Cited by 405Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsReflective Practices in EducationEducation and Critical Thinking Development

Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective reasoning skills in nursing practice: self‐regulated learning theory

Kuiper, Ruth Anne, Pesut, Daniel J.·2004·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Background Effective clinical reasoning in nursing practice depends on the development of both cognitive and metacognitive skills. While a number of strategies have been implemented and tested to promote these skills, educators have not been able consistently to predict their development. Self-regulated learning theory suggests that this development requires concurrent attention to both the cognitive and metacognitive dimensions of reasoning in nursing care contexts. Aims This paper reports on a study to explore the impact of self-regulated learning theory on reflective practice in nursing, and to advance the idea that both cognitive and metacognitive skills support the development of clinical reasoning skills. Methods Integrative review of published literature in social science, educational psychology, nursing education, and professional education using the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC), and American Psychological Association (PsychInfo) Databases. The search included all English language articles with the key words clinical reasoning, cognition, critical thinking, metacognition, reflection, reflective practice, self-regulation and thinking. Findings Reflective clinical reasoning in nursing practice depends on the development of both cognitive and metacognitive skill acquisition. This skill acquisition is best accomplished through teaching-learning attention to self-regulation learning theory. A critica…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02921.x

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 122 · Cited by 405

Authors
Kuiper, R. A., & Pesut, D. J.
Affiliations
Indiana University (US)
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-02
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
381-391
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2136353912
Cited by
405
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 19
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
Keywords
clinical reasoning, metacognition, reflective practice, critical thinking, nursing education, cognitive skills, self-regulation, nursing students, nursing practice
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Nursing, Humans, Logic, Self-Assessment, Thinking

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