Proposing a Model of Co-Regulated Learning for Graduate Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primarily grounded in Zimmerman's social cognitive model of self-regulation, graduate medical education is guided by principles that self-regulated learning takes place within social context and influence, and that the social context and physical environment reciprocally influence persons and their cognition, behavior, and development. However, contemporary perspectives on self-regulation are moving beyond Zimmerman's triadic reciprocal orientation to models that consider social transactions as the central core of regulated learning. Such co-regulated learning models emphasize shared control of learning and the role more advanced others play in scaffolding novices' metacognitive engagement.Models of co-regulated learning describe social transactions as periods of distributed regulation among individuals, which instrumentally promote or inhibit the capacity for individuals to independently self-regulate. Social transactions with other regulators, including attending physicians, more experienced residents, and allied health care professionals, are known to mediate residents' learning and to support or hamper the development of their self-regulated learning competence. Given that social transactions are at the heart of learning-oriented assessment and entrustment decisions, an appreciation for co-regulated learning is likely important for advancing medical education research and practice-especially given the momentum of new innovations such as entrustable professional activities.In this article, the author explains why graduate medical educators should consider adopting a model of co-regulated learning to complement and extend Zimmerman's models of self-regulated learning. In doing so, the author suggests a model of co-regulated learning and provides practical examples of how the model is relevant to graduate medical education research and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".