CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Direct instruction of metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in vivo study.

Open access
Zepeda, Cristina D., Richey, J. Elizabeth, Ronevich, Paul, Nokes-Malach, Timothy J.·2015·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/edu0000022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Prior studies have not tested whether an instructional intervention aimed at improving metacognitive skills results in changes to student metacognition, motivation, learning, and future learning in the classroom. We examined whether a 6-hr intervention designed to teach the declarative and procedural components of planning, monitoring, and evaluation could increase students ’ metacognition, motivation, learning, and preparation for future learning for middle school science. Forty-six eighth-grade students were randomly assigned to either a control group, which received extensive problem-solving practice, or an experimental group, which received more limited problem-solving practice along with metacognitive instruction and training. Results revealed that those who received the metacognitive instruction and training were less biased when making metacognitive judgments, p .03, d 0.65, endorsed higher levels of motivation after instruction (e.g., there was a large effect on task value, p .006, d 0.87), performed better on a conceptual physics test, p .03, d 0.64, and performed better on a novel self-guided learning activity, p .007, d 0.87. This study demonstrates that metacognitive instruction can lead to better self-regulated learning outcomes during adolescence, a period in which students’ academic achievement and motivation often decline.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/edu0000022

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 63 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–166 of 166

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zepeda, C. D., Richey, J. E., Ronevich, P., & Nokes-Malach, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2015-11
Volume
107
Issue
4
Pages
954-970
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/edu0000022
OpenAlex
W2015584585
Cited by
167
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
21.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SBE 0836012)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
metacognition instruction, student self-regulation, junior high school science, student motivation, transfer of learning, self-directed learning, physics learning, problem-solving practice, planning, monitoring and evaluation

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