Self-control was not a significant predictor of any learning strategy or of self-reported achievement, and MCSR predicted only elaboration¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the regression models, self-control was non-significant for all seven outcomes, and MCSR was significant only for elaboration and not for achievement. → Rebecca Hey · Mark McDaniel · Flaviu A. Hodis 2024

Evidence¶

Rebecca Hey · Mark McDaniel · Flaviu A. Hodis 2024¶

Rebecca Hey · Mark McDaniel · Flaviu A. Hodis. (2024). How undergraduate students learn: uncovering interrelationships between factors that support self-regulated learning and strategy use. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09389-8

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Multiple regression analysis (Table 5) of strategy use and achievement on four self-regulation factors in the NZ undergraduate survey; the article reports self-control non-significant throughout (e.g., elaboration Beta = .03, p = .75) and MCSR significant only for elaboration (Beta = .23, p = .01). No effect sizes printed; equivalence not tested.

"Self-control was not a significant predictor of any of the learning strategies, nor of self-reported academic achievement. Similarly, MCSR was a significant predictor of only one learning strategy (i.e., elaboration)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In regressions predicting self-reported achievement, elaboration positively (Beta = 0.24) and cramming negatively (Beta = -0.30) predicted achievement, but only effort regulation and engagement remained significant in the combined model
• Effort regulation and student engagement were the most consistent predictors of learning strategy use and self-reported achievement — related