152

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2018), 88, 152–166

© 2018 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Commentary
Looking down the road: Future directions for
research on depth and regulation of strategic
processing
Patricia A. Alexander*
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA

Purpose. The primary goal of this commentary was to consider the future directions
that researchers dealing with levels and regulation of strategies and with approaches to
learning may wish to pursue in the years to come.
Procedure. In order to accomplish this goal, the first step was to look for any common
ground shared by authors contributing to this Special Issue. That common ground
represented a convergence of evidence for these programmes of research; in effect,
where they intersect. Next, theoretical, methodological, and data-analytic barriers that
have long impeded progress within and across these research communities were
identified.
Outcome. Recommendations were offered that might serve to diminish or remove
those existing barriers and, thus, open new avenues of inquiry.

It is a privilege to serve as a commentator for this Special Issue that examines the
complicated relation between depth and regulation of strategic processing, especially in
the light of the international scholars chosen as contributors. According to the editors, the
purpose of this issue is to consider how levels of cognitive strategy use among students
relate to their metacognitive or self-regulatory behaviours (Dinsmore & Fryer, 2018).
Contributors to the issue were to be guided by three overarching questions:
1. What is the association between cognitive and metacognitive processing during
academic performance in varied contexts (e.g., text, technology rich environments,
university settings)?
2. How does the shifting developmental landscape change associations between depth
of processing and monitoring and regulation of learning on academic performance?
3. Do individuals’ competence help explain associations between monitoring, regula-
tion, and strategic processing? (p. 2)
To the credit of the editors, these are timely, important, and ambitious questions to be
posed at this juncture when theory and research into strategic processing approach the
half-century mark. Any issue that effectively addresses any one of these complex questions

*Correspondence should be addressed to Patricia A. Alexander, Department of Human Development and Quantitative
Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1131, USA (email: [email protected]).
A version of this paper was presented at the 2017 Biennial Meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and
Instruction, Tampere, Finland.

DOI:10.1111/bjep.12204
 Depth and regulation of strategies 153

will have made a significant contribution to the extant literature and set a course for
improved enhanced student learning and instructional practice. Moreover, in concep-
tualizing this issue, Dinsmore and Fryer not only sought international scholars with
expertise in this field, but also individuals representing varied theoretical and method-
ological traditions. That diversity is more than evident in this collection of articles. For one,
there are three overarching theoretical models referenced in the various articles,
Approaches to Learning (ILS, Vermunt, 1994), the Model of Domain Learning (MDL,
Alexander, 1997, 2003), and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL, Winne, 2010; Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2011). Further, as the editors promised, there are different populations, academic
domains, learning contexts, experimental measures, and statistical techniques repre-
sented.
In preparing my responses to this intriguing collection, I was taken by the editors’
choice of the word intersection in the title to situate the relation between levels and
regulation of strategies, as well as approaches to learning. That word evoked an image of
distinct avenues of theory and research temporarily crossing paths and then continuing on
their separate ways. Whether this was the editors’ intention, I cannot say. Nonetheless,
this metaphorical allusion became the stimulus for my response. My primary goal in this
commentary was to look down the road to the next decade of theory and research on
learners’ strategic processing and approaches to learning and to forward recommenda-
tions to those who are likely to pave the path that others will follow. Yet, to accomplish
this goal, there are initial steps that must be taken.
First, it is necessary for me to find evidence of intersection among these contributing
authors who represent diverse perspectives and traditions regarding the depth and
regulation of strategies and approaches to learning. By identifying these points of
convergence, I will be better positioned to envision future directions. Second, I want to
pinpoint the obstacles researchers have encountered on their journey towards greater
understanding of the cognitive and metacognitive behaviours that learners manifest or the
orientation towards learning they espouse. Some of those obstacles are apparent to
anyone engaged in this research, whereas others are more embedded and, thus, harder to
see and to avoid. Further, in certain cases, barriers to progress arise more often for one
research tradition, one learner population, or one academic domain than for another. In
other cases, these obstructions are common to all pursuing the goal of enhanced learning
and academic development. However, they manifest or for whom, the drive to remove
these obstacles will set a future course for these avenues of inquiry.

Convergence of evidence
Several years ago, I was negotiating the meaning of learning with Diane Schallert and
Ralph Reynolds (2009), who represent contrasting theoretical perspectives on this
complex construct. It was then that I became reacquainted with writings of Wilson (1998)
around consilience. Drawing on philosophical work of Whewell (1840), credited with
coining the term consilience, Wilson (1998) argued that researchers should search for the
unity of knowledge that emerges from the diverse perspectives or distinct methodologies
associated with an important issue or construct. That unity of knowledge, in effect,
represents a convergence of evidence; the empirical bedrock upon which inquiry should
be based. I have subsequently employed this analytic technique on recent occasions when
trying to extract the essence of complex and controversial constructs, including relevance
(Alexander, 2018) and reflectivity (Alexander, 2017). Thus, when preparing my response
to this Special Issue, I returned to consilience once more. I sought the common ground
154 Patricia A. Alexander

shared by these scholars under the expectation that this area of convergence of evidence
best captured what is known about depth and regulation of strategies and approaches to
learning.
As I quickly came to realize, there are indeed points of convergence among those who
investigate strategies and those concerned with approaches to learning. Specifically, the
common ground shared by the contributing authors to this Special Issue is as follows:

There are discernible, non-random patterns in the way individuals and groups strategically
engage in learning.

Before the 20th century dawned, the pragmatist William James (1890) articulated
significant principles about human learning and development that remain relevant today.
One of those principles related to humans’ tendency to habituate their thinking and
behaviours. To put it simply, humans are notorious creatures of habits. Regardless of age
or background, individuals quickly establish routines that allow them to function
efficiently and effectively in the world. This habituation manifests in the cognitive domain
as much as in the physical or social realm.
Whether the contributors to this Special Issue are exploring cognitive or metacog-
nitive/regulatory strategy use or approaches to learning, they apparently have taken as a
given that there are, in fact, reliable, predictable patterns (i.e., habits) in the way humans
operate in academic contexts. Moreover, these authors seemingly ascribe to the premise
that, with the right measures and techniques, they can uncover those habits of thought
and behaviour, quantify and analyse the results, and draw conclusions of educational
importance. If these contributing authors did not believe that there are discernible, non-
random patterns in the way individuals and groups strategically engage in learning, there
would be no reason to conduct the investigations represented in this Special Issue.

Individuals are able to describe their strategic behaviours or general approaches to learning
with some consistency.

When it comes to discerning those habits of mind and behaviour to which I just
referred, there is yet another commonality that emerges across the articles in this Special
Issue. Specifically, contributing authors apparently accept the idea that the participants in
their studies, regardless of their ages, sociocultural backgrounds, or academic experi-
ences, have an awareness of and an ability to articulate the procedures they are using, have
used, or typically use when engaged academically. In effect, these researchers operate
under the assumption that what is revealed during think-alouds, post-performance
interviews, or questionnaires has sufficient correspondence to what actually transpires to
merit analysis.
For instance, framing their study within self-regulated learning or SRL, Deekens,
Greene, and Lobczowski (2018) re-analysed think-aloud data from two investigations as
the means to establish a statistical, if not a theoretical, relation between depth of
processing and frequency of monitoring and, ultimately, high-school and college students’
performance on history and science tasks. Operating from a different framework, Catrysse
et al. (2018) used first-year psychology students’ responses on the Inventory of Learning
Patterns-Short Version (Donche & Van Petegem, 2008) to craft learner profiles. Eye-
tracking data were then gathered from a subgroup of the different profiles with the goal of
linking profiles to regulatory behaviour. Clearly, for both of these investigations, the
 Depth and regulation of strategies 155

researchers regarded what participants voiced or wrote as credible evidence of what was
occurring inside their minds or what they routinely do when learning.

Individual factors and task or contextual features influence learners’ behaviours.

Another principle James (1890) articulated, which may at first blush seem paradoxical
with the notion of habitation, pertained to the uniqueness of human experience. Echoing
the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, who famously said that ‘No man ever steps in the
same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man’, James contended
that the continuous flow of events humans experience ensure that no thought or action
can ever be truly replicated. Rather, those thoughts or actions iterate. That is to say,
thoughts and actions can repeat in an approximate way, being inevitably shaped by the
changing conditions within individuals or external to them. The resulting pattern is still
recognizable as a variant of what has occurred; just not an exact copy.
Certainly, this same principle applies to students’ strategic behaviour or approaches to
learning. All learners may adopt certain processing rituals or routines, but those rituals and
routines are expected to iterate as conditions internal or external to the learner shift. In
fact, there are a various internal and external influences mentioned by the contributing
authors, such as learner characteristics (e.g., topic knowledge or domain interest),
specific task features (e.g., complexity or structuredness of the task), and performance
venue (e.g., on computer or in history or science classrooms). Thus, converging evidence
supporting this claim manifests throughout this Special Issue.
For example, Fryer and Vermunt (2018) used Latent Profile Transition Analysis to
examine the profiles of Japanese students at the beginning and end of their first year at
college. Data for this analysis came from select scales measuring deep and surface
approaches to learning and three modes of regulation (i.e., self, external, and lack of).
Relevant to the claim of strategic iteration, Fryer and Vermunt determined that four
profiles captured the data effectively at the beginning of the school year – Low Quality,
Low Quantity, Average, and High Quantity. By the end of the school year, while the
membership of the Average and Low Quality profiles remained quite stable, there was a
noticeable shift in membership for students initially populating the High and Low
Quantity profiles.
The authors had not anticipated this pattern in ‘movers’ and ‘stayers’ and explored a
number of possible explanations for their findings. One of those explanations was internal
to the students and centred on the possible adequacy of the Average groups approaches to
learning and regulatory behaviours for the academic context. Another, which was more
external in form, posited that the movers from High Quantity to Low Quality or Average
groups may reflect ‘friction between their strategy use and the expectations of the
environment’ (p. 36). The prevailing cultural within Japanese higher education was also
discussed as an external force that may have exerted influence on these students’
approaches to learning and regulatory behaviours.
Investigating strategies through the lens of the MDL (Alexander, 1997, 2003),
Parkinson and Dinsmore (2018) considered the influence of readers’ domain-specific
knowledge and interest on their text processing. Their findings revealed how quality more
than quantity of high-school students’ strategy use was at issue. Further, certain students
relied more on their knowledge base than others, and it mattered whether the text they
read was expository or persuasive in form.
Scheiter, Schubert, and Sch€ uler, 2018 also focused on the role of knowledge in
strategic processing. These researchers wanted to determine whether a substantial
156 Patricia A. Alexander

amount of domain knowledge would override university students’ use of a particular

technique shown to be effective with elementary students’ reading of multimedia texts.
The Eye Movement Modeling Examples (EMME) technique they implemented involves
showing participants videos of the eye gaze patterns of skilled learners studying texts
containing pictures or graphs as a visual model. As they hypothesized, these authors found
that those with a substantial base of content knowledge did not follow the recommended
eye-tracking pattern when integrating text and visual media.

There is a positive association between depth and frequency of strategy use, on the one hand,
and regulatory behaviours and academic outcomes on the other.

Perhaps the most salient point of convergence for the authors in this Special Issue is the
reasonable presumption that it is desirable for students of all ages and backgrounds to
manifest those thoughts and behaviours indicative of deeper processing with regularity,
regardless of the task or domain with which they are engaged. Moreover, there is the
acknowledgement that such depth of processing is intertwined with the regulation or
monitoring of performance and tied to better learning or task outcomes.
Dinsmore and Zoellner (2018) tackled this very idea directly in their investigation of
the interplay between deeper or more surface-level cognitive strategies and metacogni-
tive strategies and college students’ performance in a science simulation task. What their
analyses revealed was that considering only the depth and frequency of cognitive
strategies did not adequately explain the outcomes. Ultimately, what they determined
through smallest space analysis was that students’ outcomes on a climate simulation task
was best captured by cognitive and metacognitive dimensions of functioning and certain
clusters of strategies that manifest within that multidimensional space.
Similarly, Deekens et al. (2018) used think-aloud data from high-school and college
students to explore the relations between the depth and frequency of cognitive strategy
use and the frequency of regulatory behaviour. Echoing Dinsmore and Zoellner (2018),
Deekens et al. concluded that focusing only on depth or frequency of strategy use was
insufficient to represent the nature of effective learning in those studies. This association
between the cognitive and metacognitive dimensions of learning and academic
performance that Deekens et al. and Dinsmore and Zoellner empirically investigated is
theoretically addressed by Winne (2018). Specifically, Winne draws on his decades of
research on SRL to illustrate how depth and levels of strategic processing play out across
the phases of his model of self-regulated learning. He also deconstructs the notion of depth
of processing as it is frequently used in the literature – an issue I will revisit in this
commentary.

Additional insights
Beyond these key principles shared by the contributors, I want to briefly touch upon
additional insights I was able to extract from the collective works comprising this Special
Issue. I offer these here as important reminders of what are currently held as ‘truths’ about
the process of learning. Simply stated, I would summarize those insights as follows:

Learning is ultimately a complex, multifaceted, and dynamic process that cannot be fully
represented by any one theoretical framework, set of beliefs, or cluster of processes.
 Depth and regulation of strategies 157

The more that educational psychologists or learning scientist come to understand of

the process of learning or about learners, the more they appreciate that they will never be
able to capture the nature of this fundamental human activity in its entirety. At best, they
can attempt to richly and accurately describe certain dimensions or mechanisms of that
process in such a way as to enlighten students, teachers, educational leaders, and
policymakers. Certainly, ILS, the MDL, and SRL are theoretical frameworks that highlight
important facets of learning and academic development, but they are by no means all-
encompassing. This fact was made apparent in each article by the constraints, challenges,
and limitations the authors dutifully acknowledged.

There are diverse ways to unearth and examine what learners ‘do’ or ‘think they are doing’.

When Wilson (1998) forwarded the concept of consilience, he argued that it was
surely possible that researchers using very diverse methodologies and approaching a
problem from different theoretical frameworks can arrive at similar conclusions. That
was certainly the case for the articles populating this Special Issue. Whether these
scholars relied on data from think-alouds, questionnaires, simulation programmes,
retrospective interviews; gathered real-time physiobiological indicators or regulatory
trace data; or used variable-centred or person-centred analyses, their findings intersect
to some degree.

There are relevant distinctions to be made among the processes involved in learning and
academic performance.

Throughout this Special Issue, contributors found it empirically necessary to identify

different forms or levels of learning processes. Thus, readers will encounter references
to processes that are deep versus surface or shallow; cognitive versus metacognitive
versus regulatory; routine versus intentional; and general versus domain-specific. This
litany of terms is significant in that it conveys that effective learning and academic
performance entail layers or categories of procedures that differ in theoretically and
practically important ways that demand empirical consideration. Thus, it matters
whether the learner is executing a particular mental procedure in task performance
(cognitive) or monitoring whether that procedure is functioning effectively (metacog-
nitive or self-regulatory). It matters whether students are enacting procedures that allow
them to make sense of a problem or task (surface) or to critically analyse its form or
content (deep).

Effective learning and academic performance require the orchestration of skills and strategies
at varying levels or in different categories.

While it is crucial to acknowledge procedural distinctions that manifest in learning and

academic performance, it is equally important to appreciate that it is the orchestration of
these procedures that ultimately leads to effective outcomes (Dinsmore & Alexander,
2012). For instance, it would be easy to construe that deep strategies are somehow
superior to surface strategies or that cognitive and metacognitive processes function
separately. Yet, all learners at all levels of expertise employ both surface and deep
strategies according to the MDL (Alexander, 1997, 2003), and there is a continual interplay
between cognitive and metacognitive processes as the models and research in self-
regulated learning establish (Hadwin & Winne, 2001; Winne, 1982).
158 Patricia A. Alexander

Lingering concerns
I would not be performing my role as commentator for this Special Issue well if I simply
identified the shared principles and important insights that the authors of these articles
have contributed to the knowledge base on levels and regulation of strategies and
approaches to learning. I must also look critically at these intersecting literatures and what
remains as barriers to achieving even greater understanding of learning and academic
performance. These barriers are not confined to any one theoretical framework or
programme of research. Rather, these conundrums impede progress for all researchers on
this journey to understand human learning and academic development, and they have
done so for decades.

A muddled distinction between strategic and skilful behaviour

Strategies are the centrepiece for this Special Issue and a key component in the
theoretical frameworks referenced (e.g., ILS, MDL, and SRL). Further, strategic
processing is a concept that is often discussed within the instructional literature as
essential for normally developing and identified populations (Graham, Harris, &
Mason, 2005; Pressley & Harris, 2008) across grades and academic domains. Yet,
what exactly counts as a strategy and what does not remain problematic? That is why
there are those who have sought to differentiate these procedures from skills
(Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008; Alexander, Grossnickle Peterson, Dumas, &
Hattan, in press).
For example, in our perspective on strategy research, Karen Harris, Steve Graham, and
I (1998) claimed that strategies have six specific attributes. ‘Specifically, strategies can be
understood as procedural, purposeful, effortful, willful, essential, and facilitative’ (p.
130). This characterization was used to delineate the parameters between strategies and
skills.

Although there are indeed certain characteristics that strategies and skills share (e.g., they
both forms of procedural knowledge), there are at least two significant differences. These
differences pertain to the automaticity of performance and to learner awareness or
intentionality. . ..In effect, skills are procedures that have been routinized. That is, students
hone these techniques to a level of automaticity, enabling them to perform a given task fluidly
and effectively. Skills are the ‘habits’ of performance, or what a learner typically does (James,
1890). (p. 135)

Others have similarly differentiated between strategies and skills (Afflerbach et al.,
2008; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983) and have also bemoaned the confounding of these
terms within the educational literature. Such problems may arise from researchers’ failure
to explicitly define these terms or treat them as synonyms. I encountered these problems
within the articles comprising this Special Issue. Thus, it would appear that the
confounding of strategic and skilful processing remains a barrier for those investigating
the levels and regulation of strategies, and approaches to learning, albeit it for different
reasons.
For instance, in the case of research into ILS, where individuals attempt to accurately
represent the typical way they engage academically, there is no mechanism to ascertain
whether respondents are describing automated routines or more intentional actions.
Perhaps that is why Fryer and Vermunt (2018) wisely chose McKeachie, Pintrich, and
Lin’s (1985, p. 154) purposely broad definition of learning strategies as ‘cognitions or
 Depth and regulation of strategies 159

behaviours that influence the encoding process and facilitate acquisition and retrieval of
new knowledge’ to guide their work.
Interestingly, McKeachie et al. chose this definition precisely to sidestep the
complications of trying to adhere to the theoretical distinctions between strategies and
skills in instructional practice. Within the MDL, the clarity that exists theoretically
between strategies and skill is likewise problematized when it comes to discerning what is
routine versus intentional enactment in actual performance. The empirical tools that are
available simply do not allow for that critical determination in most cases. Thus, beyond
placing a learner in a novel situation, like the climate simulation used by Dinsmore and
Zoellner (2018), there is little assurance that what one is witnessing is either a well-honed
routine or a purposeful and effortful response to a specific problem.

Different specifications as to what counts as surface or deep strategies

It is not only the problem of distinguishing between strategies and skills that hampers
progress in the study of learning and academic performance, but also the issue of reliably
identifying surface versus deep processes. As I read the articles in this issue, what I found
were similar designations applied to different procedures. What constituted a surface-
level strategy in one study was considered a deep strategy in another.
The article by Parkinson and Dinsmore (2018) draws directly from the MDL in the
manner in which surface-level and deep strategies are defined and identified in their study
of high-school students’ reading of expository or persuasive texts. Specifically, Parkinson
and Dinsmore defined surface-level strategies as processes aimed at making sense of the
problem, such as underlining or rereading text. Deep strategies, by comparison, were
defined as those used to integrate or transform – and I would add evaluate – the text or the
content being conveyed by the text.
In a somewhat related vein, Fryer and Vermunt (2018) discussed surface and deep
approaches to learning more in terms of learners’ goals or aims than in relation to
procedures they are using to accomplish a task. Thus, surface approaches focus on
remembering what is required for a task and deep approaches are more about achieving
understanding. From the sample items they provide for surface (e.g., I concentrate on
learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass.) and deep approaches (e.g., I
often find myself thinking about ideas from my course when I’m doing other things.), I saw
some correspondence to performance and mastery goals in the achievement motivation
literature (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001).
To these two views on level or depth of processing, Winne (2018) offers yet another
that reflects the perceived difficulty of instructional objectives for a given task. This view is
perhaps best exemplified by the taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive
domain first articulated by Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) and
subsequently updated by Anderson et al. (2001). Broadly speaking, what this concep-
tualization does is assign a level of cognitive demand to the processing specified as an
instructional aim. So, the ‘comprehension’ (understanding) level is held as deeper than
the ‘knowledge’ (memorization) level, but less cognitively demanding than the goal of
synthesizing. This discussion also points out that confusion remains about notions of level
and depth that interfere with continued progress.

Overreliance on self-report measures and spotty connections to academic outcomes

160 Patricia A. Alexander

Two other barriers that have long impeded research into levels and regulation of
strategic processing and approaches to learning pertain to data sources and outcome
measures. For one, those engaged in this research too often must rely solely on the
recollections, reflections, explanations, and interpretations of participants. The limita-
tions of self-report data, whether gathered through think-alouds, interviews, question-
naires, or focus reports, have been well documented (Tourangeau, 2000; White, 1988).
Although there are steps that can be taken to increase their reliability (Ericsson & Simon,
1998), the total reliance on self-report data remains problematic.
For another, when researchers, like those contributing to this Special Issue, are
ultimately concerned with the facilitation of students’ learning and academic develop-
ment, it is reasonable to expect that the studies they conduct include academic outcomes.
Further, those outcome measures should relate to valued conceptual and procedural
content, and the design of studies should allow for more causal rather than correlational
judgements. In essence, if students’ levels and regulation of strategies or their espoused
approaches to learning do not lead to improved learning or academic performance, then
why should they ultimately matter to those expected to enact or manifest them?
Thankfully, for the contributors to this Special Issue, indicators of learning appear
integral to their research designs – from solving climate simulation problems and
answering questions about expository and persuasive text to performance on tests on cell
division or the circulatory system. Regrettably, this characteristic is not commonplace in
the literature. Thus, until researchers routinely show evidence of learning and
performance effects, this unnecessary obstruction will remain.

More attention to the role of learner characteristics

As discussed, it is widely accepted that internal factors play a significant role in

strategic and regulatory behaviours and approaches to learning. For instance, in this
Special Issue, this is evident in terms of the role of topic or domain knowledge in the depth
and frequency of strategy use (Parkinson & Dinsmore, 2018; Scheiter, et al., 2018). In the
light of this fact, it is surprising how often those undertaking research on cognitive or
regulatory behaviours or approaches to learning fail to systematically gather data on
participants and use those data in their analyses. Minimally, prior knowledge measures
should be routinely gathered, along with indicators of task/domain familiarity or
motivations.
Moreover, beyond data on students’ knowledge of or motivations towards the task,
topic, or domain, it may be pertinent to measure such executive functions as working
memory or relational reasoning that could significantly influence performance on certain
cognitive tasks. For example, such executive functions may well have contributed to
participants’ performance on the climate simulation task in the Dinsmore and Zoellner
(2018) study or the strategic processing of the high-school students in Parkinson and
Dinsmore (2018) investigation, over and above knowledge and interest.
Consequently, the more that researchers know about the participants in their studies,
the better positioned they are to interpret their outcomes. This was very clearly illustrated
in the conclusions that Scheiter et al. (2018) reached when their EMME intervention did
not have the predicted effects on learning outcomes. As they reported, ‘weaker students
showed even poorer recall of the information after having watched EMME, whereas recall
performance of stronger students was unaffected by the experimental manipulation’
(p. 91). If these researchers had not wisely measured students’ general scientific literacy
 Depth and regulation of strategies 161

and their knowledge of cell division, the absence of a learning effect would have remained
a puzzlement.

A good deal of other- or coregulation within the self-regulation literature

Although I have directed many of my comments to research on levels of strategic

processing and approaches to learning, there is one barrier that is particular to the
literature on SRL. This concern, which others have recognized (Dinsmore, Alexander, &
Loughlin, 2008; Winters & Alexander, 2011; Winters, Greene, & Costich, 2008),
represents a conceptual and operational confound. Specifically, in much of the research
that purports to explore the relation of self-regulation to learning and academic
performance, there are explicit questions or prompts requiring monitoring or regulation
posed by a researcher, teacher, or peer. Such scaffolds have also been incorporated in
computer-based learning environments or CBLEs (Azevedo, Cromley, Winters, Moos, &
Greene, 2005).
For example, in the Azevedo et al. (2005) study, Microsoft Encarta materials on the
circulatory system, like those used by Deekens et al. (2018), were modified to test the
effects of three kinds of scaffolds embedded in the CBLE. What is relevant to this
commentary is that these researchers discussed their procedures and outcomes in terms
of self-regulation, despite the fact that their participants displayed no self-initiated
regulation. Thus, if researchers are going to want to investigate the role of regulatory
processes in learning and academic performance, then they need to be more precise in the
forms of regulation operating in those environments (e.g., self, other, peer).

Future directions
I would like to bring this commentary to a close by humbly suggesting viable ways to
address the barriers just described. I do so because I think that decreasing or removing
these obstacles that have long been impediments will not only facilitate progress along the
paths already established, but may also open new avenues of inquiry. Moreover, I
expressly direct my suggestions to the Special Issue contributors and others actively
engaged in research pertaining to strategies and approaches to learning, because I
strongly feel that these scholars possess the expertise and experience required to
undertake the innovations needed to enact these recommendations. In addition, those
who identify with such frameworks as the MDL, ILS, and SRL can pave the way on some of
the ontological and methodological issues entailed in these recommendations, then it is
more likely that others within their communities of practice will follow.

More clearly establish the conceptual boundaries between skilful and strategic performance
and seek out or devise measures and procedures that align with the resulting conceptual-
izations.

Just the act of explicating the constructs that guide this research and achieving some
degree of consensus as to their meaning will be a major advancement for studies that
involve cognitive and metacognitive or regulatory strategies. This would especially be the
case if individuals consistently referenced these terms in the design and reporting of their
research. Moreover, understanding how routinized versus intentional procedures situate
within the work on approaches to learning, which focuses on general orientations more
than specific processes, should also prove enlightening.
162 Patricia A. Alexander

Of course, defining and using terms conceptually is one thing. Employing or creating
experimental tools and procedures that work in concert with those conceptual
definitions is another. There is unquestionably a need for those with the knowledge
and creativity to devise alternative techniques and tasks, develop novel measures, and
construct new learning environments that permit researchers to disentangle typical from
adaptive responses to academic tasks. For example, were researchers able to establish an
individual’s procedural baseline for a familiar and easy reading task and then track that
individual’s processing for a reading task that was novel or appreciably more difficult, they
would have an inkling of how that individual performs both skilfully and strategically.
Certainly, there must be creative ways yet to be discovered that would allow for the
distinctions between skills and strategies that are theoretically significant to be accurately
identified in practice.

Aim for greater consensus as to what the various levels or classes of strategies signify and focus
on those differences in subsequent studies.

Just as I am calling for greater consistency in the use of the designations strategy and
skill, I am recommending that those who engage in research where the levels or depth of
strategic process are relevant to find common ground as to what the notion of depth
means and what actions might typically fall at various levels. Although I can appreciate the
argument that Winne (2018) forwards regarding the multiple ways in which depth can be
calculated (i.e., the aim of the process, the perceived difficulty of the cognitive target, or
the demands of the task), I do consider that multiplicity as bypassing the necessity for
consistency. If anything, the added complexity Winne outlines heightens the need to
consider the typography of ‘depth’ carefully and label its multiple dimensions accord-
ingly.
Beyond the issues of levels, there are other categorical labels appearing in this Special
Issue that might also benefit from definitional scrutiny. For instance, it would seem that
the literature has already tackled the cognitive versus metacognitive and regulatory
designations (Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012; Dinsmore et al., 2008; Garner, 1987). In
addition, contributing authors seemed comfortable with these distinctions. Of course,
the relation between metacognition and self-regulation and between self-regulation and
self-regulated learning, which have been cause for concern in the past, may still demand
attention and oversight from those best positioned to understand whatever the
subtleties of those relations.

Base findings on more than self-report data and include measures of learning and academic
performance whenever possible.

Perhaps one of the clearest recommendations I would forward to this research

community is to strive to incorporate data that are not solely reliant on the recollections,
reflections, explanations, and interpretations of study participants. I do not mean to
suggest that well-established questionnaires or measures, like the ILS, or often employed
techniques, like think-alouds, are problematic. To the contrary, these are valuable tools for
those engaged in research on levels and regulation of strategies and approaches to
learning. Rather, what I am recommending is that these tools should be combined with
other more objective measures.
Additionally, as researchers consider the various measures they will make central to
their studies, I strongly recommend that relevant learning and achievement outcomes
 Depth and regulation of strategies 163

routinely be included. What aspects of learning and academic performance are measured
and the specific form those outcomes take is not at issue, provided that they are well
matched to the study goals and are psychometrically sound. Thus, these outcomes can be
domain-general or domain-specific, commercially produced or researcher developed, and
focused on immediate and direct effects or delayed and transfer effects.

Build rich profiles on study participants that can be potentially applied in person-centred
analyses or in the interpretation of variable-centred analyses.

It is a truism to say that learners are an essential component in any study of learning and
academic performance. Yet, as just discussed, researchers often provide limited data on
their participants even though those data could be pivotal to the questions they
investigate. In the future, therefore, I am strongly recommending that researchers
carefully weigh what characteristics of the individuals should be part of the design
calculus. When it comes to questions of learning and academic development, knowledge
of the domain or topic, relevant experiences, learner goals and interests, domain-specific
abilities, general cognitive capacity, working memory, and relational reasoning are among
the data points that merit consideration. Along with commonly gathered information on
age, gender, and ethnicity, such individual difference factors would allow researchers to
better interpret the patterns within their data in variable-centred analysis (Parkinson &
Dinsmore, 2018; Scheiter et al., 2018). Moreover, rich data on learners could be applied in
person-centred analyses, including cluster analysis and latent profile analysis (Fryer &
Vermunt, 2018).

Investigate the internalization of regulatory prompts, cues, and scaffolds.

Self-regulation is unquestionably a foundational process in learning and academic

performance, and the empirical literature on self-regulated learning is clearly substantial
and informative. Within that literature, there are those who have tackled the question of
the development of self-regulation (Demetriou, 2000; Pressley, 1995). What these
scholars consider are questions of when in the course of a students’ academic life (e.g., age
or grade level) and under what conditions (e.g., knowledge base, prior experiences, level
of self-efficacy, and supportive instructional environment) are learners likely to manifest
self-regulatory behaviours. What is less well understood, however, is how learners
transition from other regulation to self-regulation.
What I am recommending, therefore, are studies that focus on this developmental
trajectory. That is, how do students of varying ages or backgrounds take the external
prompts and scaffolds embedded within classroom or computer-based environments or
provided by teachers, peers, or others and internalize them; make them their own. When
does external scaffolding become unnecessary or even distracting for learners who have
developed the ability and tendency to self-scaffold or who come to a learning task with the
knowledge and interest to engage in self-monitoring?

Concluding thoughts
What I hope I have achieved in this commentary is a successful mapping of the
common ground shared by the scholars represented in this Special Issue. This common
ground arises from converging evidence found within the diverse theoretical
164 Patricia A. Alexander

frameworks and varied programmes of research represented in the pages of this issue. It
is my contention that the pursuit of consilience, a unity of knowledge, can be invaluable
to those who want to be up to date on the literatures related to levels and regulation of
strategies and on approaches to learning. Also, I hold that this convergence of evidence
is the point where these diverse theories and programmes of research truly intersect.
Nonetheless, as I attempted to convey, the direction that these programmes of
research on levels and regulation of strategies and approaches to learning move in the
future has yet to be determined. Whatever course they take, these programmes of inquiry
will need to confront barriers that will continue to impede progress unless action is taken.
There is no question that diminishing or removing those barriers will demand intensive
effort and innovative thinking. Yet, I am confident that those who have been instrumental
in plotting the course of these programmes of research in the past, and whose
contributions are documented in this Special Issue, are more than capable of confronting
whatever challenges lie ahead. I am also optimistic that the ultimate designation for this
journey, optimal learning and academic development for all students, is well worth
whatever effort and innovation is required.

References
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and
reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1
Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of
cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement, Vol. 10 (pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to
proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X0320
08010
Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: Challenges of
conceptualization, complexity, and competence. Educational Psychologist, 52, 307–314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1350181
Alexander, P. A. (2018). The relevance of relevance for learning and performance [Commentary
on Reflection as a Motivation Construct.]. Journal of Experimental Education, 86, 124–135.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380592
Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and
prospects.[Special Issue] . Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154. https://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1022185502996
Alexander, P. A., Grossnickle Peterson, E. M., Dumas, D., & Hattan, C. (in press). A retrospective and
prospective examination of cognitive strategies and academic development: Where have we
come in twenty-five years? In A. O’Donnell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of educational psychology.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical
perspective considered Educational Psychologist, 44, 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520903029006
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., . . . Wittrock,
M. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human
scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional
Science, 33, 381–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1273-8
 Depth and regulation of strategies 165

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.
Catrysse, L., Gijbels, D., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Lesterhuis, M., & Van den Bossche, P. (2018).
How are learning strategies reflected in the eyes? Triangulating results from self-reports and eye-
tracking. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjep.12181
Deekens, V. M., Greene, J. A., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2018). Monitoring and depth of strategy use in
computer-based learning environments for science and history. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12174
Demetriou, A. (2000). Organization and development of self-understanding and self-regulation:
Toward a general theory. In M. Boekaerts, M. Zeidner & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 209–251). New York, NY: Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-012109890-2/50036-6
Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing:
What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational
Psychology Review, 24, 499–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on
metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20,
391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
Dinsmore, D. L., & Fryer, L. (2018). The Intersection between depth and the regulation of strategy
use. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12209
Dinsmore, D. L., & Zoellner, B. P. (2018). The relation between cognitive and metacognitive
strategic processing during a science simulation. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12177
Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2008). The validity and reliability of the short inventory of learning
patterns. In E. Cools, T. Redmond & H. Van den Broeck (Eds.), Style and cultural differences:
How can organizations, regions and countries take advantage of style differences (pp. 49–
59). Gent, Belgium: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-
aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5
(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3
Fryer, L. K., & Vermunt, J. D. (2018). Regulating approaches to learning: Testing learning strategy
convergences across a year at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 21–41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12169
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and
self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241.
Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2001). CoNoteS2: A software tool for promoting self-regulation.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2–3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.7.2.
313.3868
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vols 1 & 2). New York, NY: Henry Holt and
Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11059-000
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y.-G. (1985). Teaching learning strategies. Educational
Psychologist, 20, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2003_5
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for
whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),
77–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.77
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83), 90018-8
166 Patricia A. Alexander

Parkinson, M. M., & Dinsmore, D. L. (2018). Multiple aspects of high school students’ strategic
processing on reading outcomes: The role of quantity, quality and conjunctive strategy use.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12176
Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term, and
thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep3004_6
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2008). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to
classroom instruction. The Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 77–94.
Scheiter, K., Schubert, C., & Sch€ uler, A. (2018). Self-regulated learning from illustrated text: Eye
movement modeling to support use and regulation of cognitive processes during learning from
multimedia. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjep.12175
Tourangeau, R. (2000). Remembering what happened: Memory errors and survey reports. The
science of self-report: Implications for research and practice. In A. Stone, C. A. Bachrach, J. B.
Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman & V. S. Cain (Eds.) The science of self-report: Implications for research and
practice (pp. 29–47). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Vermunt, J. D. (1994). Inventory of learning styles (ILS) in higher education. Tilburg, the
Netherlands: University of Tilburg.
Whewell, W. (1840). The philosophy of inductive sciences. London, UK: Parker.
White, P. A. (1988). Knowing more about what we can tell: “Introspective access” and causal report
accuracy 10 years later. British Journal of Psychology, 79(1), 13–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
2044-8295.1988.tb02271.x
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York, NY: Knopf.
Winne, P. H. (1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about
instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0012
0978
Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,
45(4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.517150
Winne, P. H. (2018). Theorizing and researching levels of processing in self-regulated learning.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12173
Winters, F. I., & Alexander, P. A. (2011). Peer collaboration: The relation of regulatory behaviors to
learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 39, 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11251-010-9134-5
Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-
based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–
444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9080-9
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge.

Received 14 October 2017