Educational research has increasingly focused on supporting self regulated learning (SRL) and socially shared learning regulation (SSRL) in students. However, previous meta-analyses have rarely focused on specific types of regulated educational frameworks.

Therefore, this meta-analysis examines the impact of different types of regulated educational frameworks on regulatory strategies and educational outcomes. A total of 46 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. 카지노사이트

Introduction

Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) is a key component of student learning (Jansen et al., 2019) and is essential for the development of lifelong learning skills and then student employability (Bruijn-Smolders et al., 2016; Teobalda, 2021). Students must regulate their behavior and cognition effectively and in a timely manner if they are to achieve positive learning outcomes (Duffy & Azevedo, 2015).

Furthermore, meaningful learning requires the active interaction of group members and the joint creation of common goals and strategies (Zheng et al., 2017; Zabolotna et al., 2023). Therefore, it is necessary to focus not only on individual learning but also on socially shared learning regulation (SSRL) (Hadwin et al., 2011; Zheng et al., 2017).

Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2011) found a strong relationship between SRL and SSLL and emphasized the contextual nature of students’ experiences during shared activities. Previous research has also shown that high SSRL levels are associated with reduced social laziness, improved problem solving (Panadero & Järvelä, 2015) and plays a key role in collaborative learning (Zheng et al., 2017).

Literature Review

SRL is defined as “an active and constructive process by which students set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, behavior, guided constrained by their Goals and then their context, properties of their environment” (Pintrich, 1999).

Students engaging in SRL take control of their own learning process (Jansen et al., 2019), which can be divided into three phases: preparation, implementation and assessment (Panadero et al., 2017). In the preparation phase, students analyze the task and set goals, in the implementation phase they monitor and control the learning process, and in the assessment phase they reflect on the process to enable further learning (Theobald, 2021).

The socially shared control of learning is attracting more and more attention due to the enrichment of collaborative learning scenarios and tools.Collaborative learning creates opportunities for knowledge sharing and productive interactions (Dillenbourg, 1999). 온라인카지노사이트

Collaborative regulation occurs when groups of students co-regulate their own learning, for example when constructing a shared perception of shared tasks or goals, and then hence SSRL can be defined as a process in which a group of students make plans together or align their own Monitoring observations lead to a common assessment of learning (Järvelä et al., 2013) about learning as co-creation of knowledge.

Influence of scaffolding on the nature of regulated learning and learning outcomes

The current meta-analysis focuses on the scaffolding of regulated learning. Scaffolding can be defined as the process of supporting educational efforts in an open learning environment (Zheng, 2016). This can be platforms, scripts or tools (Troussas et al., 2013; Zheng, 2016; Lin, 2018; Krouska et al., 2019). In this context, “regulated educational framework” refers to the process by which self-regulated learning and social regulation of educational efforts are supported. In recent years, more and more researchers have focused on regulated educational frameworks to facilitate regulatory strategies and student achievement (Janssen et al., 2007; Lin, 2018; Yilmaz-Na and Sönmez, 2023).

Among them, four types of scaffolds can be distinguished according to their function: scripts (Azevedo et al., 2004), group awareness tools (Lin et al., 2016; Lin, 2018), intelligent pedagogical agents (Duffy and Azevedo, 2015). Jones et al., 2018) and then complex instruments (Janssen et al., 2007; Zheng et al., 2017). Scripts are frameworks that provide collaborators with interactive task-related instructions that can be presented differently and adapted to specific learning objectives, and can implicitly or explicitly specify collaborative roles and courses of action (Kollar et al. al., 2006).

Group outreach tools provide tacit cues to understand group members’ learning activities, participation status, and contributions by visually presenting members’ activities to other group or team members in a computer-based collaborative learning (CSCL) environment (Lin, 2018).

An intelligent instructional agent is a virtual agent embedded in a computer-based learning environment that issues instructions through verbal and non-verbal forms of communication using animated images or human characters (Lin et al., 2020). Compound tools are those that combine two or more types of frameworks. Different types of adaptive educational frameworks have different delivery modes and can be direct or indirect, fixed or adaptive, rigid or soft, integrated or not (Devolder et al., 2012).

Collaboration

In collaborative learning, students share responsibility, ideas, and then thoughts to promote metacognitive thinking and motivation (Chiu & Kuo, 2009). Previous meta-analyses have shown conflicting results, including side effects (eg., Boer et al., 2014) and no effects on primary school students, but positive effects on comprehension and conceptual understanding of secondary school students (e.g. Dignath et al., 2008).

A meta-analysis of undergraduate students by Theobald (2021) found that collaborative learning enhanced the effects of SRL training on metacognitive strategies. However, it is unclear whether the effects would be greater if students worked in groups rather than individually.

Academic Subject

Each subject has a specific context that can influence students’ SRL (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Patrick et al., 2007). In addition, students’ use of cognitive and then metacognitive strategies may be domain-based (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). On the other hand, relatively little attention is paid to the question of whether an academic subject shapes regulated learning and its reference to performance (e.g., Wolters and Pintrich, 1998). 바카라사이트