Self-regulation and learning: evidence from meta-analysis and from classrooms
Open accessAbstract
Background. Research indicates that supporting self-regulation and metacognition in learners improves their attainment and wider learning capabilities. However, using this knowledge effectively is challenging. Aims. This paper has two main aims. The first is to make a case for the relative benefits of metacognitive and self-regulatory approaches for improving learning. Comparative data from over 50 meta-analyses of interventions in schools indicates such approaches are more beneficial than other interventions. The second aim is to present data about different kinds of metacognitive thinking in classrooms which was elicited with cartoon templates. Sample and methods. Data about thinking in classrooms is drawn from a sample of 355 pupils, aged 4–15, in 12 schools who were involved in a project which promoted meta-cognition and self-regulation. The completed templates were coded for different kinds of thinking, including metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skillfulness. A two way ANOVA (gender and age) was conducted to examine the development of thinking across age groups (4–7 year olds; 7–11 year olds; 11–15 year olds). Results. There was an increase in all kinds of thinking recorded on the templates with younger children (4 -11 year olds), but contrary to expectation more complex kinds of thinking were identified less frequently with the 11–15 year olds. Conclusion. There is strong evidence from meta-analysis that metacognition and selfregulation are key dimensions in su…
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?
There is ample evidence that adopting a meta-cognitive perspective supports knowledge growth.
“Certainly, there is ample evidence that adopting a meta-cognitive perspective supports knowledge growth (Hattie, 2009;Higgins, 2013).”
From Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes? (2019) · cites this paper as Higgins, 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 8
- Authors
- Higgins, S.
- Affiliations
- Durham University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Higgins, Steve
- ORCID
- Higgins, Steve
- Venue
- BJEP Monograph Series II: Part 10 Self-Regulation and Dialogue in Primary Classrooms
- Publisher
- British Psychological Society
- Published
- 2013
- OpenAlex
- W1030207381
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- British Psychological Society eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- 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 › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Keywords
- self-regulation, metacognition, metacognitive knowledge, learning interventions, school-based intervention, academic performance
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