Students' SRL profile under automated scoring was uneven, and only Execution-and-Monitoring was significantly associated with score gains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Execution-and-Monitoring and Evaluation-and-Reflection subscales scored comparatively high, while Pre-learning Planning and Emotional Motivation hovered around the scale midpoint. → Chen C and Liu T 2026 q2 i? Only Execution and Monitoring correlated significantly with score gains (r = 0.42); in regression it remained the only significant predictor, though the overall model was non-significant. → Chen C and Liu T 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Chen C and Liu T 2026¶

Chen C and Liu T (2026) Impact of automated scoring on interpreting performance and self-regulated learning: evidence from a pedagogical experiment. Front. Psychol. 17:1867463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1867463

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive analysis of the adapted SRL-SRS questionnaire from all 24 experimental-group students showed high self-reported engagement during execution and evaluation but comparatively low planning and emotional motivation. Comparisons are read as relative patterns, since subscales comprise different numbers of differently worded items.

"Execution and Monitoring (M = 3.92, SD = 0.65) and Evaluation and Reflection (M = 3.87, SD = 0.57) approached 4.0, while Emotional Motivation ( M = 3.06, SD = 0.63) and Pre-learning Planning (M = 3.01, SD = 0.54) hovered around the scale midpoint"

Chen C and Liu T 2026 (2)¶

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Pearson correlations between the four SRL dimensions and value-added scores found "Only Execution and Monitoring correlated significantly with score gains", with a printed correlation of r = 0.42. A multiple regression (28.3% of variance, F(4, 19) = 1.87, p = 0.157, non-significant overall) kept Execution and Monitoring the only significant predictor (B = 2.51, β = 0.591, p = 0.039).

"Only Execution and Monitoring correlated significantly with score gains ( r = 0.42, p = 0.041, 95% CI [0.02, 0.70])."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Self-Regulation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Self Regulated Learning Predicts Achievement — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
Interviews show students used scores to trigger action but reflected shallowly, derived planning from previous scores, and diverged emotionally — related
Cluster analysis identifies two antagonistic student profiles differing in level of technology-supported self-regulated learning — related
ENA revealed high CT students had significantly more coherent SRL cognitive networks spanning planning, execution, and self-reflection than low CT students — related
Self-regulated reading processes are positively associated with reading and learning outcomes — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`srl-uneven-only-execution-monitoring-predicts-gains`
`title`	`Students' SRL profile under automated scoring was uneven, and only Execution-and-Monitoring was significantly associated with score gains`
`description`	`Students' SRL profile under automated scoring was uneven, and only Execution-and-Monitoring was significantly associated with score gains`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-18`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-10`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `chen-c-and-liu-t-2026`, `chen-c-and-liu-t-2026-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.