Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Self-regulated learning as a cyclical process and

predictor of creative problem-solving

Gregory L. Callan, Lisa DaVia Rubenstein, Lisa M. Ridgley, Kristie Speirs

Neumeister & Maria E. Hernández Finch

To cite this article: Gregory L. Callan, Lisa DaVia Rubenstein, Lisa M. Ridgley, Kristie
Speirs Neumeister & Maria E. Hernández Finch (2021): Self-regulated learning as a
cyclical process and predictor of creative problem-solving, Educational Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/01443410.2021.1913575

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.1913575

Published online: 05 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 157

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.1913575

Self-regulated learning as a cyclical process and predictor

of creative problem-solving
Gregory L. Callana , Lisa DaVia Rubensteinb , Lisa M. Ridgleyb,
Kristie Speirs Neumeisterb and Maria E. Hern
andez Finchb
a
Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA; bDepartment of Educational
Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, DE, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study used structured interviews to examine cyclical relations Received 5 November 2019
among self-regulated learning (SRL) processes before (fore- Accepted 3 April 2021
thought), during (performance), and after (self-reflection) engage-
ment with a creative problem-solving (CPS) task. Theoretically, KEYWORDS
forethought influences performance, which subsequently influ- Self-regulated learning; SRL
microanalysis; creative
ence self-reflection. We examined three forethought processes problem solving; cyclical
(self-efficacy, interest, & strategic planning), one performance pro- relations; motivation
cess (strategy use), and one self-reflection process (self-evalu-
ation). Strategic planning predicted strategy use during the task;
however, strategy use did not predict self-evaluation. Contrary to
assumptions that strategy use during the CPS task would be the
best predictor of self-evaluation, self-efficacy before engagement
best predicted self-evaluation. We also investigated the predictive
relationships between SRL and four CPS outcomes including the
number of ideas (fluency), number of ideas types (flexibility), idea
uniqueness (originality), and idea usefulness (usefulness). Self-effi-
cacy and strategy use predicted fluency and flexibility whereas
interest predicted the originality of ideas. No variables predicted
idea usefulness.

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is often described as several inter-connected processes

(e.g. planning, using strategies, monitoring, and reflecting) and motivational beliefs
(e.g. self-efficacy and interest) that facilitate goal-directed thoughts, actions, and emo-
tions (Panadero, 2017). SRL relates to achievement in academics (Schunk & Greene,
2017) and athletics (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002). Moreover, intervention programs
improve individuals’ SRL and subsequent achievement (Dignath & Bu €ttner, 2008).
Many models of SRL exist (Panadero, 2017). Although there are differences, most
models share overlapping processes and conceptualise SRL as a cyclical feedback loop in
which multiple processes are integrated, influenced by each other, and adapted to
address challenges (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012). The current study examines the cyclical
feedback loop within Zimmerman’s (2000) model, as opposed to other models, because
it has been widely utilised in research and intervention design (Zimmerman, 2013).

CONTACT Gregory Callan greg.callan@usu.edu 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322, USA
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

However, little research has empirically tested the theoretical links among the processes
within this model while individuals are engaged in complex cognitive tasks.
The bulk of research supporting the relationships among SRL processes has relied
on domain-level and retrospective measures. However, to examine temporal links
among SRL processes (e.g. engaging in forethought leads to improved performance-
control phase regulation), the processes must be measured in the sequence that they
occur in relation to a single task of interest. Only a few studies have examined these
relationships while participants are engaged in a task, and existing work tends to
emphasise motor activities (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001) or core academic tasks (study-
ing; DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013). Less research has explored the cyclical relations
within more complex cognitive processes, like creative problem-solving (CPS), which is
an important skillset associated with personal and societal gains (Gajda, et al., 2017).
Recently, the creativity field has begun conceptualising the creative process as a
series of agentic actions, requiring intentionality and persistence to bring an idea to
fruition (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, 2017; Rubenstein et al., 2018). These conceptualizations
have both included creativity-specific regulation models (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, 2017), as
well as embedding the creative process within existing models, including
Zimmerman’s SRL model (Rubenstein et al., 2018).
By connecting the creative process to existing SRL models, creativity researchers
can use existing task-specific SRL assessment techniques (Cleary et al., 2012). These
task-specific assessments provide nuanced information regarding specific SRL proc-
esses that support individuals’ generation and selection of creative ideas. This informa-
tion can be used to develop and implement interventions designed to enhance and
support the creative process. While previous studies have used SRL measurement
techniques to examine the creative process (Callan et al., 2021), there remains a gap
in understanding the relationship among SRL subprocesses during CPS and how
those subprocesses relate to CPS outcomes while accounting for initial divergent-
thinking abilities.
Therefore, the current study addresses these gaps by measuring SRL processes
while students complete a CPS task. Two primary objectives guide this work. First, we
test the theoretical, cyclical relationships among forethought, performance-control,
and self-reflection processes. This objective provides important information for both
SRL and creativity literatures. Specifically, the SRL field has rarely tested theoretical
relationships of SRL processes in relation to complex cognitive processes. It is assumed
that forethought variables influence performance-control and self-reflection phases
across all tasks, but to the authors’ knowledge, no empirical studies have tested that
assumption in CPS tasks. Further, understanding these cyclical relations can support
the development of creativity interventions.
The second objective is to determine the extent to which SRL processes predict
CPS outcomes. The importance of cyclical relations of SRL processes depends, to some
degree, upon the extent to which they set in motion a chain-reaction that eventually
enhances important outcomes. The prediction of CPS performances with SRL has been
examined in one previous study (Callan et al., 2021); however, that study used a
younger population and did not account for existing divergent-thinking ability.
Accounting for divergent-thinking ability allows for more specific conclusions to be
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

drawn regarding the importance of SRL processes above and beyond individuals’ abil-
ity. We examine predictive contributions of multiple SRL processes for CPS performan-
ces during (a) idea generation: fluency (i.e. number of ideas generated), flexibility (i.e.
number of different types of ideas) and (b) idea selection: originality (i.e. the unique-
ness of ideas), and usefulness of ideas.

Theoretical framework
Zimmerman’s model of SRL
Zimmerman’s three-phase model depicts theorised causal links among multiple
SRL processes and motivational beliefs across three temporal phases of forethought,
performance-control, and self-reflection. Forethought processes are activated before
task-engagement, such as goal-setting and planning. In addition, motivation (e.g. self-
efficacy, interest) are described within forethought because motivation is required to
expend the effort necessary to regulate (Popa, 2015). Collectively, forethought proc-
esses impact how individuals regulate during task-engagement (i.e. performance-con-
trol). During performance-control, individuals enact strategies and self-observe
achievement and technique (Zimmerman, 2000). Using strategies and self-observing
can optimise performance and inform the final phase of SRL, self-reflection. Following
task-engagement, learners can self-reflect by evaluating goal attainment or comparing
their performance to peers’, identifying perceived causes of successes and failures (i.e.
attributions; Weiner, 1985), and identifying adaptations to future approaches and fore-
thought (Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, the self-reflection phase closes the feedback loop
by linking to future forethought.

Evidence of cyclical relationships among SRL processes

Although Zimmerman’s model has been widely used and cited, empirical support for
the hypothesised cyclical relations is limited. Several intervention studies have demon-
strated that training some SRL processes can lead to improvements in regulatory proc-
esses within subsequent phases. These studies provide initial support for cyclical
relationships (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 1998; Schunk & Swartz, 1993).
In addition to intervention studies, researchers have examined connections among
processes in the absence of experimental manipulation. These studies more closely
mirror natural linkages within the general population because most people do
not receive SRL intervention training. To study this process, researchers have used
task-specific interviews, called SRL microanalysis, to examine participants’ SRL before,
during, and after task-engagement. The administration timing of SRL microanalysis
measures is linked to the temporal phases of Zimmerman’s (2000) model such that
forethought measures are administered just before the task, whereas performance-
control and self-reflection measures are administered during and just after task-
engagement, respectively (Cleary et al., 2012).
For example, DiBenedetto and Zimmerman (2013) used SRL microanalysis to exam-
ine cyclical relations among SRL processes while students studied and took a test.
They found links between forethought strategic planning and performance-control
4 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

self-monitoring (r from 0.28 to 0.35). Self-monitoring subsequently linked to self-reflec-

tion phase self-evaluation (r ¼ 0.66). Cleary et al. (2015) also used SRL microanalysis to
examine linkages among SRL processes around a college exam. They found links
between self-reflection (i.e. satisfaction, self-evaluation, and attributions) and fore-
thought self-efficacy for the next exam (r’s from 0.38 to 0.68). Callan and Cleary (2019)
examined the cyclical links while middle schoolers attempted mathematical word-
problems. They found forethought goal-setting and strategic planning predicted per-
formance-control strategy use, which subsequently predicted self-reflection
attributions.

Importance of the task within SRL

Beyond the three temporal phases, Zimmerman’s model is influenced by social-cogni-
tive research which emphasises the importance of context (Bandura, 1986). As a result,
researchers have examined how SRL varies across task types or contextual factors, mir-
roring discussions within creativity (Busko & Mujagi
c, 2013; Lodewyk et al., 2009).
Although researchers have examined predictive contributions of task-specific SRL in a
variety of domains (Schunk & Greene, 2017); little work has examined the prediction
of more complex cognitive outcomes such as CPS (Rubenstein et al., 2018). To address
this need, it is important to define CPS.
While many CPS models exist, in general, they include generating many different
solutions to a specific problem (i.e. divergent thinking), followed by selecting the best
solution to pursue and refine (i.e. convergent thinking; Sawyer, 2012). Near universal
agreement exists on the importance of CPS (Plucker et al., 2015; U.S. Department of
Education, 2017; World Economic Forum, 2016); however, many questions remain
regarding underlying mechanisms of the creative process.
To answer these questions, multiple approaches have been developed to examine
creative process at the task-level, including subjective evidence-based ethnography
(SEBE; Glaveanu, 2015), micro-level interactional analyses (Gajda et al., 2017;
Tanggaard & Beghetto, 2015), and dynamic administration of instruments (Karwowski
et al., 2019). Glaveanu (2015) used SEBE to examine how one artist conceptualised his
creative process while Gajda et al. (2017) recorded and mapped classroom conversa-
tions to understand the relationship between student creativity and environmental
contexts. Karwowski et al. (2019) administered surveys while individuals engaged with
a divergent thinking task to determine how creative self-efficacy and confidence
changed during the task.
Collectively, these studies demonstrate how task-specific measurements provide
nuanced information regarding the creative process. The creative process can also be
conceptualised within an SRL framework, which emphasises learnable processes that
support CPS and allows the use of existing SRL measurements, such as SRL micro-
analysis (Callan et al., 2021; Rubenstein et al., 2019). For example, Callan et al. (2021)
predicted CPS outcomes by measuring multiple SRL processes with SRL microanalysis.
In that study, strategic planning, self-efficacy, and strategy use correlated with diver-
gent thinking outcomes, but SRL did not relate to convergent thinking outcomes.
Rubenstein et al. (2019) examined the prediction of CPS outcomes with specific types
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

of strategies, as opposed to the number of strategies used. Many strategy types

emerged as significant predictors of creative performances.
Although these studies were informative, they studied fifth and sixth graders and
only examined specific creative outcomes, without considering the cyclical relation-
ships. Thus, the current study builds upon this work by examining an older sample
and by concurrently testing the cyclical relations of SRL and the prediction of
CPS outcomes.

Research questions
Prior research demonstrated some SRL processes relate cyclically and explain signifi-
cant variance in achievement (DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013). However, many gaps
persist. To date, SRL research has not concurrently examined the extent to which both
forethought processes and motivation predict performance-control processes, nor has
research examined how performance-control processes predict self-evaluations of
one’s work compared to their peers’.
In addition to exploring these fundamental cyclical relationships, the current study
uniquely explores these relationships within CPS. While initial research suggests SRL
predicts CPS outcomes (Callan et al., 2021), cyclical relationships have been unexam-
ined. Therefore, the current study contributes to the literature by examining (a) the
cyclical relationships among SRL processes while older students (i.e. 7th–9th graders)
engage in a CPS task and (b) how SRL processes predict CPS outcomes (i.e. fluency,
flexibility, originality, and usefulness). We address the following research questions:
RQ1: To what extent are the theorized, cyclical relationships of SRL evident in a
CPS context?
RQ1a. To what extent do forethought variables predict performance-control processes?
RQ1b. To what extent do forethought and performance-control processes relate to and
predict self-reflection processes?

Based upon the cyclical assumptions of Zimmerman’s model, we hypothesise that

positive relationships exist between forethought variables and performance-control
strategy use. Further, we predict the relationships between forethought processes and
self-evaluation should be smaller than the relationship between performance-control
and self-evaluation. This hypothesis is supported by prior research suggesting that SRL
processes within adjacent phases relate more strongly (Callan & Cleary, 2019;
DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013).
RQ2: To what extent do SRL processes relate to and predict CPS outcomes?
RQ2a. To what extent do SRL processes relate to and predict the generation of ideas,
including the number of ideas generated (i.e. fluency) and the number of different
categories of ideas generated (i.e. flexibility)?
RQ2b. To what extent do SRL processes relate to and predict the selection of ideas,
including the novelty of the ideas generated (i.e. originality), and the usefulness of the
ideas generated (i.e. quality)?

Strategic planning and strategy use measures have often emerged as strong predic-
tors of achievement of academic and athletic achievements within prior SRL
6 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

microanalytic research (Cleary & Callan, 2017). Moreover, previous creativity research
illustrated similar relationships (Callan et al., 2021; Rubenstein et al., 2019). Thus, we
hypothesise that strategic planning and strategy use will emerge as significant predic-
tors of some types of CPS outcomes. Given that we examine four different types of
outcomes, it is possible that strategic planning and strategy use will not predict all
four outcomes.

Methodology
Participants
Participants included 89 secondary students (six seventh graders, 48 eighth graders,
and 35 ninth graders) from the Midwest (Mean Age ¼ 13.90; SD ¼ 0.65). Within this
sample, 46.7% of students were female, and 87.8% of students identified as Caucasian.
Two students had missing data: one student failed to complete the Torrance Test of
Creative Thinking – Figural (TTCT-F), and the audio recorder failed for one students’
interview during the planning item. Thus, these cases were removed listwise when the
TTCT-F or strategic planning measures were examined in the analyses.

Procedures
Participants met individually with a trained research assistant to complete an
interview session (audio recorded and later transcribed). The session began with the
CPS-Introduction-Task (Table 1 for a summary of procedures). Each CPS task required
participants to generate possible solutions and select their best solution to help a
stakeholder solve a problem (e.g. ‘The school nurse accidently ordered 1,000 boxes of
Band-Aids, rather than 1,000 individual Band-Aids. Can you help the school nurse
come up with different ways to use extra boxes of Band-Aids?’). This task served two

Table 1. Sample items, format, and coding.

Measures measure description and
Measures sample questions Coding or scale for response
CPS -Introduction-Task ‘The school nurse accidently ordered 1,000 Fluency: number of ideas
boxes of Band-Aids rather than 1,000 Flexibility: number of different types
individual Band-Aids. Can you help the of ideas
nurse come up with different ways to use Originality: uniqueness of idea
the extra boxes of Band-Aids? Which one Usefulness: judgement of idea
idea would the nurse like best?’ the quality
Self-efficacy ‘How sure are you that you can create Confidence (Likert 1–7)
many ideas to solve the problem?’
Interest ‘How interested are you in solving this Indicated interest (Likert 1–7)
next story?’
Strategic planning ‘What could you do to help you come up Number of CPS strategies indicated
with solutions to the problem if you
get stuck?’
CPS-final-task One CPS story problem parallel to Same as CPS-introduction-task
previous CPS-introduction-task
Strategy use ‘Tell me all the things you did to help you Number of CPS strategies indicated
solve this problem.’
Self-evaluation ‘How likely is it that the nurse will select Quality of idea (Likert 1–7)
your best solution as the one to
implement or use?’
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

purposes: (a) to collect data regarding creative performance outcomes, and (b) to
familiarise participants with the CPS tasks.
Next, participants responded to SRL microanalysis interview questions embedded
within a parallel ‘CPS-Final-Task’. Participants responded to SRL microanalysis questions
before, during, and after generating and selecting solutions. Three forethought meas-
ures (i.e. self-efficacy, interest, and strategic planning) were administered prior to the
CPS-Final-Task, one performance-control measure (i.e. strategy use) was administered
during the CPS-Final-Task, and one self-reflection measure (i.e. self-evaluation) was
administered following the CPS-Final-Task.

Measures
Measures of SRL
Six microanalysis measures were used to examine students’ SRL processes across the
three phases of SRL. A free-response format was used for the strategic planning and
strategy use measures, which were coded by two independent raters. In contrast, self-
efficacy and self-evaluation utilised numeric responses on a Likert scale.

Self-efficacy. Immediately after the CPS-Introduction-Task, but before students were

began the CPS-Final-Task, the interviewer provided context, ‘I am just about to tell
you the new story, but before I do … ’, and then administered four self-efficacy items
to measure students’ expectancy to (a) generate many solutions, (b) generate many
types of solutions, (c) generate a solution no one else would think of, and (d) generate
a solution that would be helpful. An example item includes, ‘Using this scale [Show
Cue Card], where one means that you are ‘Not at all sure’ and seven means that you
are ‘Very Sure’, how sure are you that you can create many solutions to the new prob-
lem?’ The ratings across all four items were averaged with acceptable reliability
(a ¼ 0.73). This item has been used in prior research and predicted CPS outcomes
(Callan et al., 2021).

Interest. Students interest in the CPS task was measured using a single Likert-type
item (i.e. ‘Using this scale [Show Cue Card] where one means that you are ‘Not at all
interested and seven means that you are ‘Very interested, how interested are you in
solving these types of problems?’). Similar items have demonstrated divergent validity
(Ainley & Patrick, 2006; Renninger & Hidi, 2011).

Strategic planning. This one-item measure examined students’ strategic thinking prior
to attempting a CPS task. Specifically, the interviewer asked, ‘What can you do if you
get stuck or have trouble thinking of ideas?’ If a code-able response was provided, the
interviewer prompted, ‘Is there anything else that you can do?’ A maximum of two
times. Coders counted the number of CPS strategies participants identified (See Table
2 for additional details regarding strategies and Table 1 for further details regarding
coding procedures). Similar items have reliably differentiated achievement groups
(DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013). The inter-rater agreement was substantial
(McHugh, 2012; j ¼ 0.66).
8 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

Table 2. Descriptions of coding categories for strategy items.

N responses
for strategic N responses
Strategies Examples planning for strategy use
Re-examine the problem Participant suggests hearing the problem 59 41
again, re-reading it, highlighting key
components, looking up definitions for key
words, or identifying context clues within
the prompt.
Dissect Participant describes dissecting the problem 10 31
into smaller components.
Manipulate Participant describes how they would 11 9
manipulate information such as reversing,
eliminating, substituting, etc.
Converge Participant describes converging ideas. 1 19
Physical representation Participant describes how he/she would 11 3
record, write, or draw ideas for either
understanding the problem or solutions.
Connect to past experience Participant considers how other people have 25 35
solved similar issues in the past. Students
consider their own personal experiences.
Perspective-taking Participant considers how stakeholders feel or 10 41
what they would want/need.
Brainstorming Participant delineates a specific method for 41 11
developing multiple or many ideas.
Inspiration search Participant discusses actively seeking 22 9
additional, new stimuli for inspiration.
Experimentation Participant describes testing out an idea to 2 1
see if it would work and making needed
adjustments.

Strategy use. Completion of the CPS-Final-Task entailed the ‘during’ aspect of SRL.
Consistent with prior research (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002), the authors adminis-
tered the strategy use measure immediately after task performance rather than during
problem-solving to minimise disruptions and prompts that could influence natural
engagement in strategy use. The interviewer queried, ‘Tell me all the things that you
did to help you solve this problem’. Prompting and coding procedures were identical
to strategic planning. Similar measures have significantly predicted performance on
academic tasks (DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013). The inter-rater agreement in the
current study was substantial (j ¼ 0.67).

Self-evaluation. The self-evaluation measure examined participants’ estimations of

performance on a CPS-Final-Task item in relation to their peers. Specifically, partici-
pants were asked, ‘How likely is it that the [insert stakeholder title here] will select
your best solution as the one to implement or use?’ Participants responded on a 7-
point Likert scale for each problem. On this scale, one meant ‘The nurse would defin-
itely not select your solution’ and seven meant ‘The nurse will definitely select
your solution’.

CPS performance outcomes

Four creative outcomes were calculated including fluency, flexibility, originality, and
usefulness. Coding was derived from participants’ responses to both the CPS-
Introduction-Task and CPS-Final-Task.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

Fluency. Coding fluency entailed counting the number of solutions generated.

Duplicate and irrelevant ideas were not coded. Interrater agreement for fluency coding
was moderate (Weighted j ¼ 0.62; Cohen, 1988; McHugh, 2012).

Flexibility. Coders identified the number of different categories of ideas. First,

researchers inductively created 13 categories from all responses and then counted the
number of categories each participant addressed. In general, students generated ways
to use an abundance of a certain item within a specific context. While the items and
context varied, the coding scheme for flexibility was applied across items. The catego-
ries included (a) giving them away, (b) keeping for self, (c) selling them, (d) shipping
back for a refund, (e) save and use for later, (f) building with them, (g) designing
games, (h) recycling, (i) using for educational purposes, (j) decorating with them, (k)
fixing something with them, (l) using the container the item came in (e.g. using the
box from the box of Band-Aids), and (m) other unintended uses (e.g. using a fork as a
stirring spoon). Interrater reliability for flexibility was almost perfect
(Weighted j ¼ 0.85).

Originality. Coding originality highlighted the uniqueness of participants’ self-selected

best idea for each story problem. First, the flexibility categories were used to count
the total occurrences of idea types. Next, further distinction was identified within
these categories (e.g. giving away further distinguished into (a) giving to homeless
people and (b) giving to schools). Ideas that were listed less frequently by peers
received higher scores for originality. The number of uses of the flexibility categories
and the finer groups were added together and then subtracted from the sample size.
For example, if three participants identified the same category of giving away and
only one participant suggested giving the away to the homeless, this participant
earned an originality score of 85 (89 – (3 þ 1)).

Usefulness. Finally, usefulness coding identified whether ideas addressed stakeholders’

initiatives. We determined stakeholder initiatives by consulting professional councils
and associations. For example, the school nurse’s initiatives were determined using
the Council of School Health’s description of the role of the school nurse. Students’
responses were coded on a binary scale for each of the five CPS problems. A score of
zero indicated the response did not address the stakeholders’ initiatives and one indi-
cated that the response addressed stakeholders’ initiatives. Interrater agreement was
nearly perfect (Weighted j ¼ 0.90).

General divergent thinking ability as a control variable

The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F) is a popular method for assess-
ing students’ general divergent thinking abilities (Kim, 2011). Updated in 2017, the
TTCT-Figural has demonstrated high reliability of composite measures (KR21 ranging
from 0.83 to 0.93) and high inter-rater reliability (0.96–0.99; Torrance, 2008). The TTCT
also demonstrated higher predictive validity for creative achievement (r ¼ 0.33,
p<.001) compared to other divergent thinking tests (Kim, 2008). The TTCT-F was
included as a control variable because prior research has shown more creative
10 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

Table 3. Descriptive data.

Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Scale
General divergent thinking 107.83 (15.81) 0.27 0.14 61141
Self-efficacy 4.4 (.93) 0.44 0.32 17
Interest 4.8 (.91) 0.22 0.82 17
Strategic planning 1.5 (1.1) 0.86 0.72 05
Strategy use 1.9 (1.0) 1.1 1.1 05
Self-evaluation 4.6 (1.4) 0.18 0.73 17
Fluency 13 (6.5) 1.8 4.2 040
Flexibility 8.3 (2.9) 1.0 2.4 020
Originality 205 (47.3) 0.2 0.3 0290
Usefulness .73 (.73) 0.64 0.23 03

individuals to be more strategic and motivated (Liu et al., 2016). Given our objective
of understanding how SRL processes relate to and predict task-specific outcomes, con-
trolling for students’ general divergent thinking abilities parsed out the distinct contri-
butions of SRL processes from general divergent thinking abilities. This replicates
previous work determining how specific variables influenced creative outcomes over
and above general divergent thinking or fluency (e.g. Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016).

Results
Descriptive data (e.g. means, standard deviations, and skewness) are reported in Table
3. An a priori power analysis revealed that our sample size provided adequate power
(b ¼ > 0.80) for the identified regression analyses with an anticipated medium effect
size. Preliminary analyses indicated most, but not all, statistical assumptions were met
for planned analyses. First, strategy use, fluency, and flexibility measures were ‘count
variables’ and thus, linear regression was not appropriate for predicting these out-
comes. Second, fluency and flexibility measures violated assumptions for skewness
and kurtosis.
To address these violations of assumptions, we used count regression models.
Several count regression models were run including Poisson, negative binomial,
zero-truncated Poisson, and zero-truncated negative binomial. Zero-truncated mod-
els were included because, while zero responses were possible, all students had at
least one response for fluency and flexibility. To determine which models were
most appropriate to interpret, we first examined results of an overdispersion test
using ‘pscl’ (Jackman, 2017) in R (R Core Team, 2018), then compared AIC values
to determine which models fit the data best (Table 4). For the regression models
predicting strategy use and flexibility, the Poisson regression assumption of overdis-
persion was met and fit the data well. For models predicting fluency, the data
were overdispersed, making a Poisson model inappropriate; therefore, the negative
binomial model was interpreted.
RQ1: To what extent are the theorized, cyclical relationships of SRL evident in a
CPS context?

To address our first objective, Pearson correlations and regression procedures were
used to test hypotheses regarding the cyclical phase relations. Several hypothesised
relations were confirmed.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

Table 4. Overdispersion check and model fit for count regression models.
Models AIC Overdispersion
Strategy use v2 ¼ 0.0011, p ¼ .5
Poisson 253.65 0.38
Negative binomial 331.37 0.13
Fluency v ¼ 10.0642, p < .001
2

Poisson 514.42 1.61

Negative binomial 633.59 0.12
Flexibility v ¼ 0.0012, p ¼ .5
2

Poisson 406.93 0.67

Negative binomial 561.04 0.07

Table 5. Correlations among measures of SRL processes.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1.General divergent thinking – 0.35 0.03 0.25 0.36 0.14
2.Self-efficacy – 0.49 0.19 0.24 0.38
3.Interest – 0.16 0.18 0.31
4.Strategic planning – 0.46 0.24
5.Strategy use – 0.14
6.Self-evaluation –
Note. p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Table 6. Predicting number of strategies used.

Predictor B SE(B) 95% CI [LL, UL] p
General divergent thinking 0.01 0.01 [0.00, 0.17] .198
Self-efficacy 0.06 0.09 [0.12, 0.25] .494
Strategic planning 0.16 0.06 [0.04, 0.29] .012
Note. p < .05, CI is 95% Wald confidence interval.

RQ1a: Cyclical relations from forethought to performance-control

Pearson correlations revealed that self-efficacy and strategic planning significantly

correlated with strategy use within the performance-control phase see Table 5).
Subsequent regressions examined individual contributions of forethought constructs
in explaining strategy use. Poisson regression analysis were significant overall,
v2(3) ¼ 12.032, p ¼ .007. Strategic planning emerged as a significant, unique predictor
of strategy use (Table 6). Although a traditional R2 cannot be calculated while using
Poisson regression, a pseudo R2 (McFadden’s pseudo R2) was calculated (R2 ¼ 0.07);
however, it cannot be interpreted as a traditional R2. Overall, students who planned to
use more strategies before task-engagement tended to use more strategies during
CPS task performance.
RQ1b. Cyclical relations from forethought and performance-control to self-reflection

We examined the theoretical assumption that performance-control SRL should pre-

dict self-reflection processes. The cyclical assumption of SRL would be supported if
forethought processes exhibited smaller predictions of self-reflection than did perform-
ance-control processes. Pearson correlations indicated significant relations between
self-efficacy, interest, strategic planning and the outcome variable, self-evaluation. A
subsequent regression analysis including these three predictors accounted for 19% of
the variance in students’ self-evaluation F(3, 84) ¼ 6.3, p<.01, R2 ¼ 0.19; see Table 7).
Our hypothesis that performance-control would better predict self-evaluation was not
supported. Specifically, self-efficacy was the only significant predictor of self-evaluation
12 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

Table 7. Forethought and performance phase processes predicting self-reflection.

Variable Zero order correlation Semipartial correl. (sr2) b T R2
0.19
Self-efficacy 0.37 0.22 (5%) 0.26 2.29
Interest 0.31 0.13 (2%) 0.15 1.35
Strategic planning 0.24 0.17 (20.9%) 0.17 1.68
Note. Total/Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.19/0.16; sr2 ¼ semi-partial squared.
p < .05; p < .01.

Table 8. Correlations among measures of SRL processes and CPS outcomes.

Fluency Flexibility Originality Usefulness
General divergent thinking 0.35 0.28 0.03 0.13
Self-efficacy 0.42 0.35 0.09 0.10
Interest 0.23 0.11 0.21 0.03
Strategic planning 0.34 0.37 0.01 0.04
Strategy use 0.56 0.52 0.05 0.00
Self-evaluation 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.02
Note. p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Table 9. Predicting the creative fluency with SRL.

Predictor B SE (B) 95% CI [LL, UL] p
General divergent thinking < 0.01 < 0.01 [0.00, 0.01] .375
Self-efficacy 0.19 0.04 [0.11, 0.27] < .001
Interest 0.01 0.04 [0.07, 0.08] .893
Strategic planning 0.04 0.03 [0.02, 0.10] .153
Strategy use 0.18 0.03 [0.12, 0.24] < .001
Note. p < .001. CI is 95% Wald confidence interval.

explaining a small amount (5%) of the variance in self-evaluation. Thus, students’ self-
evaluation better related to their initial impressions of skill as opposed to the processes
they engaged during the task.
RQ2: To what extent do SRL processes relate to and predict CPS outcomes?

The second research question examined the predictive contributions of SRL proc-
esses for CPS outcomes after controlling for general divergent thinking. First, we com-
puted Pearson correlations to identify which constructs correlated significantly with
outcome variables (Table 8) and followed up the correlation analyses with regression,
Poisson, or negative binomial models.
RQ2a. Relationships among SRL processes and the generation of ideas

First, we examined the extent to which SRL processes measured with SRL micro-
analysis predicted creative outcomes for idea generation (i.e. fluency and flexibility).
General divergent thinking, self-efficacy, interest, strategic planning, and strategy use
were significantly correlated with fluency (Table 8) and were included in a subsequent
negative binomial model. This model was significant overall and fit the data better
than an intercepts-only model, v2(5) ¼ 117.352, p<.001, McFadden’s pseudo-R2 ¼ 0.21.
Among the individual predictors, self-efficacy and strategy use emerged as significant
predictors of fluency (Table 9).
Next, we examined the extent to which SRL processes measured with SRL micro-
analysis predicted flexibility. General divergent thinking, self-efficacy, strategic
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

Table 10. Predicting the creative flexibility with SRL.

Predictor B SE(B) 95% CI [LL, UL] p
General divergent thinking <0.01 <0.01 [0.01, 0.01] .994
Self-efficacy 0.10 0.04 [0.01, 0.19] .024
Strategic planning 0.05 0.04 [0.02, 0.12] .190
Strategy use 0.12 0.04 [0.04, 0.20] .003
Note. p < .05; p < .01; CI is 95% Wald confidence interval.

planning, and strategy use were significantly correlated with flexibility (Table 8) and
were included in a subsequent Poisson regression model predicting the number of dif-
ferent types of responses. The results were significant overall and fit the data better
than an intercepts only model, v2(4) ¼ 29.043, p<.001, McFadden’s pseudo-R2 ¼ 0.09.
Upon analysis of individual predictors, self-efficacy and strategy use significantly pre-
dicted flexibility (Table 10).
RQ2b. Relationships among SRL processes and the selection of ideas

Our next objective was to examine the extent to which SRL predicted the selec-
tion of creative ideas (i.e. originality and usefulness). Interest was the only measure
that correlated significantly with originality (Table 8) and no measure correlated
significantly with usefulness. Thus, we did not complete follow-up regressions
as planned.

Discussion
The primary objectives of this manuscript were to (a) examine the cyclical relations
among SRL processes across the three phases of SRL and (b) to determine which SRL
processes were most predictive of CPS outcomes. Despite mixed evidence, our find-
ings add to the literature by empirically testing theoretical relations among SRL proc-
esses using microanalysis. This allowed for the cyclical processes to be measured in
real-time as participants engaged in a specific CPS task, further extending SRL research
to the domain of creativity.

Cyclical relationships
Regarding the first objective, our findings generally supported the notion that fore-
thought processes, especially strategic planning, predict performance-control strategy
use, but we did not find support for the link between performance-control and self-
evaluation. Only self-efficacy predicted self-evaluation.

Forethought to performance-control
Consistent with some prior research, we found strategic planning predicted strategy
use. For example, Callan and Cleary (2019) found strategic planning prior to attempt-
ing a set of mathematical word problems significantly predicted strategy use during
the problems. In contrast, DiBenedetto and Zimmerman (2013) did not find a signifi-
cant relationship between strategic planning before studying and strategy use during
a subsequent test. Both the current study plus Callan and Cleary (2019), examined the
link between strategic planning and strategies in relation to a single task, while
14 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

DiBenedetto and Zimmerman (2013) measured these processes in relation to two dis-
tinct, but related tasks (i.e. studying and test-taking). The contrasting findings between
these studies may support prior research indicating students vary strategies across
tasks types (Lodewyk et al., 2009). Although further experimental work is needed to
verify our correlational results, a practical hypothesis of the cyclical link between stra-
tegic planning and strategy use is that educators may produce gains in strategy use
by teaching students to plan strategically. Further, our results indicate that when stu-
dents plan strategically, they are more likely to act strategically.

Forethought and performance-control to self-reflection

Based upon theory and prior empirical findings (DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013;
Zimmerman, 2000), we hypothesised that self-reflection processes should exhibit larger
relationships with performance-control processes relative to forethought. Our hypoth-
esis was not supported. Strategy use and self-evaluation did not correlate, whereas
the strongest predictor of self-evaluation was self-efficacy. Thus, participants’ self-eval-
uations of the quality of their ideas was less related to the processes they imple-
mented than their pre-conceived notions of how well they would perform.
These findings contrast with prior research. For example, DiBenedetto and
Zimmerman (2013) found a strong relationship between strategy use and self-
evaluation measures, and further, when participants received forethought and
performance-control training, they generated more adaptive self-evaluations (Cleary
et al., 2006; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 1998). Our results may have differed from prior
research for several reasons. First, we used a more complex self-evaluation measure
requiring normative comparisons to one’s peers whereas other studies measured self-
evaluation of participants’ own learning (DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2013; Kitsantas &
Zimmerman, 1998). Using a normative self-evaluation, however, more closely mirrors
CPS outcomes. When individuals engage in CPS, they tackle ambiguous problems with
multiple correct answers. For example, entrepreneurs must discern which idea to pur-
sue because it addresses a need and is better than competitors’ solutions. This differs
from tasks used in prior research, such as mathematical problem-solving or volleyball
serving, which have more objective outcomes. Future research should include meas-
ures of both individual and normative self-evaluations to clarify relationships between
performance-control and self-evaluation.
Further, our study did not provide an intervention, yet some previous studies used
an experimental design. Thus, we speculate whether SRL training strengthens relation-
ships among SRL processes. That is, SRL processes may correlate more strongly follow-
ing SRL training compared to individuals who have received no SRL training. To the
authors’ knowledge, no study to date has examined this question, however.
Regardless of the mechanisms behind cyclical relationships, our results have import-
ant implications. Researchers and educators should not assume that students who are
more strategic will naturally evaluate their ideas as being better. This may indicate stu-
dents do not perceive a relationship between strategy use and creative outcomes, per-
haps, believing creative ideas just emerge. However, if learners do not perceive
strategies to be linked to improved performance, they may abandon those strategies.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15

This would be maladaptive given that our second objective demonstrated strategy use
predicted positive creative outcomes.

Using SRL processes to predict CPS outcomes

Recent publications advocate for conceptualising creativity as a self-regulated process
(Ivcevic & Nusbaum, 2017), and our study provides initial empirical support that spe-
cific SRL processes relate to creativity outcomes. In general, self-efficacy and strategy
use were significant predictors of fluency and flexibility; whereas, interest was the only
significant correlate of originality.

CPS idea generation

We found strategy use and self-efficacy significantly predicted the generation of ideas,
which is consistent with prior research using other measurement methodologies. For
example, prior research identified significant relations between creative performances,
strategic thinking (Gilhooly et al., 2007) and self-efficacy (Liu et al., 2016). Our findings
also corroborate previous SRL microanalysis research, which has historically found stra-
tegic planning (Artino et al., 2014), strategy use (Callan et al., 2021), and metacogni-
tive-monitoring (Callan & Cleary, 2018) to be the strongest predictors of achievement
(Cleary & Callan, 2017).
Our findings, however, contrast a recent study using SRL microanalysis to study fifth
and sixth graders’ SRL during a similar CPS task (Callan et al., 2021). In that study, self-
efficacy and strategic planning significantly predicted idea generation. Although strat-
egy use was significantly correlated with idea generation in that prior study, it did not
explain a significant amount of variance after controlling for self-efficacy and strategic
planning. The differences in results could have been due to age differences in the
sample. For example, younger students may plan effectively, but struggle to adaptively
translate those plans into strategy use. The older sample, in the current study, may
have better translated plans into strategy use. Additional research should examine the
cyclical relations of SRL across age groups.

CPS idea selection

Within the current study, interest was the only significant predictor of a CPS idea
selection outcome (i.e. originality). Prior research also found interest to be related to
creative outcomes (Amabile, 1985), but our findings diverge from a recent study that
did not find a significant relationship between interest and originality while using
microanalysis (Callan et al., 2021). Again, this may be due to sample differences. Prior
research examined younger students who may have inflate their reported interest to
appease interviewers whereas older students in our study may be willing to report a
lack of interest.
In contrast with interest, other SRL processes were not significantly related to ori-
ginality nor usefulness. This is somewhat surprising, given previous correlations
between idea fluency and future creative achievements (Runco et al., 2010); however,
additional nuance may explain this finding. Specifically, cognitive processes may be
different when developing fluent rather than unique ideas, and thus, students’ current
16 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

processes may support fluent but not original idea generation. This explanation is sup-
ported through work suggesting different task instructions influence creative out-
comes; thus, individuals may be engaging with different processes for generating
fluency verses originality of ideas (see Acar et al., 2020).
Similarly, idea generation and idea selection are distinct outcomes that may differ-
entially relate to specific SRL processes. In the current study, generation (i.e. fluency
and flexibility) was assessed using all of the students’ ideas; whereas, the selection of
ideas (i.e. originality and usefulness) required students to select one idea to pursue.
Their most original idea may not be the best idea. Thus, students may have selected
more traditional answers, which would influence the relationships among generation,
selection, and SRL. This approach is different from some other measures of creativity
such as the TTCT-F, which uses fluency as a gatekeeper to the measurement of origin-
ality resulting in very large correlations between originality and fluency (r ¼ 0.84; Kim,
2006). However, the current study more closely replicates authentic situations in which
individuals pursue their best idea.
Given idea generation and selection may require different cognitive processes
and strategies, it is possible these processes vary by population and access to strat-
egies. Previous research demonstrated younger students’ SRL processes predicted
idea generation but were less predictive of idea selection (Callan et al., 2021;
Rubenstein et al., 2019). The authors speculate this may be because students are
not deliberately taught how to evaluate and refine their ideas. Further, the creativ-
ity literature tends to promote and support strategic approaches to divergent think-
ing with less emphasis on convergent thinking. Also, the current sample may not
be developmentally situated to thoroughly evaluate and select their most novel
and useful idea.
Finally, time constraints of the interview may have influenced the relationships
between SRL and outcomes. Within the current study, the entire task was adminis-
tered within one session. It is possible the selection of a truly novel, useful idea
requires more time than provided, and SRL may be particularly important in idea
selection if given more time. Collectively, this current study demonstrates the ongoing
challenge of understanding how to select a creative idea that is both novel and useful
and illuminates several directions for future research.

Limitations and future directions

Future research should address several limitations of the current study. We did not
measure all SRL processes described within Zimmerman’s model (e.g. metacognitive-
monitoring and satisfaction). There are multiple reasons that we elected to exclude
some processes including the potential for participant burnout and reactivity.
Regarding burnout, we did not want the interview to be longer than necessary to
answer our key questions. Regarding reactivity, we were concerned that examining
some processes in our protocol could result in reactivity effects. For example, micro-
analysis of metacognitive-monitoring has generally used two different approaches (i.e.
inquiring about procedures used to monitor performance and inquiring about percep-
tions of achievement or learning). We opted against the first methodology because
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 17

asking participants ‘how they are monitoring’ could cue them to monitor. Second,
metacognitive-monitoring measures that ask about perceived performance usually
describe the performance criterion. Given that perspective taking leads to improved
creative performance (Rubenstein et al., 2019), we were concerned that asking partici-
pants, ‘how likely is it that the nurse will select the idea you are developing’ would
prompt participants to consider the nurse’s perspective. It is important to note that no
study to date has measured all SRL processes using SRL microanalysis (Cleary
et al., 2012).
The self-evaluation measure was limited. We examined how students perceive
their own ideas but did not address whether students accurately self-evaluate the
quality of their work. We were interested in whether students who use more strat-
egies believe they generated better ideas, but we did not address whether stu-
dents who use more strategies are more accurate self-evaluators. Additional
research could address the latter topic and examine the predictive contributions of
other SRL processes.
An additional limitation is the use of single-item measures, which do not allow for
the examination of target constructs across contextual variations. Thus, the generalis-
ability of our findings is limited. In addition, single item scales can under-represent
measurement error (Sarstedt & Wilczynski, 2009). Future research is needed to examine
these types of measures further. However, there are several practices that we used to
limit measurement error. First, piloting measures can reduce measurement error. Each
measure used was based upon prior SRL microanalysis research, which served as pilot
data, and also provided validity data regarding the measures. For a summary, please
read Cleary et al. (2012). Some key validity data to highlight is that single-item SRL
microanalysis measures are stronger predictors of achievement than multi-item scales
(Callan & Cleary, 2018), better relate to observations of students’ regulatory behaviours
compared to multi-item scales (Callan & Cleary, 2018), and are more sensitive to
change (Cleary et al., 2017). Second, we provided thorough training for interviewers
and ensured that they completed practices accurately by requiring interviewers to
pass a procedure test with 100% accuracy. To further protect against administration
errors, audio recordings of interviews were checked for procedural accuracy. A third
procedure that we used to protect against measurement error was to thoroughly dou-
ble check data for errors.
Regarding single-item scales, it is important to note that studying the cyclical rela-
tions of SRL processes around one task requires measurements not be aggregated
across multiple contexts or variations. Thus, using multiple item scales would ultim-
ately require the aggregation of items that would obscure target processes.
Regardless, we believe replication of our findings is critical.
Finally, we did not examine the cyclical relations of SRL across
multiple task attempts, which precluded us from examining the temporal links
among self-reflection processes and forethought processes during a subsequent
task. This is an important question for future research. While the current study pro-
vides initial results, our relatively modest sample size and fine-grained assessments
requires additional replication and experimental research to follow-up upon
our results.
18 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

Summary
Using microanalysis, we were able to study students’ SRL before, during, and after a
CPS task. Our findings indicate that planning is related to being more strategic during
a task, but being strategic does not lead to more optimistic self-evaluations of one’s
work. This may be due to the complex nature of CPS. The lack of cyclical relations
between strategies and self-evaluation are especially provocative when evaluated in
conjunction with our findings that using strategies emerged as a strong predictor of
idea generation. That is, more strategic students do not believe that they performed
better. This is troubling because if students do not perceive their success to be con-
nected to strategies, they may abandon the strategies that facilitated their successes.
Given the importance of CPS in supporting societal and students’ personal goals, it is
essential to consider how to deliberately facilitate it. Our results indicate that SRL
relates to and predicts CPS outcomes. Future experimental research can build upon
these findings.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This project was funded by an academic excellence grant at Ball State University.

ORCID
Gregory L. Callan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2662-4247
Lisa DaVia Rubenstein http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0945-8387

References
Acar, S., Runco, M. A., & Park, H. (2020). What should people be told when they take a divergent
thinking test? A meta-analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/
aca0000256
Ainley, M., & Patrick, L. (2006). Measuring self-regulated learning processes through tracking pat-
terns of student interaction with achievement activities. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3),
267–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9018-z
Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative
writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.48.2.393
Arreola, N. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). The effect of problem construction creativity on solu-
tion creativity across multiple everyday problems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 10(3), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040389
Artino, A. R., Cleary, T. J., Dong, T., Hemmer, P. A., & Durning, S. J. (2014). Exploring clinical rea-
soning in novices: A self-regulated learning microanalytic assessment approach. Medical
Education, 48(3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12303
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 19

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-
Hall.
Busko, V., & Mujagi
c, A. (2013). Predicting intraindividual change in learning strategies: The
effects of previous achievement. Review of Psychology, 20(1–2), 53–60.
Callan, G. L., Rubenstein, L. D., Ridgley, L. M., & McCall, J. M. (2021). Measuring the creative pro-
cess with SRL microanalysis. Online first. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(1),
136–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000238
Callan, G. L., & Cleary, T. J. (2018). Multidimensional assessment of self-regulated learning with
middle school math students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 103–111. https://doi.org/doi:
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000198
Callan, G. L., & Cleary, T. J. (2019). Examining cyclical phase relations and predictive influences of
self-regulated learning processes on mathematics task performance. Metacognition and
Learning, 14(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09191-x
Cleary, T. J., & Callan, G. L. (2017). Assessing self-regulated learning using microanalytic methods.
In D. H. Schunk & J. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance
(2nd ed., pp. 338–351). Routledge.
Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., Malatesta, J., & Adams, T. (2015). Examining the level of convergence
among self-regulated learning (SRL) microanalytic processes, achievement, and a self-report
questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(5), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0734282915594739
Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, con-
text specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols. Education
Research International, 2012, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/428639
Cleary, T. J., Velardi, B., & Schnaidman, B. (2017). Effects of the self-regulation empowerment pro-
gram (SREP) on middle school students strategic skills, self-efficacy, and mathematics achieve-
ment. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.004
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by
experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(2), 185–206. https://
doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149883
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engage-
ment: Theoretical foundations and applications. In. S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. White
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student motivation (pp. 237–257), Springer.
Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-
regulate during basketball free-throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77,
251–262.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
DiBenedetto, M. K., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). Construct and predictive validity of microanalytic
measures of students’ self-regulation of science learning. Learning and Individual Differences,
26, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.004
Dignath, C., & B€ uttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among stu-
dents. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level.
Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
Gajda, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Exploring creative learning in the classroom:
A multi-method approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 250–267. doi.org/10.1016/
j.tsc.2017.04.002.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/
edu0000133
Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and
executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of
Psychology, 98(Pt 4), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2007.tb00467
Glaveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3),
165–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.94
20 G. L. CALLAN ET AL.

Ivcevic, Z., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2017). From having an idea to doing something with it: Self-regula-
tion for creativity. In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Explorations in creativity research.
The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity (pp. 343–365). Elsevier
Academic Press.
Jackman, S. (2017). PSCL: Classes and methods for R developed in the political science computa-
tional laboratory (1.5.2). United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney. https://github.
com/atahk/pscl/.
Karwowski, M., Han, M. H., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Toward dynamizing the measurement of cre-
ative confidence beliefs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 193–202.
https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000229
Kim, K. H. (2006). Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326934crj1803_2
Kim, K. H. (2008). Commentary: The torrance tests of creative thinking already overcome many
of the perceived weaknesses that Silvia et al.'s (2008) methods are intended to correct.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 97–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-
3896.2.2.97
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10400419.2011.627805
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulation of motoric learning: A strategic cycle
view. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10(2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10413209808406390
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice,
non-expert, and expert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 14(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200252907761
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee
creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2016.08.001
Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implication of task structure on self-
regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01443410802447023
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemical Medicine, 22(3),
276–282.
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for
research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A. (2015). What we know about creativity: Partnership
for 21st century skills. Washington, DC. http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/Research/
P21_4Cs_Research_Brief_Series_-_Creativity.pdf.
Popa, D. (2015). The relationship between self-regulation, motivation and performance at sec-
ondary school students. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2549–2553. https://doi.
org/doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.410
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and gener-
ation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.
2011.587723
Rubenstein, L. D., Callan, G. L., & Ridgley, L. M. (2018). Anchoring the creative process within a
self-regulated learning framework. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 921–945. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-017-9431-5
Rubenstein, L. D., Callan, G. L., Ridgley, L. M., & Henderson, A. (2019). Students’ strategic plan-
ning and strategy use during creative problem solving: The importance of perspective-taking.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, 100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.004
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21

Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance tests of creative thinking as pre-
dictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal,
22(4), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.523393
Sarstedt, M., & Wilczynski, P. (2009). More for less? A comparison of single-item and multi-item
measures. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 211–227.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). The science of human innovation: Explaining creativity (2nd ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (2017). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progressive feedback: Effects on self-efficacy
and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337–354. https://doi.
org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1024
Tanggaard, L., & Beghetto, R. A. (2015). Ideational pathways: Toward a new approach for study-
ing the life of ideas. Creativity Theories – Research – Applications, 2(2), 129–144. https://doi.
org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0017
Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual: Figural forms A
& B. Scholastic Testing Service Inc.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017
National education technology plan update. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf.
Weiner, B. (1985). “Spontaneous” causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 74–84. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.74
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills, and work force strategy for
the fourth industrial revolution. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39).
Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career
path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676