Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

Enhancement of self-regulation, assertiveness,

and empathy
M. Luisa Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga a,∗, M. Dolores Ugarte b,
Marı́a Cardelle-Elawar c, M. Dolores Iriarte a,
M. Teresa Sanz de Acedo Baquedano a
a
Universidad Pública de Navarra, Depto de Psicologı́a y Pedagogı́a, Campus de Arrosadı́a s/n,
31006 Pamplona, Spain
b
Universidad Pública de Navarra, Departmento de Estadı́stica e I.O., Campus de Arrosadı́a,
31006 Pamplona, Spain
c
Arizona State University-West Education, USA

Abstract

This study examined the effects of teaching self-regulation strategies and social skills to 40
middle school students in a compulsory secondary education setting, who presented difficulties
in self-reflection, self-inquiry, assertiveness, and empathy. A quasi-experimental design with
pre- and post-test measurements was employed. Intervention consisted of the performance of
tasks, called ‘Portfolio’, related to the criteria skills during the school course. Significant differ-
ences between the experimental and the control groups were observed in the measurement of
the criteria variables. Results are discussed in terms of the implications concerning how teach-
ers can implement self-regulatory activities in their daily classroom practice to meet the edu-
cational needs of students with social problems.
 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-regulation; Assertiveness; Empathy

1. Introduction

This section describes a rationale for the study and provides an understanding of
the conceptualization of self-regulation and the social skills, assertiveness and empa-

∗
Corresponding author. Fax: +34-948-169169.
E-mail address: mlsa@unavarra.es (M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga).

0959-4752/03/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00026-9
424 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

thy, which shaped the framework of reference for this intervention. It also emphasizes
the importance of modeling the self-regulatory social skills to the needs of students,
so as to enhance their learning of self-control. We believe that the major challenge
for educators of low academically and social performing middle school children is to
find strategies to develop the ability of these learners to self-regulate their behaviour,
specially when interacting with their peers and teachers in class (Cardelle-Elawar &
Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, 2000). We also believe that the goal of schooling is to
create a self-regulated learner by boasting a combination of self-control, academic
and social skills. As Asher and Coie (1990) stress, students who lack social com-
petence are at risk in schools.

1.1. Self-regulation

In the research literature, much has been written about how best to define self-
regulation. There is consensus among researchers that self-regulation involves a cog-
nitive direction that requires continuous adaptations and decisions, awareness to gain
intelligent and valid comprehension of each situation, and a reflective disposition
about what should be done, is being done, or has been done in the various academic
activities and in life in general. The importance of self-awareness during the task,
monitoring one’s progress while performing it, and finding new strategies when the
previous ones did not lead to successful task completion are central to self-regulat-
ory activities.
According to Zimmerman (1998), the self-regulation process involves three
phases—forethought, performance, and evaluation—that the student applies repeat-
edly during learning. The aim of forethought is to guide both the mind and the
performance in any specific task, and to plan future actions. Performance consists
of the execution of the activity, controlling not only every aspect involved in the
development of the activity, but also those factors that may affect specification and
distribution of time and effort. Evaluation refers to the phase subsequent to the learn-
ing effort; that is, the analysis of whatever occurred, the results obtained, and the
relationship between that particular activity and other similar ones. When the cycle
ends another behaviour-regulation process begins. According to Brown and Palincsar
(1989) and other authors (Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman,
1994a; Boekaerts, 1997), self-regulation improves with age. However, the acquisition
of this skill is not necessarily associated with natural development. Therefore, as
with any other capacity or content, it should be explicitly taught (Schunk & Zimmer-
man, 1994b).
Research also indicates that students who lack skills in self-regulation tend not
only to achieve poor academic results, but also to have behaviour problems and
difficulties in their social relations, both in expressing their thoughts and feelings
and in attempting to understand others (McGinnis & Goodstein, 1984). A balanced
development between empathy and assertiveness is important because this is the
essence of emotional, social, and multicultural understanding (Broome, 1991;
Thompson, 1998). In fact, in addition to IQ and school grades, appropriate peer
 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 425

interaction is one of the best predictors of adult adaptive behaviour (Parker &
Asher, 1987).

1.2. The nature of assertiveness

The notion of being assertive refers to one’s ability to express and advocate ideas,
interests, and feelings easily, appropriately and without anxiety, while at the same
time respecting these same characteristics in others (Fensterheim, 1972; Wilson &
Gallios, 1993; Wolpe, 1973). The acquisition of being assertive is a sign of a positive
change in a child’s ability to interact with his or her peers. Assertive behaviour is
also linked with self-esteem and self-confidence, because individuals who feel com-
petent and self-assured, interact more sincerely and naturally in developing relation-
ships (Alberti & Emmons, 1994). However, assertive children may also sometimes
react with anger, fear, affection, and joy.
A review of the literature reveals the following characteristics of being assertive:
advocating one’s personal rights; knowing how to say no, how to start, carry on, or
end a conversation; how to solve specific social problems; how to resist group press-
ure; how to experience a strong sense of identity or freedom to act or choose; the
use of positive comparisons; and gaining others’ acceptance and support, thus avoid-
ing social rejection (Ford, 1992; Lorr & More, 1980; Richmond & McCroskey,
1992). At the same time, assertiveness has been associated with negative behaviours
such as aggressiveness and drug addiction. Bellack and Hersen (1977) proposed that
submission, assertiveness, and aggressiveness form a continuum whose poles may
be interpreted as problematic. The first one represents deficiency (shyness, passivity)
and the second, excess (anger, impulsivity) with assertiveness positioned at the mid-
point of the sequence.

1.3. The nature of empathy

Empathy is the capacity to feel, perceive, understand, and identify with other
people’s needs, interests, and viewpoints. Empathy has two essential components
(Deutsch & Madle, 1975): (a) an affective component, that is, the reaction to another
person’s emotional experience (Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989); and (b) a cogni-
tive component, that is, understanding and putting oneself in another person’s place
or seeing the world through the other’s eyes, in a non-judgemental way (Davis,
1983a). Authors vary in the importance they concede to each of these components.
However, the tendency is to integrate the components, because their differentiation
is often artificial and inoperative (Davis, 1983b). Both aspects relate to action and
communication. Empathy can be compared with the capacity of sharing, and even
feeling, another person’s psychic experience.
When measuring empathy, the following abilities are usually taken into account:
the ability to sense another person’s feelings, either positive or negative; to react
with similar emotions to those experienced by the other; to advocate different ideas;
and to accept another person’s opposite viewpoint easily; and to offer help in prob-
lem situations.
426 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

Empathy stimulates friendship and helps to keep friends (Hay, 1994); it improves
the quality of family relations (Guerney, 1988); it helps to promote health (Offerman-
Zuckerberg, 1992); it motivates moral action and various kinds of prosocial behav-
iour, such as collaboration (Brems & Sohl, 1995), help (Davis, 1983b, 1994), altruism
(Barnett, 1987), or voluntarism (Unger & Thumuluri, 1997), both in normal and
exceptional situations. All these indicators also reveal the complexity of empathy.

1.4. Are assertiveness and empathy incompatible?

The response of researchers to this issue is not unitary because, whereas some
researchers consider assertiveness and empathy to be polar opposites, other
researchers believe them to be independent (Mnookin, Peppet, & Tulumello, 1999).
Assertiveness and empathy have thus been the object of special attention by psychol-
ogists (Brems & Sohl, 1995). An individual may exhibit high levels of both skills
simultaneously. In many circumstances, both skills are necessary, for example, when
mediating and negotiating in conflicts.
Assertiveness and empathy have been associated with a broad and multidimen-
sional range of behaviours involving action, and particularly, communication. Effec-
tively, they exert a strong impact on exemplary social relationships, making the pro-
cess—sometimes consciously and at other times unconsciously—reciprocal,
dynamic, and satisfactory (Duck, 1990). Research evidence suggests that social
relations are more fluid when the following relevant aspects are taken into account:
(a) giving and receiving appropriate feedback; (b) valuing the importance of the
other’s contribution; (c) listening attentively and not interrupting conversations; (d)
participating at the proper time, offering personal information to express oneself
clearly; (e) accepting whatever grain of truth there may be in the other person’s
statement; (f) admitting that everyone has the right to express his or her opinion
freely; and (g) controlling one’s gestures and postures. These distinctive aspects are,
of course, affected by the motives and emotions of each of the speakers.
In view of the importance of stimulating the above-mentioned variables, the aim
of our study was to assess the effects of teaching assertiveness and empathy to the
students by using a self-regulatory approach (the IDEAL model).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The group was made up of 40 students, mean age 13 years old, from the second
level of compulsory secondary education, from a government-subsidised private
school. The school had two classes at the same educational level. One of the classes
was randomly assigned to the experimental group (EG, n=20) and the other to the
control group (CG, n=20). The selection was in agreement with the teachers and
after obtaining consent from the School Council and the students themselves. There
 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 427

were no dropouts during the intervention. All the students who participated at the
beginning continued until the end of the intervention.
Although the students were performing at a normal educational level, according
to their teachers they had trouble in self-regulating their learning and behaviour, in
expressing their ideas freely and respectfully, and in showing sensitivity about other
people’s problems. Based on the observations of the school director, and the location
of the school, the parents’ background was appraised to be medium-level social class,
although this variable was not measured.

2.2. Design

A quasi-experimental design, with pre- and post-test measurements and two

groups, experimental and control, was employed.
The independent variable was ‘Portfolio’, which is a series of contents, program-
ming and psychopedagogical principles to teach students how to self-regulate their
behaviour effectively by using assertiveness and empathy to resolve interpersonal
conflicts in the classroom. This variable, ‘Portfolio’, is described in paragraph 2.3.
The dependent variables were: (a) self-regulation of learning, as measured by the
Learning Strategy Scales, Subscale IV; (b) self-control of behaviour, as measured
by the Social Scale, BAS-3; (c) assertiveness, as measured by the Personality Ques-
tionnaire, EPIJ, Scale EA; (d) empathy, as measured by the Personality Question-
naire, EPIJ, Scale IVE-J; and (d) consideration to others, as measured by the Social
Scale, BAS-3.

2.3. Instruments and materials

All the evaluation instruments were standardized tests within the Spanish popu-
lation and the evidence of their use in previous research indicated that were reliable
and valid predictors of students’ learning outcomes. In addition, the authors
developed a questionnaire to gather information about the teachers’ opinion about
the criteria variables and its effects on the students’ achievement.

2.3.1. Learning strategy scales, (ACRA), subscale IV

This scale, developed by Román and Gallego (1994), assesses self-regulation skills
that facilitate mental information-processing during the learning process. Specifically,
it measures the student’s ability to choose the appropriate strategy in each task and
to assess its efficacy. We obtained a reliability index of 0.81 for the current study
(split-half method, Spearman–Brown formula).

2.3.2. EPIJ Personality questionnaire

Silva and Martorell (1993) developed this test to assess various personality traits
by means of four scales, from which we selected two for this study. The first scale,
the IVE-J Scale, measures three dimensions—impulsivity, adventure-seeking, and
empathy—although only empathy or the ability to understand other people’s
emotions was analysed. The second scale, the EA Scale, also measures three dimen-
428 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

sions, but only assertiveness was employed. This scale defines the construct of assert-
iveness as the capacity to express one’s own thoughts, feelings, and emotions, with-
out disregarding others’ rights. We obtained a reliability index of 0.74 for both scales
in the sample in this study (split-half method, Spearman–Brown formula).

2.3.3. Social scale, BAS-3

This instrument measures various traits associated with adequate social functioning
(Silva & Martorell, 1995). For this study, the traits “self-control of behaviour in
interpersonal relations”and “consideration to others”were selected. The first trait
refers to the acceptance of social rules that favour mutual respect and positive
relationships, and the second trait refers to sensitivity towards or concern about other
people, in particular about other people who have problems. We obtained a reliability
index for this group of 0.79 (split-half method, Spearman–Brown formula).

2.3.4. Teacher’s report questionnaire

This instrument was developed to gather information about the teacher’s percep-
tion of the experimental group students in the criteria variables before and after
intervention. It has ten items. Item numbers 1–5 refer to self-regulation processes
such as students’ knowledge and use of support strategies; their awareness of their
knowledge, planning, and performance regulation during the activity; and their
assessment of their achievements. Item numbers 6–10 are related to social aspects
such as sensitivity, respect, communication, and understanding. Responses were
coded on a Likert-type formatted scale, with scores ranging from 1–5 (1=Never;
2=Sometimes; 3=Fairly often; 4=Very often; 5=Always). Each student obtained two
scores: self-regulation, Sr, (maximum 25 points) and social variables Sv (maximum
25 points).
The ‘Portfolio’, elaborated by investigators in order to improve self-regulation,
assertiveness and empathy in compulsory secondary education students, includes the
following aspects related to content, programming and psychopedagogical principles:

2.3.4.1. Contents The activities were mainly topics about self-regulation, assert-
iveness, empathy, and interpersonal relationships (see Appendix A). When designing
the ‘Portfolio’contents, the following criteria, proposed by Bellanca, Chapman and
Swartz (1994) for the development of intervention programmes, were taken into
account:

1. Selection of material. Students’ potential motivation was considered during this

process. Some tasks, such as the EOS Method of Social Abilities (Vallés, 1994)
had already been used in social skills’ training and part of the material was
developed by the researchers.
2. Internal organisation of the contents. During the first three-month term, students
were trained in the preparatory stage of self-regulation using assertiveness topics;
in the second term, performance using empathy topics was practised; and in the
third term, the evaluation stage, simultaneous training in both assertiveness and
empathy was carried out.
 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 429

3. Representativeness of the criteria variables. We attempted to balance the inter-

vention with regard to the number of sessions for each intervention (ten hours of
self-regulation, ten hours of assertiveness, and ten hours of empathy).
4. Enhancement of insight. This implies that all the above-mentioned aspects were
taught to enhance internalisation of the material and of the changes achieved.

2.3.4.2. Programming Programming was carried out in the following sequence:

(a) the skill to be practised; (b) the self-regulation stage to be reinforced; (c) didactic
strategies to be used; and (d) intervention in the classroom. The intervention was
based on the IDEAL Model—identify, define, execute, assess, and learn—already a
classic in research (Bransford & Stein, 1993; Cardelle-Elawar, 1995; Cardelle-Ela-
war & Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, 2000). Identification and definition correspond to
what should be done before the individual performs a task. Execution corresponds
to controlling the activity during the experience, in order to allow for effort, time,
and possible errors in the situation. Assessment and learning are related to analysis
of the results and the establishment of connections with other academic, emotional,
and social behaviours. Appendix B offers a programming model, and Appendix C,
the stages of the IDEAL Model, as used by the students.

2.3.4.3. Psychopedagogical principles The following principles informed the

study:

1. Intentionality and reciprocity of the criterial changes. This means that the teacher
and the students knew about, accepted, and shared the goals of the intervention.
The teacher communicated the intentionality to the students, informing them about
what she hoped they would learn, the importance thereof, and how she was going
to proceed. Reciprocity consisted of attempting to get the students to consider the
teacher’s decisions as their own, and to feel responsible for their goals.
2. Transference of content from one situation to another. This idea was always pre-
dominant and all the ‘Portfolio’exercises were aimed at its achievement. Transfer-
ence is not an automatic process; rather, it should be the object of direct teaching
(McKeough, Lupart, & Marini, 1995; Taba, 1962).
3. Strategic knowledge or diverse methods, especially co-operative learning tech-
niques, feedback, and modelling to offer examples and allow processes that are
usually covert to be observable.
4. Intrinsic motivation of the activities and goals.
5. Working environment characterised by trust, co-operation, and a certain amount
of freedom so as to incite the students into asking open questions and expressing
ideas and feelings, without fear of being ridiculed.

In each activity, attempts were made to stimulate a specific regulation process or

social skill; the remaining skills and processes were indirectly reinforced, making
class interaction varied, interesting, and creative.
430 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

2.4. Procedure

The study was carried out in three phases: pre-test, treatment, and post-test. In
the pre-test phase, the above instruments were administered collectively to the stu-
dents from both the experimental and the control group, in order to assess their initial
level in the criteria variables.
The treatment, performed by one of the authors, consisted of the application of
the lessons in ‘Portfolio’to the experimental group through a whole academic year
in one-hour classes once a week, totalling 30 hours. During this time, the students
belonging to the control group carried on with their regular academic curriculum,
specifically, they had an extra lesson of their optional subject, a second foreign langu-
age.
In the final post-test phase, the students in both groups were re-assessed to evaluate
the effects produced by the treatment.

3. Results

The pre-test results (see Table 1) revealed that there were no statistically signifi-
cant differences between the experimental and control groups in self-regulation [Sr,
t (38)=0.96, p=0.345] and in self-control [Sc, t (31.91)=1.19, p=0.24]. However, there
were significant differences in assertiveness [As, t (38)=⫺5.04, p=0.0], in empathy
[Ep, t (34.4)=2.20, p=0.034] and in consideration to others [Co, t (33.4)=9.42, p=0.0].
Standard deviations were also quite different in almost every dependent variable.
Hence, we considered appropriate to use the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
method to determine the effects of the “Portfolio”intervention on the experimental
group.

Table 1
Contrast of Pretest Means (expressed as t-values) of the Experimental Group and Control Groups in the
Variables Self-regulation (Sr), Self-control (Sc), Assertiveness (As), Empathy (Ep), and Consideration to
others (Co)

Measures N PRE-TEST t
EGa CGb
M SD M SD

Sr 20 39.55 15.59 34.60 17.12 0.96

Sc 20 41.25 10.18 36.15 16.26 1.19
As 20 24.00 10.95 41.50 11.01 ⫺5.04
Ep 20 44.50 18.48 33.30 13.25 2.20
Co 20 44.85 12.65 12.65 8.57 9.42

a
EG=Experimental Group
b
CG=Control Group
 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 431

The results of the previous analyses are given in Table 2. They indicate that the
covariates (pretest) were not statistically significant for the five dependent vari-
ables—self-regulation [Sr, F (1,37)=1.86, p=0.180], self-control [Sc, F (1,37)=2.51,
p=0.121], assertiveness [As, F (1,37)=0.30, p=0.587], empathy [Ep, F (1,37)=0.04,
p=0.833] and consideration to others [Co, F (1,37)=1.09, p=0.302]. On the other
hand, the observed differences among experimental and control groups were statisti-
cally significant: self-regulation [Sr, F (1,37)=7.05, p=0.012], self-control [Sc, F
(1,37)=219.53, p=0.000], assertiveness [As, F (1,37)=7.35, p=0.010], empathy [Ep,
F (1,37)=62.95, p=0.000] and consideration to others [Co, F (1,37)=32.64, p=0.000].
These results show that the gains of the ‘Portfolio’intervention in each dependent
variable were relevant.
Results from the Teacher’s Report Questionnaire—filled in only by the teacher in
the experimental group—assessed before and after the intervention, show that the
teachers changed their perceptions of the students significantly with regard to self-
regulation [Sr, t(19)=20.67, p⬍0.001], and social variables [Sv, t(19)=27.91,
p⬍0.001]. Fig. 1 shows these increases as a function of the means. This indicates
that, in the teachers’ opinion, the experimental-group students regulated their behav-
iour more adequately and improved their social relations after the intervention. In
general, the information provided by this instrument was in accord with the results
of the standardized tests.
The correlations of the pre-test variables -both of the experimental and control
groups- were positive but low; however, the post-test correlations increased and they
were significant (Table 3). The highest post-test correlation was observed between
the variables ‘self-control of behaviour’ and ‘consideration to others’, r=0.782,
p⬍0.01, and the lowest, between ‘self-regulation of learning’ and ‘empathy’,
r=0.281, p⬎0.05. These indices suggest that ‘self-regulation of behaviour’ is related
somehow to certain social skills, and therefore, they share component features.
From the data, it can be told that: (a) the intervention carried out with ‘Port-
folio’was effective in developing the students’ self-regulation and social skills; (b)
the control group’s performance level was lower than that of the experimental group.

Table 2
Fitted Medias, Standard Deviations in Self-regulation (Sr), Self-control (Sc), Assertiveness (As), Empathy
(Ep), and Consideration to others (Co) at Pre-test/Post-test

PRE-TEST/POST-TEST
EGa CGb
Measures N M SD M SD

Sr 20 56.43 3.76 42.21 3.76

Sc 20 75.39 2.80 16.00 2.80
As 20 69.99 4.58 50.35 4.58
Ep 20 77.54 4.01 31.01 4.01
Co 20 56.56 4.21 14.28 4.21

a
EG=Experimental Group
b
CG=Control Group
432 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

Fig. 1. Pre- and Post-test Means of the Teacher’s Report in Self-regulation (Sr) and Social Variable
(Sv) for the Experimental Group.

Table 3
Pre- and Post-test Correlations of the Variables Self-regulation (Sr), Self-control (Sc), Assertiveness (As),
Empathy (Ep), and Consideration to others (Co)

PRE-TEST POST-TEST
Sr Sc As Ep Co Sr Sc As Ep Co

Sr
Sc 0.101 0.453b
As 0.248 0.127 0.425b 0.437b
Ep 0.218 0.131 0.229 0.281 0.625b 0.314a
Co 0.164 0.206 0.214 0.174 0.387a 0.782b 0.372a 0.549b

a
p⬍0.05
b
p⬍0.01

4. Discussion

The results of the study reflect that, as expected, the ‘Portfolio’intervention was
generally effective in the criteria variables; that is, significant gains were observed
in the experimental group in self-regulation of learning, self-control of behaviour in
interpersonal relations, assertiveness, empathy, and consideration to others.
These findings indicate that the intervention affected the processes involved in the
various stages of self-regulation. Consequently, students in the experimental group
were able to prepare for the initiation of an activity, foreseeing difficulties and decid-
 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 433

ing how to perform it; monitor the performance, paying attention, avoiding errors,
and using adequate resources; and, lastly, reflect on the results obtained and establish
links with other learning situations or life experiences. This shows that, although it
is difficult to develop self-regulation, it can be stimulated by means of interventions
employing social content and not necessarily academic content (Hattie, Biggs &
Purdie, 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994a, 1994b; Boekaerts, 1997).
At the same time, the intervention also achieved marked progress in the social
variables. Students in the experimental group began to express their ideas, interests,
and emotions without hurting others’ feelings; to identify with other people’s view-
points and feelings; to interact with peers easily; and to express sensitivity or concern
about their peers’ problems. This, in turn, leads to a positive working atmosphere
and students maintained a high level of motivation. They appreciated the benefits of
familiarity with others, and their sense of responsibility was also enhanced. Similarly
to self-regulation, these results show that social skills can be taught at school, and
corroborates the statement by Schunk and Zimmerman (1996) that self-regulation
emerges from social experience and from self-directed behaviour.
The teachers also observed changes in the experimental students’ performance
throughout the intervention. They considered them to become more capable of con-
trolling their learning and behaviour, and of treating others more respectfully and
with more understanding.
The study focused on verifying whether the students who underwent a series of
activities called ‘Portfolio’improved certain aspects of their behaviour. This improve-
ment was achieved, which demostrated that the programme, its organisation and
conception, and the materials employed in the intervention, were efficient and valid.

4.1. Implications

From the literature reviewed and the results of this research, it may be concluded
that self-regulation can be taught to students who experience difficulties in con-
trolling themselves and developing basic social skills such as assertiveness and empa-
thy. We can conclude, therefore, that educators should teach students how to self-
assess their tasks and to control their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviours (Pintrich,
1995). The development of these aspects requires the assignment of sufficient time
to teaching, modelling, and practising them. However, this teaching approach is not
possible in the current educational system because the emphasis is still placed on
curriculum content rather than developing the ability to think and behave socially
in and out of the classroom.
The results of this study show that, if teachers are well prepared with self-regulated
learning strategies and affective-social skills (as was the experimenter), it is easier
for them to become good mediators (Sanz de Acedo, 1998). Similarly, students’
commitment to school activities should be encouraged, so they cease being passive
recipients and become active achievers. They should also be encouraged to reflect
on their motivation for going to school and on the need to understand other people
emotionally and socially. Students, as well as teachers, should be involved in the
434 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

selection of curriculum content, the way to learn it, and in the evaluation of the
goals achieved (Gardner, Kornhaber, & Wake, 1996).
In such circumstances school would be acknowledged as the ideal place to learn
emotional and social development. The classroom would be characterised by an
atmosphere of acceptance, respect, trust, and freedom. It would be a place where
one can express ideas, feelings, concerns and hopes and get the chance to practise
and transfer the skills taught.
However, the issue of modifying social skills and establishing the best way to
meet this challenge needs to be studied in depth. Research is required to examine
the way that skills are integrated with the various stages of the educational system,
so that, during their school years, students can practise and internalise most of the
social processes. We recognize as a limitation of the present study its small sample
size. Our intervention obtained positive results, but there is room for methodological
improvement, especially with regard to validity and reliability.
Research is also required on how the self-regulation of performance is affected
by extracurricular activities, family, and community. It seems that practice only in
school is not sufficient. Other “metacognitive dialogues”should be stimulated, for
instance, at home, so this skill becomes consolidated in the student’s life (Steinberg,
Brown, & Dornbusch, 1996).

5. Conclusions

We have shown that it is possible to develop self-regulation of performance and

social skills with the ‘Portfolio’training programme. The ability to know how to
express one’s own ideas, feelings, and values, and to see things from another’s view-
point and experience is one of the most valuable traits that today’s citizens can have,
because nowadays, we live in a society that shares and negotiates everything. The
intervention facilitated a positive environment in the class, in which the most observ-
able features were respect, fluent relationships, and co-operation.
The study provides an example of how to pursue effectively our educational sys-
tem’s goals of enhancing skills and learning meaningful content. The integration of
these goals is a complex task. Nevertheless, the students of compulsory secondary
education who participated in the study improved in the self-regulation of their
behaviour and showed higher levels of social skills compared with their peers in the
control group. The ‘Portfolio’ approach produced significant changes and so may be
useful in other educational contexts.

Acknowledgements

This research was part of a more extensive project, financed by the Health Depart-
ment of the Government of Navarra, Spain (Resolución 530/1997, 27 May, 1997).
 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 435

Appendix A. Index of the training topics and the general didactic techniques
employed

Portfolio Topics General Didactic Techniques

Self-regulation
Planning a task Co-operative learning
Defining goals Modelling by teacher
Strategic behaviour Role-playing
Trouble-shooting Practical cases
What does “controlling my behaviour” Feedback
mean? Thinking-aloud
Adjusting time and effort
Self-evaluating behaviour
What does “applying what I learned to
other situations” mean?
Assertiveness
Social skills
Communication styles
Giving and receiving feedback
Respecting others
What does “being assertive” mean?
Advocating one’s own ideas
Factors involved in a negotiation
How to improve self-esteem
Empathy
Human emotions
Friendship among schoolmates
Gestures and postures in communication
Social skills in the classroom
Putting oneself in the other’s place
What does it mean to feel “empathy”?
Collaboration and altruism

Appendix B. Programming model

BEING ASSERTIVE MEANS...

1. The skill to practice: Expressing ideas and feelings.

2. Self-regulation phase: Monitoring behaviour.
3. Methodological strategies: Co-operative learning.
4. Intervention in the classroom.
436 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

BEFORE STARTING THE ACTIVITY

앫 Identify the most relevant aspects of the material and analyse the students’ knowl-
edge of this topic.
앫 Define the goal—to understand what it means to be assertive- and choose the
appropriate strategy—working in groups to reflect upon assertive people, their
behaviour, and the advantages of expressing oneself assertively, and inventing a
practical case.

DURING ACTIVITY PERFORMANCE

The students perform the activity while they control the time and observe the
difficulties involved in agreeing on the idea of what an assertive person is like. For
this purpose, they develop a practical case, following the instructions of the material.
AFTER PERFORMING THE ACTIVITY

앫 Each group should evaluate the activity—whether it was easy, understandable, or

difficult—the problems encountered, and the transfer of what they learned to other
future situations.
앫 To facilitate transfer, they role-play one of the practical cases they developed.

Appendix C. A model for improving self-regulation skills: IDEAL

M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 437
438 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439

References

Alberti, R., & Emmons, M. (1994). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive living (6th ed.). San Luis
Obispo: Impact Publishers.
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, M. A. (1987). Empathy and related responses in children. In N. Eisenberg, & J. Strayer (Eds.),
Empathy and its development (pp. 146–162). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bellack, A. S., & Hersen, M. (1977). Self-report inventories in behavioral assessment. In J. D. Cone, &
R. P. Hawkins (Eds.), Behavioral assessment. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazer.
Bellanca, J., Chapman, C., & Swartz, E. (1994). Multiple assessments for multiple intelligences. Palatine:
IRI/Skylight Publishing, Inc.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers,
educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver (2nd ed.). New York: W.H. Free-
man & Company.
Brems, C., & Sohl, M. A. (1995). The role of empathy in parenting strategy choices. Family Relations,
44, 189–194.
Broome, B. J. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications of a relational approach to empathy for
teaching intercultural communication. Communication Education, 40, 235–249.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acqui-
sition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser
(pp. 393–451). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics prob-
lems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 81–95.
Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L. (2000). Teacher motivation understanding on
how to teach ethnic minority students. Educating Able Children, 4(2), 41–51.
Davis, M. H. (1983a). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
Davis, M. H. (1983b). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidi-
mensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 166–184.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison: Brown & Benchmark.
Deutsch, F., & Madle, R. A. (1975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations and a cognitive
theoretical perspective. Human Development, 18, 267–287.
Duck, S. (1990). Personal relationships and social support. Newbury Park: Sage.
Fensterheim, H. (1972). The initial interview. In A. A. Lazarus (Ed.), Clinical behavior therapy. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M. L., & Wake, W. K. (1996). Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. New York,
NY: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Guerney, B. G. Jr. (1988). Family relationship enhancement: A skill training approach. In L. A. Bond, &
B. M. Wagner (Eds.), (pp. 99–134). Families in transition: Primary prevention programs that work,
11. Sage: Beverly Hills.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.
Hay, D. F. (1994). Prosocial development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disci-
plines, 35, 29–71.
Lorr, M., & More, W. W. (1980). Four dimensions of assertiveness. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
2, 127–138.
McGinnis, E., & Goodstein, A. P. (1984). Skill-streaming the elementary school child: A guide for teach-
ing prosocial skills. Champaign: Research Press.
McKeough, A., Lupart, J., & Marini, A. (1995). Teaching for transfer. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
 M.L. Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al. / Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 423–439 439

Mnookin, R. H., Peppet, S. R., & Tulumello, A. S. (1999). The tension between empathy and assertiveness.
Negotiation Journal, 12, 217–230.
Offerman-Zuckerberg, J. (1992). The parenting process: A psychoanalytic perspective. Journal of the
American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 20, 205–214.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted
children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Pintrich, P. R. (1995). New directions in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(4),
Román, J. M., & Gallego, S. (1994). Escalas de Estrategias de Aprendizaje, Manual. Madrid: TEA
in Spanish.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effective-
ness. Scottsdale: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Sanz de Acedo, M. L. (1998). Inteligencia y personalidad en las interfases educativas. Bilbao: Desclée
De Brouwer in Spanish.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994a). Self-regulation in education: Retrospect and prospect. In
D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
educational applications (pp. 305–314). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994b). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
educational applications. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Modeling and self-efficacy influences on children’s develop-
ment of self-regulation. In K. Wentzel, & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding chil-
dren’s school adjustment (pp. 154–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, F., & Martorell, C. (1993). Evaluación de la Personalidad Infantil y Juvenil, EPIJ. Manual, II.
Madrid: MEPSA.
Silva, F., & Martorell, C. (1995). Baterı́a de Socialización, BAS-3 (2nd ed.). Madrid: TEA in Spanish.
Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism reconsidered: The effect of denying feedback
on a victim’s status to empathetic witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
641–650.
Steinberg, L., Brown, B. B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has
failed and what parents need to do. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Thompson, R. A. (1998). Empathy and its origins in early development. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.),
Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 144–157). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Unger, L. S., & Thumluri, L. K. (1997). Empathy and continuous helping: The case of voluntarism.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 785–800.
Vallés, A. (1994). Método EOS III. Madrid: EOS.
Wilson, K., & Gallios, C. (1993). Assertion and its social context. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Wolpe, J. (1973). The practice of behavior therapy. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemp-
lary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning (pp.
1–19). New York: Guilford Press.