Learning principles / Metacognition and self-regulation

Metacognition and self-regulation

Metacognition is thinking about one's own thinking. Self-regulated learning means planning, monitoring and adjusting one's own learning.

Items below are tagged by keyword rules when their title or summary mentions this principle. A tag means the item discusses it, not that the item is good evidence about it.

Tracked items (4)

CommentaryProvisional (rules only)

Integrative Thinking in Computational Physics Design Essays (opens in new tab)

2026-10-15 · arXiv physics.ed-ph · Study (preprint)

This study investigates integrative thinking in undergraduate computational physics design essays (CPDEs) within an engineering design-based introductory physics laboratory. Integrative thinking refers to the interaction of science, mathematics, computation, design, and metacognitive reflection during problem solving.

Metacognition and self-regulationAssessment and gradingField: Cognitive science and learningField: AssessmentField: Math
Why this label for Integrative Thinking in Computational Physics Design Essays
  • Commentary: provisional rules-only grade, pending grader consensus and review: R3 genre gate (F7): Self-described conceptual, legal, policy or reflective work with no learner data.
  • Preprint: not peer reviewed; capped at Level 3
  • Metacognition and self-regulation: matched 'metacognitive'
  • Assessment and grading: matched 'rubric'

Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method

Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryLearners: K-12 studentsOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintSmall or impreciseShort exposureStudy type: Case study / case series

Changes in Help-Seeking Strategies Predict unaided Performance during AI-based Mathematical Learning (opens in new tab)

2026-06-26 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)

Generative AI systems (GenAI) are increasingly used by students as learning companions, yet little is known about how they regulate these tools in open-ended learning settings, where the goal is to improve understanding for later independent performance. This study examined Grade-9 students' use of a general-purpose...

Metacognition and self-regulationTutoring and personalizationField: Cognitive science and learningField: AssessmentField: Math
Why this label for Changes in Help-Seeking Strategies Predict unaided Performance during AI-based M
  • Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: Consensus level confirmed against the methodology.
  • Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
  • Grader A: R6 imprecision: the controlled association uses 89 learners with computable trajectories and reports no interval or power information.
  • Grader B: R5 correlational design with pre-test control (Level 2 ceiling) on Grade-9 students, lowered one level by R6 imprecision (analytic n=95/89, no interval reported)
  • Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
  • Metacognition and self-regulation: matched 'self-regulated'
  • Tutoring and personalization: matched 'tutor'

Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method

Level 2: CorrelationalProvisional (rules only)

Fostering Dialogic Peer Feedback in Synchronous Online Discussions: The Effect of Argumentation Scaffold and Role Assignment (opens in new tab)

2026-06-04 · ERIC (peer reviewed) · Study

Dialogic peer feedback in synchronous online discussions provides multiple educational benefits; however, its implementation is often constrained by students' cognitive and interactional limitations. To address this issue, this study investigated the effects of argumentation scaffold and role assignment on students'...

FeedbackMetacognition and self-regulationField: Cognitive science and learningField: Higher education
Why this label for Fostering Dialogic Peer Feedback in Synchronous Online Discussions: The Effect o
  • Level 2: Correlational: provisional rules-only grade, pending grader consensus and review: R5 design: comparison without baseline (F5): Comparison groups but no baseline equivalence reported.
  • Feedback: matched 'Peer Feedback'
  • Metacognition and self-regulation: matched 'metacognition'

Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method

Technical testLearners: Adults not in a learning role (raters)Outcome: Model performancePeer-reviewed (journal reference listed)Simulated learnersStudy type: Technical test (no real learners)

Towards Reliable Generative AI-Driven Scaffolding: Reducing Hallucinations and Enhancing Quality in Self-Regulated Learning Support (opens in new tab)

2025-08-08 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) holds a potential to advance existing educational technologies with capabilities to automatically generate personalised scaffolds that support students' self-regulated learning (SRL). While advancements in large language models (LLMs) promise improvements in the adaptability...

Metacognition and self-regulationField: Cognitive science and learning
Why this label for Towards Reliable Generative AI-Driven Scaffolding: Reducing Hallucinations and E
  • Technical test: Two independent AI graders gave the same level.
  • Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review): both graders agreed
  • Grader A: R4 real-learner gate: evaluation datasets and expert judgments assess generated scaffolds, without measuring student learning.
  • Grader B: R4 real-learner gate: LLM-generated SRL scaffolds evaluated by multi-agent and LLM-as-judge systems against expert ratings; no learner outcomes (Computers & Education).
  • Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
  • Metacognition and self-regulation: matched 'Self-Regulated'

Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review): both graders agreed Method