Process models of successful students come closer to self-regulated learning theory expectations than those of unsuccessful students, who do not evaluate their learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Bannert, Reimann and Sonnenberg (2014) found that the self-regulated learning process model of successful students came closer to the expectations of self-regulated learning theory than the process model of unsuccessful students. → Inge Molenaar & Sanna Järvelä 2014 q2 i? Successful students analysed, monitored, read, processed and evaluated, whereas unsuccessful students analysed, read, repeated, processed and monitored but did not evaluate their learning. → Inge Molenaar & Sanna Järvelä 2014

Evidence¶

Inge Molenaar & Sanna Järvelä 2014¶

Inge Molenaar & Sanna Järvelä. (2014). Sequential and temporal characteristics of self and socially regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9114-2

q2 · i? · review · r2

Process mining (fuzzy data mining combined with content analysis) of think aloud protocols during a 35 min learning activity in a hypertext learning environment; coded data had to be aggregated into new categories clustering different events to compare with theoretical models.

"the results indicated that the self-regulated learning process model of successful students came closer the expectations of self-regulated learning theory than the process model of unsuccessful students."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The field lacks micro-level S-SRL theory and methodological guidelines, and studies have not connected temporal/sequential characteristics to learning gains — related
• Successful hypermedia learners showed more orientation and planning before processing content, deeper elaboration, constant monitoring, and evaluation compared to less successful students — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Successful discoverers regulate learning more systematically, planning experiments and monitoring progress, while unsuccessful learners work unsystematically — related
• Successful seventh-grade co-invention teams spent a much larger share of their embodied making actions on model making and experimenting than the unsuccessful team — related
• Low-prior-knowledge students struggle to deploy key self-regulatory processes during learning — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• A BERT-based prediction task distinguishes between successful and unsuccessful math strategies in MATHia, yielding insights into student strategies — related