic learning,
an extensive number of task strategies, such
as mnemonics, cognitive maps, note-taking,
and outlines, have been found to be effective
(e.g., Schneider & Pressley, 1997; Weinstein
& Mayer, 1986). For example, as his task
strategy, the American author Irving Wallace
(1971) prepared extensive notes and outlines
before he began writing. Often task strate-
gies are domain specific in their scope and
are context specific in their effectiveness.
For example, the concert pianist Alicia de la
Rocha used the practice strategy of playing
difficult passages very slowly and very softly
to improve her technique (Mach, 1991). As
her technique on a passage became profi-
cient, she modified her strategy and began
practicing at normal speed. This illustrates
the issue discussed earlier: The utility of
a particular strategy needs to be carefully
monitored to ensure its optimal utilization.
Time management refers to estimating and
budgeting one's use of time (Zimmerman,
Greenberg, & Weinstein, 1994), and experts
often structure their practice and work time
carefully. For example, to improve the quan-
tity and quality of his writing, the German
poet Goethe recommended, "Use the day
before the day. Early morning hours have
gold in their mouth" (Murray, 1990, p. 16).
Although professional writers differ in the
timing of their optimal states for writing
(such as the morning), those who struC-
ture their writing time have reported evi-
dence of its effectiveness (WaIlace & Pealj
 DEVELOPMEf'..'T AND ADAPTATION OF EXPERTISE
1977)' Among student instrumental rnusi-
cians, high achievers in annual competitions
have reported a greater amount of prac-
tice time than low achievers (McPherson &
Zimmerman, 2002). Thus, time manage-
ment can involve regulation of both the
quality and quantity of time use.
In research on students' academic home-
work (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005), the
quality of students' study time was high ly
correlated with its quantity, and both indices
were highly predictive of students' grade
point average.
It should be noted that implementation
of these self-control strategies often involves
significant others, such as parents and teach-
ers. The self-regulatory process of adaptive
help seeking is defined as choosing specific
modeIs, teachers, or books to assist one-
self to leam (Newman, 1994). For exarn-
ple, parents often structure practice envi-
ronments for talented youth, and master
teachers coach students how to improve
their practice techniques (Bloom, 1985).
High academic achievers are not asocial in
their methods of practice, but, rather, selec-
tively seek instructional assistance in a self-
initiated adaptive manner. By contrast, low
achievers are reluctant to seek help because
of their lack of planning and their resultant
fear of adverse reactions from help-givers
(Karabenek, 1998). Among expert musi-
dans, the concert pianist Janina Fialkowska
frequently sought out Arthur Rubinstein as
an exemplary model. "He couldn't tell me
how to do something, but he could dernon-
strate how it should sound ... So when I'd
play something that wasn't up to par, he
became very exasperated, and believe me he
became exasperated very easily, Then he'd
kick me off the bench and play it the way he
thought it should be played" (Mach, 1991,
pp. 79-80).
Environmental structuring, which refers to
selecting or creating effective settings for
leaming or performance, is another irnpor-
tant self-control process. For example, stu-
dents who had difficulty concentrating dur-
ing studying were taught how to create
an effective study environment where day-
dreaming, eating, or other off-task behav-
iors were excluded and where a structured
study method and self-reinforcement were
included (Fox, 1962). All the students in
the study reported increases in their grade
points of at least one letter grade. These
favorable results of environmental structur-
ing were replicated a decade later (Beneke
& Harris, 1972). Experts are very sensitive to
the impact of their surroundings on qual-
ity and quantity of their functioning. For
example, the French poet and novelist Cen-
drars described his need to write in a quiet
undistracted place, such as an enclosed room
with the window shade pulled down. The
American bike racer Lance Armstrong pre-
pared himself to win the Tour de France in
the mountainous sections of the racecourse
by sleeping in a low oxygen tent to adapt
himself physiologically to those conditions
ahead of time (Lehrer, 2001, July 30).
The key seli-observation processes during
the performance phase are metacognitive
monitoring and self-recording, which refer
respectively to mentally tracking or physi-
cally recording one's performance. Experts
observe the implementation and effective-
ness of their self-control processes and out-
comes more systematically than non-experts
or novices (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002).
Metacognitive self-monitoringis difficult for
novices because the amount of information
involved in complex performances can eas-
ily overwhelm and can lead to inconsistent
or superficial tracking. Experts are selec-
tive in their cognitive self-monitoring during
practice because of the specificity of their
learning, practice, and performance goals
(Abrahams, 2001). Experts' reca11 of infor-
mation about a completed task has been
found to be more accurate and complete
than that of novices and less accomplished
individuals in the same domain (Ericsson &
Kintsch, 1995). Experts are also more likely
to recall pertinent ar substantial information
that is pitched at a higher level of abstrac-
tion (see also Feltovich et a!., Chapter 4,
"Expertise Involves Functional, Abstracted
Representations") .
The legendary golfer Bobby Jones (1966)
described his method of monitoring as fol-
lows, "It has never been possible for me to
 --------------------
THE CAM BRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE
think of more than two or three details of the
swing and still hit the ball correctly ... The
two or three are not always the same, some-
time a man's swing will be functioning so
well he need worry ab out nothing" (p. 203).
Experts can improve the accuracy of
their self-observations by self-recording
their progress (see also, Deakin, Cote, &
Harvey, Chapter 17). Literary experts, such
as Trollope (1905) and Hemingway (Wallace
& Pear, 1977), were acutely aware of the
value of self-recording in enhancing the
quantity of their literary output and con-
sistently utilized this technique. A person's
records.are more effective if they track not
only his or her performance but also the
conditions that surround it, and the results
that it produces (Zimmerman & Paulsen,
1995; Ericsson, 1996). Unfortunately,
novices often self-record in a cursory and
inaccurate way (Hallam, 1997). However,
it should be noted that record keeping
can be time consuming, and as a result,
its effectiveness needs to be monitored
carefully. After a skill has been mastered to
a personally acceptable level, people can
often cease record keeping unless problems
arise (Zimmerman & Pauls en, 1995).
SELF-REFLECTION PHASE
Experts increase the accuracy of their feed-
back by generating self-evaluative stan-
dards for themselves (Hamery, 1976). Self-
evaluation judgments compare self-observed
information with one of three types of stan-
dards or criteria: (a) a self-improvement
criterion (e. g., comparing current efforts
to one's best previous effort) , (b) a social
comparison criterion (e. g., comparing one's
efforts to those of competitors), or (c) a mas-
tery criterion (e.g., comparing one's perfor-
mance to a national record). Self-evaluations
are not automatic outcomes of performance
but, rather, depend on an individual's selec-
tion and interpretation of an appropriate cri-
terion (Bandura, 1991). When self-evaluative
standards are too high or too low, peo-
ple's leaming and perforrnance is diminished
(Schunk, 198 3 a). For example, the legendary
golfer Ben Hogan (1957) warned about the
dangers of setting unrealistically high stan-
u
AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
dards. "I had stopped trying to do a great
many difficult things perfectly because it had
become clear in my mind that this arnbi-
tious over-thoroughness was neither possi-
ble nor advisable or even necessary" (p. 113).
Conversely, individuals who fail to set chal-
lenging standards for themselves have dis-
played lower leveis of performance than per-
sons who challenged themselves (Locke &
Latham, 2002).
A second self-judgment that is hypothe-
sized to play a pivotal role in self-reflection
involves the eausal attribution of errors.
For exarnple, when errors are attributed to
uncontrollable sources, such as an oppo-
nent's luck, Iearners display negative self-
reactions and diminished attainment of skil!.
By contrast, when errors are attributed to
controllable sources, such as one's strategies,
learners experience positive self-reactions
and increased skill (Zimmerman & Kitsantas,
1999). Expert golfers have exhibited this
favorable pattern of attributions when dis-
cussing differences between good and bad
rounds. They ten d to discount the possibility
that chance factors played an important role
(Kirschenbaum, O'Connor, & Owens, 1999)
and instead attribute their errors to per-
sonally controllable processes, such as poor
concentration. tenseness, poor imagination
and feel (McCaffrey & Orlick, 1989). The
swimmer Natalie Coughlin put it this way,
"In general, I'm pretty inwardly focused ... I
like to concentrate on my stroke and do
my race, because that's all I can control"
(Grudowski, August, 2003, p. 73). Novices
are prone to attributing eausation for errors
to such uncontrollable sources as a lack
of ability, task difficulry, or bad luck
Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas &
Zimmerman, 2002). These unfortunate
attributions occur because of novices' poor
self-regulatory processes and beliefs during
the forethought and performance phases,
such as vague goal setting. non-strategic
efforts to Iearn, and low perceptions of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1991).
Self-evaluation and attribution self-
judgments are closely linked to two key
self-reactions: self-satisfaction and adaptive
inferences. Perceptions af self-satisfaction
or dissatisfaction and associated emotions,
--
 DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION
such as elation or depression, regarding
one's practice or performance influence
the courses of action that people pursue,
such as expertise in writing (Zimmerman &
Bandura, 1994). In general, self-satisfaction
reactions are positively related to subse-
quent sources of motivation (e.g., Zimmer-
man & Kitsantas, 1997; 1999), but there
is anecdotal evidence that expert writers
increase their self-evaluative standards as
they progress, which initially decreases their
satisfaction. For example, the American
novelist William Faulkner warned that a
writer "must never be satisfied with what
he (sic) does. It never is as good as it can
be" (Stein, 1959, p. 123). Clearly, self-
satisfaction is not an automatic outcome of
performance; rather, it depends on people's
self-judgment standards as well as their
forethought goals.
Adaptive or defensive inferences refer to
self-reactions about how to alter one's
self-regulatory approach during subsequent
efforts to learn or perform. There is evi-
dence (Kitsantas & Zirnmerman, 2002) that
experts are more adaptive, rather than de-
fensive, in their self-reactions, preferring to
adjust their strategy rather than to avoid the
task. Adaptive inferences guide learners to
new and potentially more effective forms of
performance self-regulation, whereas defen-
sive inferences serve primarily to proteet
the person from future dissatisfaction and
aversive affect (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994).
Personal adaptations can lead to extraor-
dinary outcomes, such as those of the
bike racer Lance Armstrong. After a life-
threatening bout with cancer and physical
debilitation from chemotherapy, Armstrong
had to alter his bicycle training methods to
minimize pedal resistance (which taxes leg
strength], so he adapted by increasing pedal
speed (which taxes aerobic capacity). As he
improved his aerobic capacity, this adapta-
tion became an advantage over his competi-
tors, especially in mountainous stretches of
the racecourse (Lehrer, 2001).
Adaptive inferences during practice expe-
riences are affected by other self-reflection
phase beliefs, such as attributions and per-
ceptions of satisfaction with one's progress,
as well as by forethought phase self-efficacy
OF EXPERTISE
beliefs and by performance phase self-
control strategi es. By attributing errors to
specific learning methods, experts sustain
their self-satisfaction and foster variations
in their methods until they discover an
improved version (Cleary & Zimmerman,
2001). In contrast, novices' attribution of
unfavorable results to uncontrollable fac-
tors leads to dissatisfaction and undermines
further adaptive efforts. In this way, the
strategic process goals of experts lead cycli-
cally to greater self-satisfaction and more
effective form s of adaptation. The latter
outcomes were correlated with their fore-
thought self-rnotivational beliefs, goals, and
strategy choices regarding further efforts to
learn (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002).
Research on Experts' Use of Cyclical
Self-Regulatory Processes
Although there is extensive evidence that
successful learners display greater self-
regulation and stronger motivational beliefs
(Schunk & Zirnmerman, 1998; Boekaerts,
Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000), research on
experts' and novices' athletic practice is lim-
ited to date(see also Hodges, Starkes, &
MacMahon, Chapter 27). Several empiri-
cal studies have been conducted recently
using athletic experts whose performance
was exemplary at a schoollevel but not at a
state, national, or international level. Thus,
the terms expert and novice re fer to high
or low positions respectively on this con-
tinuum of task difficulty in this research. In
particular, in an investigation of the practice
methods of basketball free-throw shooters,
Tim Cleary and I studied individual differ-
ences in the self-regulation of three groups
of high school boys: basketball experts, non-
experts, and novices (Cleary & Zimmerman,
2001). These relative expertsmade more than
70% of their free-throws during varsity bas-
ketball games, whereas non-experts made less
than 55% of their shots in those games. By
contrast, novices had not played basketball
on organized teams during high school. The
non-expert gro up was added to the classi-
cal expert-novice design to provide better
control of a variety of background variables,
such as basketball playing experience, and
 THE CAMBRIOGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
familiarity with the game that novices typ-
ically lack. Our methodology, called micro-
analysis, employs specific questions that
address well-established psychological pro-
cesses at key points during the act of per-
forming, such as self-efficacy and attribu-
tion beliefs. Each participant is separately
observed, and researchers develop context-
specific information by intensive qualitative
and quantitative analyses. In this study, the
boys were questioned regarding their fore-
thought phase goals, strategy choices, self-
efficacy beliefs, and intrinsic interest, as well
as their self-reflection phase attributions and
feelings of satisfaction as they practiced their
free-throw shooting.
There were no significant differences
between experts and non-experts in their
frequency of practice, playing experience,
and knowledge of free-throw shooting tech-
niques, but there were significant differ-
ences in their methods of self-regulation
during practice. As expected, novices dif-
fered from experts and non-experts on all
variables except age. It was found that
experts set more specific goals, selected more
technique-oriented strategies, made more
attributions to strategy use, and displayed
higher leveis of self-efficacy than either non-
experts or novices. When asked to self-
reflect after two consecutive misses, free-
throw experts were more mindful of their
specific, technique-oriented flaws than boys
in the other two groups. Although 60% of
the experts indicated that they needed to
focus on their techniques (i.e., "to keep my
elbow in," "to follow through") in order to
make the next shot, only 20% of the non-
experts and 7% of the novices menticned
this type of strategy. Non-experts preferred
strategi es related to the rhythm of shoot-
ing and general focus strategies (e.g., "to
concentrate" or "to try hard er") for a major-
ity (i.e., 53%) of their responses. Unfor-
tunately, these self-reflections do not cor-
rect faulty techniques because they divert
attention away from essential athletic form
processes.
To see if the results were consistent with a
cyclical model, we analyzed relations among
the boys' use of self-regulatory processes.
We found that goal setting was correlated
with choice of strategy. Athletes who set
outcome-specific goals (e.g., "to make ten
out of ten") were more likely to select spe-
cific technique-oriented strategi es (e.g., "to
follow through"), whereas those athletes set-
ting outcome-general goals (e.g., "to make
thern") were more likely to select general
technique strategi es (e.g., "to concentrate on
my form"). It appears that teaching athletes
to set specific goals can lead to their selection
of specific strategi es to achieve those goals.
A key finding about the self-reflection
phase was that the boys' attributions of
errors to strategi es were predictive of the
boys' forethought strategy selections dur-
ing further efforts to learn, For example,
boys who attributed their failure to spe-
cific techniques (i.e., "I misse d the last two
shots because my elbow was going to the
left") were more likely to select a specific
technique-oriented strategy to improve their
shooting accuracy (e.g., "I need to keep
my elbow in"). Overall, this study revealed
highly significant differences in the quality
of self-regulation during self-directed prac-
tice efforts by high school basketball play-
ers of varying ability, Experts were more
focused on specific shooting processes dur-
ing goal setting. strategi c planning, and self-
reflecting than non-experts or novices, and
they were more self-efficacious about their
performance.
In a study of college wornen's volleyball
practice, Anastasia Kitsantas and I (2002)
selected a group of experts from the univer-
sitY varsity volleyball team and a group of
non-experts from the university volleyball
club (i.e., who had been on the club team
for at least three years). The group of
novices had not ever participated in volley-
ball as an organized sport but had played
it informally. The three gro up s of women
were questioned regarding their forethought
phase goals, strategy choices, self-efficacy
beliefs, and intrinsic interest, as well as their
self-reflection phase attributions and feel-
ings of satisfaction as they practiced their
volleyball serves. It was found that experts
displayed better goals, planning, strat-
egy use, self-monitoring, self-evaluatioO,
 DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION OF EXPERTISE
attributions. and adaptation than either non-
experts or novices. Experts also reported
higher self-efficacy beliefs, perceived instru-
mentality, intrinsic interest, and self-
satisfaction about volleyball serving than
either non-experts or novices. The corn-
bined 12 cyclical measures of self-regulation
explained 90% of the variance in the
wornen's volleyball serving skill. Clearly,
experts differed greatly in self-regulation of
their practice methods.
Development of Greater Expertise through
Multi-Phase Self-Regulatory Training
Although there was unambiguous evidence
of superior self-regulation during athletic
practice by experts, the eausal role of these
self-regulatory processes and beliefs in the
development of expertise is another issue.
To develop free-throw expertise of male
and fernale college students, Clea ry, Zim-
merrnan, and Keating (in press) trained
them to shoot basketball free-throws more
effectively during their physical education
classes. The participants assigned to a three-
phase self-regulation group were instructed
to set technique goals (a forethought phase
process), self-record (a performanee phase
process), and to make strategic attribu-
tions and adjustments following misse d free
throws (self-reflection phase processes ). Set-
ting technique goals involved focusing on
properly executing the final four step s of the
shooting process [i.e., grip, elbow position,
knee bend, follow through) rather than on
shooting outcomes. The examiner showed
the participants a cue card delineating the
process goal. This group was then taught
how to use a self-recording form in orde r to
monitor the step (s) of the strategy that they
were focusing on while shooting the shots.
This recording form also allowed the partic-
ipants to monitor whether they missed any
shots, the reasons for the missed shots, and
strategi es needed to make the next shot. In
addition to this self-reflection ph ase train-
ing, the participants were taught how to link
poor shots with one or more of the shooting
techniques taught in the study. The partici-
pants assigned to the tico-phase self-regulation
group received the same forethought phase
goal setting and performanee phase self-
recording training as the three-phase group,
but they were not instructed how to self-
reflect. The ane-phase self-regulation group
received instruction in only the forethought
phase process of goal setting. There was also
a practice-only control group and a no-practice
control group, which did not receive self-
regulation training. All of the participants
were randomly assigned to one of the five
conditions and were tested and trained indi-
vidually by an experimenter.
It was expected that ene-phase train-
ing would influence subsequent phases
of self-regulation, and two-phase training
would influence self-reflection ph ase self-
regulation to some degree due to the cyclical
dependence of later ph ase processes on ear-
lier phase processes, but we expected that
total phase training, including explicit train-
ing in self-reflection phase proces ses, would
be optimal. Thus, a positive linear relation-
ship was predicted between the students'
free-throw shooting performanee and the
number of self-regulatory phases in which
they were trained.
The results revealed that there were no
gen der differences in learning and that there
was in faet a linear relationship between
amount of phase training and two key
measures of learning: free-throw shooting
accuracy and shooting adaptation. A more
sensitive measure of shooting accuraey than
simple making or missing the basket was
developed. It involved earning one to five
points for each shot according to the follow-
ing criteria: (a) five points for swishing the
shot (not hitting any part of the rim), (b)
four points for making the shot after hitting
the rim, (c) three points for hitting the front
or back of the rim but not making the shot,
(d) two points for hitting the side of the rim
and not making the shot, and (e) one point
for completely missing the rim or hitting the
backboard first. A missed shot hitting the
front or back of the rim eamed more points
[i.e., three points) than a missed shot hit-
ting the sides of the rim [i.e., two points)
beeause the former indieated greater accu-
raey. Shooting adaptation referred to the

THE CAMBRIDCE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE
frequency of improvements on the next shot
following a poor shot.
The group means range d in order from
lowest to highest as was predicted: no
practice control group, practice-only con-
trol group, one-phase training, two-phase
training, and three-phase training. This sug-
gested that not only did the participants
who received multiple-phase self-regulation
training show greater accuracy when shoot-
in g, but they were also able to improve on
poor shots with a more successful throw on
a more consistent basis than those individu-
als who received only one-phase or no self-
regulation training. Furthermore, the three-
ph ase group and the two-phase group took
significantly fewer practice shots than both
the one-phase and practice-only control
groups, perhaps because they were called
on to self-record their shooting techniques
at various points during the practice ses-
sion. Thus, the quality (i.e., defined in terms
of self-regulatory sophistication) of these
novices' practice methods proved to be more
important than the quantity of their prac-
tice (i.e., number of shots taken) (see also
Ericsson, Chapter 38).
This study focused particular attention
on the effects of self-regulation training
on the participants' self-reflective phase
self-judgments [i.e., attributions and self-
evaluations) and self-reactions [i.e., adaptive
inferences) to missed free throws because
they reveal how these leamers think about
their failures as well as their ability to
improve future performances. Leamers who
received three-phase training displayed the
most adaptive motivation al profile. For
exarnple, they evaluated their performance
based on personal processes (e.g., use of
correct strategy or personal improvement)
more frequently (60%) than all other groups:
two-phase group (10%), one-phase group
(20%), practice-only control group (20%),
and the no-practice control group (10%).
This is consistent with the self-regulation
cyclical phase hypothesis that using a process
criterion to evaluate performance is linked to
leaming or mastery goal orientation, which
has been found to be related to a variety af
mativational and achievement variables in
Q
AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
sports (Fox, Goudas, Biddle, Duda, & Arrn-
streng, 1994; Williams & Gill, 1995) and
academic functioning (Arnes, 1992; Pintrich,
2000).
In terms of eausal attributions and adap-
tive inferences, significantly more members
of the multi-ph ase training group focused
on specific shooting techniques or strate-
gies following missed free throws, such as
"not keeping my elbow in" and "not touch-
ing my elbow to my side as I shot the
ball." In contrast, participants from the one-
phase training group or the practice control
group often attributed their misses to gen-
eral, non-technique factors, such as a lack
of concentration or ability. These technique
attributions and adaptive inferen ces were
associated with more accurate shooting per-
formance on the posttest and greater shoot-
ing adaptation during practice. Thus, these
inexperienced free-throw shooters' ability to
improve their poor free-throw shots during
practice was related to deficiencies in attri-
butions and adapting these techniques dur-
ing subsequent shot attempts. Focusing on
controllable processes is important because
it helps athletes become more aware of
what and how they are doing something
rather than simply their level of attained
outcomes (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001;
Clifford, 198.6).
In another study of multi-phase se1f-
regulatory training, Anastasia Kitsantas and
I (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997) exarn-
ined the effects of multiple goal setting and
self-recording on the dart-throwing perfor-
mance and self-reflections with novice high
school girls. Girls in a process goal group
focused on practicing strategy step s for
acquiring high-quality dart-throwing tech-
nique (e.g., the take-back, release, and
follow-through positions). By contrast, girls
in an outcome goal group focused on improv-
ing their scores. The "bullseye" on the tar-
get had the highest numerical value and
the surrounding concentric cireles declined
in value. Previous research had demon-
strated that process goals were more effec-
tive than outcome goals with novice dart
throwers (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1996).
From a multiple goal perspective, girls who
 DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION
shifted goals from processes to outcomes
when automaticity was achieved should
acquire more skill during practice than
girls who adhere to only one goal (see
Zimmerman, 2000). Automaticity was oper-
ationally defined as performing the strategy
step s without error for a specified number
of dart-throwing trials.
Se1f-recording was taught to half of the
girls in each goal group. Girls in the process-
monitoring group recorded any strategy
steps they may have missed on each prac-
tice throw, whereas girls in the outcome-
monitoring group wrote down their target
scores for each throw. Girls in the shifting-
goal group changed their method of se1f-
monitoring when they shifted goals. Before
being asked to practice on their own, all of
the girls were taught strategic components
of the skill. Thus, the experiment compared
the effects of process goals, outcome goals,
and shifting goals as well as se1f-recording
during se1f-directed practice.
The results were supportive of the multi-
ple goal hypothesis: Girls who shifted goals
from processes to outcomes surpassed class-
mates who adhered sole1y to either process
or outcome goals in posttest dart-throwing
skill. Girls who focused on outeorne goals
exclusive1y were the lowest in dart-throwing
skil1. Self-monitoring assisted learning for
all goal-setting groups. In addition to their
superior learning outcomes, girls who shifted
their goals displayed superior forms of
se1f-reflection than girls who adhered to
either process or outeorne goals exclusive1y.
The former girls attributed more errors to
controllable eauses (i.e., to strategy use)
and reported greater se1f-satisfaction than
the latter girls. The girls in the shifting-
goal condition also exhibited superior fore-
thought phase motivational be1iefs: These
girls reported more positive self-efficacy
beliefs and greater interest in the dart throw-
ing than girls who adhered exclusive1y to
either process or outeorne goals..
The same researchers conducted another
study of the effects of multiple-goal training
and self-recording on the writing skill of girls
atten ding an academically challenging high
school (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999). The
OF EXPERTISE
design of this study closely paralleled the
dart-throwing study, but in this case, the task
involved revising a series of writing problems
drawn from a sentence-combining work-
book. These exercises involved transforming
a series of simple and often redundant kerne1
sentences into a single non-redundant sen-
tence. For example, the sentences: "It was
a ball. The ball was striped. The ball rolled
across the room" could be rewritten as "Th e
striped ball rolled across the roorn." The
entire group of experimental participants
was initially taught a three-step writing revi-
sion strategy that involved identifying key
information, deleting duplicate information,
and combining the remaining words.
During a practice session following train-
ing, girls in a process goal group focused on
implementing the strategy for revising each
writing task, whereas girls in an outcome
goal group focused on decreasing the num-
ber of words in the revised passage, which
was the main outeorne criterion. Process
goals, which focused on strategy steps, had
been found to be more effective than out-
come goals in prior writing research (Schunk
& Swartz, 1993). As in the dart-throwing
study (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997), the
most effective goal setting condition was
expected to involve shifting from process
goals to outcome goals when automaticity
in performance was achieved. Half of the
girls in each goal group were asked to self-
record during practice. Girls in the process-
monitoring group recorded strategy step s
they misse d on each of a series of revi-
sion problems, whereas girls in the outcome-
monitoring gro up wrote down the nu mb er
of words used on each problem. Girls in the
shifting-goal group changed their method of
se1f-monitoring when they shifted goals.
The results were supportive of a multi-
ple goal hypothesis. Girls who shifted fore-
thought phase goals from processes to out-
comes surpassed the writing revision skill
of girls who adhered exclusively to process
goals or to outeorne goals. Girls who focused
on outeornes exclusively displayed the low-
est writing skill of the three goal groups.
As in the dart-throwing study, self-recording
enhanced writing skill for all goal-setting

THE CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTlSE
groups. Forethought ph ase goals significantly
increased the girls' performance phase writ-
ing skill and also their self-reflection phase
attributions to strategy use and their self-
satisfaction reactions. Performance phase
self-recording also enhanced the girls' writ-
ing skill and self-reflection ph ase attribu-
tions and their self-satisfaction. The lat-
ter two self-reflection phase processes were
predictive of increases in the girls' task
interest and self-efficacy beliefs regarding
subsequent efforts to leam [i.e., their fore-
thought). These findings provided further
evidence of causality in cyclical relations
among .self-regulatory proces ses and self-
motivational beliefs.
The benefits of training in self-regulatory
processes are not limited to novice leam-
ers and regular students. Semi-professional
cricketers (Thelwell & Maynard, 2003) were
trained in goal setting. self-talk, mental
imagery, concentration. and activation self-
regulation strategies to improve their bat-
ting and bowling skills. Goal setting involved
both process and outcome (i.e., multiple)
goals. Self-talk referred to positive self-
statements, task-relevant cues, and personal
goals. Mental imagery dealt with form-
ing mastery images of oneself designed to
enhance both motivation and execution
of the skill. Concentration involved ignor-
ing distracting cues, especially when one's
performance suffers, and focusing on task-
relevant cues. This superior concentration
was expected to enhance the cricketers'
self-confidence, which is similar to self-
efficacy judgments (Thelwell & Maynard,
2002). Activation strategies involved try-
ing to create a mental and physical state
of optimal relaxation and alertness when
performing.
These strategies were taught to an exper-
imental group of cricketers between two
seasons, during hour-long, weekly training
sessions for 12 weeks. A control group of
cricket players were trained in team build-
ing or fielding activities during the training
sessions. Three types of dependent measures
were studied. First, the cricketers' batting
or bowling scores during the matches were
analyzed as an objective measure of perfor-
c
AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
mance. Second, several coaches rated the
cricketers' performance for each match as a
subjective measure. Third, the players rated
their strategy use with five scales: imagery
ability, mental preparation, self-confidence,
concentration, and activation.
It was discovere d that the experimen-
tal training group significantly surpassed
the control group in their level of per-
formance, according to both the objective
and subjective measures. In addition, these
cricket players displayed significantly greater
consistency in their performance du ring
the season according to subjective but not
objective measures of performance. Finally,
cricket players in the experimental group
also reported significantly high er levels of
strategy use for each of the five scales of strat-
egy use, which included a measure of self-
confidence. Clearly, training in the optimal
use of self-regulatory processes improved
the performance of what many might regard
as quite expert athletes. It appears that self-
regulatory training can benefit individuals
across a wide range of expertise.
Condusion
This chapter dealt with the role of self-
regulatory processes in the development of
expertise. Although a child's initial inter-
est in a field of endeavor usually grows
from and is supported by parents and teach-
ers, his or her ultimate level of exper-
tise depends on self-disciplined practice and
performance. Experts from diverse disci-
plines, such as sport, music, and writing,
rely on well-known self-regulatory processes
to practice and perform. Variants of these
self-regulatory processes can also assist aspir-
ing leamers to acquire both knowledge and
skill more effectively. For example, free-
throw shooters who set specific practice
goals, monitored their improvements in per-
formance, and adjusted their shooting strat-
egy appropriately leamed more quickly than
free-throw shooters who practiced without
employing these self-regulatory processes
(Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001).
However, increases in one's use of self-
regulatory processes will not immediately
--
 DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION
produce expert levels of knowledge and
skill. Indeed, learners' selection of goals
and strategi es will depend on their lev-
els of task knowledge and perforrnance
skill, such as when the Olympic swim-
rner Natalie Coughlin self-regulated subtle
hand positions to improve her perforrnance
(Grudowski, August, 2003), whereas a high
school swim team member might focus
on improving a more obvious skill. Many
training texts, such as for skiing (Tejada-
Flores, 1986), have organized knowledge and
skills into hierarchical levels, such as basic,
interrnediate, and advanced, to help leam-
ers set goals and monitor their performance
more effectively. Clearly, expertise involves
more than self-regulatory competence; it
also involves greater task knowledge and per-
forrnance skill.
The use of a cyclical phase model of self-
regulation to investigate differences in the
practice methods of experts, non-experts,
and novices has been limited to date, but
the initial results appear promising. Recall
that the terms expert and novice refer to
high or low positions respectively on this
continuum of task difficulty in this research.
Multi-phase self-regulation training that is
designe d to enhance the quality of one's
practice improved not only skil! acquisi-
tion but also key sources of motivation that
underlie continued striving to learn, such
as perceptions of self-efficacy or confidence
and valuing of the intrinsic properties of
the task. The importance of such motiva-
tion to the development of expertise was
emphasized by Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde,
and Whalen (1993) in their study of the
roots of success and failure with talented
teenagers: "Unless a person wants to pursue
the difficult path that leads to the develop-
ment of talent, neither innate potential nor
all the knowledge in the world will suffice"
(PP31-32).
References
Abrahams, 1. (2001, March). And the winner
is ... you. GolJMagazine, 43(3),92-100.
OF EXPERTJSE
Andersen, D. (2004, September 19). Another
deep hole and not enough rope. New York
Times, Sp, 7.
Arnes, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the
classroom motivational climate. In D. H.
Schunk & l L. Meece (Eds.), Student percep-
tions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social [oundations af thought
and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation
through anticipatory and self-reactive mecha-
nisms. In R. A. Dieristbier (Ed.), Perspectives an
motivation: Nebraska symposium an motivation
(Vol. 38, pp. 69-164). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise af
control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Beneke, W. M., & Harris, M. B. (1972). Teach-
ing self-control of study behavior. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 10, 3 5 -41.
Bloorn, B. (1985). Developing talent in young peo-
pie. New York: Ballantine Books.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner,
M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook af self-regulation
(PP13-39) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Matemal
resources, parenting practices, and youth com-
petence in rural, two-parent African Arnerican
families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 696-
706.
Cleary, T. l, & Zimmerman, B. l (2001). Self-
regulation differences during athletic practice
by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal af
Applied Sport Psychology, 13,185-206.
Cleary, T. l, Zimmerman, B. l, & Keating, T.
(in press). Training physical education students
to self-regulate during basketball free throw
practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde. K., & Whalen,
S. (1993)' Talented teenagers: The roots of suc-
cess and failure. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Clifford, M. (1986). Comparative effects of strat-
egy and effort attributions. British Journal af
Educational Psychology, 56, 75-83.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). Acquisition of expert
performance: An introduction to some of the
issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.}, The road to
excellence (pp. I-50) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
 -----~-~THE CAM BRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE
Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acqusition of expert
performanee as problem solving. Construetion
and modification of media ting mechanisms
through deliberate practice. In l E. Daviclson
& R. l Stemberg (Eds.), The nature of problem
solving (233-262). New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long term
memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Teseh-Romer
C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychologi-
cai Review, 100, 363-406.
Filby, W. C. D., Maynard, I. w., & Graydon, l K.
(1999). The effect of multiple-go al strategi es on
performanee outcomes in training and compe-
tition. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11,
230-246.
Fox, L. (1962). Effecting the use of effi-
cient study habits. Journal of Mathematics, l,
76-86.
Fox, K., Goudas, M., Biddle, S., Duda, l, & Arm-
strong, N. (1994). Children's task and ego goal
profiles in sport. Britisk Journal of Educational
Psychology, 64, 253-26l.
Garcia, T, & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulat-
ing motivation and cognition in the classroom:
The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory
strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. l Zim-
merman [Eds.), Self regidation of learning and
perjormance: Issues and educational applications
(p. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Glaser, R. (1996). Changing the agency for learn-
ing: Acquiring expert Performance. In K. A.
Ericsson (Ed.], The road to excellence (pp. l-50)
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graham, S., & Gelen, S. (1991). Motivational
influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego
involvement, and depth of information pro-
cessing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
187-194.
Grudowski, M. (August, 2003). The girl next
door is hungry. Men's Journal, 12 (7) 72-73.
Hallam, S. (1997). Approaches to instrumental
music practice of experts and novices: Implica-
tions for education. In H. Jorgensen & A. C.
Lehmann (Eds.), Does practice make perject:
CUTTent theory and research on instrumental
music practice (pp .: 89-108). Oslo, Norway:
Norges musikkhogskole.
Hernory, D. (1976). Another hurdle: The making
of an Olympic champion. New York: Taplinger,
AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
Hardy, l, Gammage, K., & Hall, C. (2001). A
descriptive study of athlete self-talk. The Sport
Psychologist, 15, 306-318.
Hogan, B. (with Warren, H.). (1957). Fivelessons:
The modem [undamentals of golf New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Jones, R. T (1966). Bobby Jones ongolf. New York:
Doubleday.
Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1977) The effects
of performanee-relevant and performance-
irrelevant rewarcls on motivation. Child Devel-
opment, 48,482-487.
Karabenek, S. A. (1998). Strategic help-seeking:
Implications for learning and teaching. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kingston, K. M., & Hardy, L. (1997). The effects
of different types of goals on the processes that
support performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11,
277-293.
Kirschenbaum, D. S., O'Connor, E. A., & Owens,
D. (1999). Positive illusions in golf: Empiri-
cal and conceptual analyses. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 11, 1-27.
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. l (2002). Com-
paring self-regulatory processes among novice,
non-expert, and expert volleyball players: A
microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 14, 91-105.
Lehrer, l (2001, July 30). The News Hour with
Jim Lehrer. Televised program on the Public
Broadcasting System.
Litsky. F. (1999, August 6). Geena Davis zeros in
with bow and arrows. New York Times, D4
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building
a practically useful theory of go al setting and
task motivation: A 35 -year odyssey. AmeTican
Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Loehr, l E. (1991). The mental game. New York:
Plume.
Mach, E. (1991). Great contemporary pianists
speak for themselves (Vols. 1-2). Toronto,
Canada: Dover.
McCaffrey, N., & Orlick, T (1989). Mental fac-
tors related to excellence among top profes-
sional golfers. International Journal or Sports
Psychology, 2 o, 256-278.
McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. 1.
(2002). Self-reguIation of musical learning:
A social cognitive perspective. In R. Col-
well & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new hand-
book of research on music teaching and learning
(pp. 327-347). New York: Oxford University
Press.
 DEVELOPMEI\'T AND ADAPTATION
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior
modification: An integrative approach. New
York: Plenum Press.
Munroe, K. J, Giacobbi, P. R., Hall, C R., &
Weinberg, R. (2000). The four W' s of imagery
use: Where, when, why, and what. The Sport
Psychologist, 14, 119-137.
Murray, D. M. (1990). Learn to write (3rd ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Newman, R. S. (1994). Academic help seeking:
A strategy of self-regulated leaming. In D. H.
Schunk & B. J Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-
regulation of learning and perfonnance: Issues
and educational applications (pp. 283-301).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nicklaus, J (with Bowden, K.). (1974). Golf my
way. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Nolan, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motiva-
tional orientations and study strategi es. Cogni-
tion and Instruction, 5, 269-287.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual
coding approach. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple go als, multiple
pathways: The role of goal orientation in learn-
ing and achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 544-555.
Schneider, W, & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory
development between two and twenty [Chap-
ter 7). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schunk, D. H. (19833)' Goal difficulty and
attainment information: Effects of children's
achievement behaviors. Human Leaming, l,
107-117.
Schunk, D. H. (1983b). Progress self-monitoring:
Effects on children's self-efficacy and achieve-
ment. Journal of Experimental Education, 51,
88-105.
Schunk, D. H. (1986). Verbalization and chil-
dren's self-regulated leaming. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, rr , 347-369.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C W (1993)' Goals and
progressive feedback: Effects on self-efficacy
and writing achievement. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, IB, 33 7-3 54
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J (1998). Self-
regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective
practice. New York: Guilford.
Starkes, J L., Deakin, J, Allard, F., Hodges,
N. J, & Hayes, A. (1996). Deliberate pratice
in sports: What is it anyway? In K. A. Erics-
OF EXPERTISE
son (Ed.), The road to excellence (pp. 81-106).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stein, J (1959)' William Faulkner. In M. Cowley
(Ed.), Writers at work: The Paris review inter-
views (pp. 119-141). New York: Viking Press.
Tejada-Flores, L. (1986). Breakthrough on skis.
New York: Vintage Books.
Thellwell, R. C, & Maynard, I. W (2002). Anxi-
ety - performance relationships in cricketers:
Testing the zone of optimal functioning
hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skiils, B7,
675-589.
Thelwell, R. C, & Maynard, I. W (2003)' The
effects of a mental skilIs package on "repeatable
good performance" in cricketers. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 4, 377-396.
Trollope, A. (1905). An autobiography. New York:
Dodd Mead.
Vecsey, G. (1999, Septernber j ). Seles feels windy
blast from past. New York Times, Dl.
Wallace, I. (1971). The writing of one novel. Rich-
mond Hill, Canada: Simon & Schuster of
Canada.
Wallace, 1., & Pear, J J (1977). Self-control tech-
niques of famous novelists. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 10, 515-5 2 5.
Weinstein, C E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The
teaching of Ieaming strategies. In M. C Wit-
trock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(pp. 315-32 7) New York: MacrnilIan.
Williams, L., & Gill, D. L. (1995). The role of per-
ceived competence in the motivation of phys-
icai activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psy-
chology, l, 363-378.
Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap
self-regulated leaming. Journal of Educational
Psychology, B9, 397-410.
Zimmerman, B. J (1985). The development of
"intrinsic" motivation: A social leaming anal-
ysis. In G. J Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of child
development (pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Zimmerman, B. J (1989)' A social cognitive view
of self-regulated academic learning, Journal of
Educational Psychology, BI, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J (1995). SeIf-efficacy and educa-
tional development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-
efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-
regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In
M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
 --------------------q
THE CAM BRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTlSE
Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 13-39). San
Diego, CA: Acadernic.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact
of self-regulatory influences on attainment in a
writing course. American Educational Research
Journal, 29, 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. 1., Bandura, A., & Martinez-
Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs
and personal goal setting. AmeTican Educational
Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Bel!, 1. A. (1972). Observer
verbalization and abstraction in vicarious rule
learning, generalization, and retention. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 7, 227-231.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Campillo, M. (2003)' Moti-
vating self-regulated problem solvers. In 1. E.
Davidson & R. 1. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature
of problem solving (pp. 233-262). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. 1., Greenberg, D., & Weinstein,
C. E. (1994). Self-regulating academic study
time: A strategy approach. In D. H. Schunk
& B. 1. Zimmerman (Eds) , Self regulaiion of
learning and performance: Issues and educa-
tional applications (pp. 181-199). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Kitsantas, A. (1996). Self-
regulated learning of a motorie skil!: The role
of go al setting and self-monitoring. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 69-84.
AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Devel-
op mental phases in self-regulation: Shifting
from process to outcome goals. Journal of Edu.
cational Psychology, 89, 29-36.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquir-
ing writing revision skil!: Shifting from pro-
cess to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal
af Educational Psychology, 91, l-lO.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Home-
work practices and academic achievement: The
media ting role of self-efficacy and perceived
responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 3 o, 397-417.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995).
Self-monitoring during col!egiate studying: An
invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In
P. Pintrich (Ed.), New directions in college teach-
ing and leaming: Understanding self-regulated
leaming (No. 63, Fall, pp. 13-27). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zimmerman, B. 1., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.)
(2001). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.),
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Author Note
I would like to thank K. Anders Ericsson and Paul
Feltovich for their helpful comments regarding
an earlier draft of this chapter.
---