Prior CBLEs for programming education have mostly supported SRL individually while disregarding the social context's influence on regulation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The authors' systematic literature review found that most regulatory-scaffold CBLEs in programming education attend to SRL only and disregard the social context. → Leonardo Silva 2023

Evidence¶

Leonardo Silva 2023¶

Leonardo Silva, António Mendes, Anabela Gomes, Gabriel Fortes. (2023). Fostering regulation of learning processes among programming students using computational scaffolding. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn (2023) 18:67–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09388-y

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The authors report the finding of their previous systematic literature review of CBLEs grounded in regulation of learning in programming education, stating that "most studies have focused on supporting SRL, disregarding the social context's influence on the regulatory process".

"Finally, most studies have focused on supporting SRL, disregarding the social context’s influence on the regulatory process"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Metacognitive prompts improve learning — related
• Prior SNA studies of centrality-achievement links in CSCL show inconsistent, mostly small-sample results, with betweenness and closeness the most inconsistent measures — related
• The field lacks micro-level S-SRL theory and methodological guidelines, and studies have not connected temporal/sequential characteristics to learning gains — related
• Only students receiving SSRL and co-regulation support achieved superior performance in collaborative programming activities — related