Supporting self-regulated learning in clinical problem-solving with a computer-based learning environment: the effectiveness of scaffolds
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Learners who make productive use of support tools through active and consistent engagement with them demonstrated higher learning outcomes.
“learners who make productive use of support tools through active and consistent engagement with them demonstrated higher learning outcomes (Bannert, Sonnenberg, et al., 2015;Zheng et al., 2023).”
From How do students regulate their learning with a genAI chatbot? (2026) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2023
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 20
- Authors
- Zheng, J., Lajoie, S. P., Wang, T., & Li, S.
- Affiliations
- Lehigh University (US)
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Zheng, Juan
- Venue
- Metacognition and Learning
- Published
- 2023-07-25
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 693-709
- ISSN
- 1556-1623 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-1631
- OpenAlex
- W4385241929
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 6.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Metacognition and Learning (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- The social sciences and humanities research council of canada (895-2011-1006)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- student self-regulation, clinical problem solving, clinical reasoning, metacognitive scaffolding, conceptual scaffolding, medical students, computer-based learning environments, latent profile analysis, task performance, learner confidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
