Comparing Self-Regulatory Processes Among Novice, Non-Expert, and Expert Volleyball Players: A Microanalytic Study

By Anastasia Kitsantas, B. Zimmerman. 2002

297 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Differences in self-regulatory processes of 30 college women who were volleyball Experts, Non-Experts, or Novices were studied regarding overhand serving skill during a practice episode. It was hypothesized that Experts would display better goals, planning, strategy use, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, attributions, and adaptation than either Non-Experts or Novices. It was also hypothesized that Experts would display higher self-efficacy beliefs, perceived instrumentality, intrinsic interest, and self-satisfaction in volleyball serving than either Non-Experts or Novices. All hypotheses were supported. The combined 12 measures of self-regulation predicted 90 percent of the variance in the women's volleyball serving skill. The findings are discussed according to a three-phase model of self-regulation, and recommendations are made for future research.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/88555cbd3edf3760458dfa9c4c345273dcc6d064

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Applying self-regulated learning microanalysis to study musicians’ practice (2019, background): “The differential and construct validity of microanalytic protocols has been established through research in science education (DiBenedetto & Zimmerman, 2010) and novice, nonexpert, and expert athletes (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002).”
Effectiveness of the Self-Regulation Empowerment Program With Urban High School Students (2008, methodology): “These procedures have been used to differentiate high and low achievers (Cleary et al., 2006; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002) and have been shown to be useful techniques for eliciting qualitative data about students’ cognitive processes.”
The Influence of Self-Perception of Abilities and Attribution Styles on Academic Choices: Implications for Gifted Education (2010, background): “Research has shown that successful learners have an ability to monitor and regulate these triadic elements (e.g., Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002; Zimmerman, 1989).”
Assessing Self-Regulation as a Cyclical, Context-Specific Phenomenon: Overview and Analysis of SRL Microanalytic Protocols (2012, background): “[34]a Athletes were asked if they self-evaluated.”
Measuring self-regulation in a learning context: Reliability and validity of the Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS) (2012, background): “Behavioral correlates of self-regulation of learning in sport are expected to differ from those in academic achievement (e.g., Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002; Perry, 1998; Young & Starkes, 2006a, 2006b).”
Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects (2008, methodology): “Despite their brevity, these microanalytic measures have proven to be reliable and predictive of changes in functioning (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002).”
Self-Regulation Empowerment Program: A School-Based Program to Enhance Self-Regulated and Self-Motivated Cycles of Student Learning. (2004, methodology): “These types of procedures have received increased support for assessing student’s motivation and self-regulatory processes because of their sensitivity to measuring dynamic processes (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002; Perry et al., 2002).”
A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research (2017, background): “Third, Cleary and Zimmerman (2001, 2012), Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002), DiBenedetto and Zimmerman (2010) developed microanalytic measures to assess the validity of the Cyclical Phases model.”
Using Reading Times and Eye-Movements to Measure Cognitive Engagement (2015, background): “Online measures differ from other microlevel methods like self-report that do require the participant to stop at least briefly to answer questions (e.g., self-regulated learning; Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002).”