Metacognitive prompting did not significantly change the overall frequency of metacognitive SRL activities in main categories and subcategories¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Prompted and unprompted learners did not differ significantly in overall frequency of metacognitive SRL activities or in the main categories orientation, planning, evaluation, and reflection. → Rebecca Pape 2026

Evidence¶

Rebecca Pape 2026¶

Rebecca Pape, Joachim Thomas. (2026). Exploring young learners’ prompted and unprompted SRL think-alouds. Learning and Instruction 102 (2026) 102294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102294

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Frequency analysis of coded think-aloud data (8349 coded activities) from the 33-participant experiment; the t-test showed "no statistically significant dif- ference" in overall metacognitive SRL activity frequency (t(31) = .71, p = .484).

"a t- test for independent variables showed no statistically significant dif- ference between the control group (MCG = 263.25; SDCG = 94.96) and the experimental group (MEG = 243.35; SDEG = 64.24) with regard to metacognitive SRL activities (t(31) = .71, p = .484)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it
• Self-Regulation — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Metacognitive prompting increases domain-general metacognitive SRL activities (goal specification and strategic planning) in young learners in a CBLE — reports the opposite
• Prompted learners’ sequential SRL structure resembled traditional SRL models, using reflection more as an ending activity than unprompted learners — related
• Metacognitive prompting did not significantly support young learners’ recall learning performance — related