The role of self-regulated learning on science and design knowledge gains in engineering projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on self-regulated learning (SRL) in engineering design is growing. While SRL is an effective way of learning, however, not all learners can regulate themselves successfully. There is a lack of research regarding how student characteristics, such as science knowledge and design knowledge, interact with SRL. Adapting the SRL theory in the field of engineering design, this study proposes a research model to examine the mediation and causal relationships among science knowledge, design knowledge, and SRL activities (i.e. observation, formulation, reformulation, analysis, evaluation). Partial least squares modeling was utilized to examine how the science and design knowledge of 108 ninth-grade participants interacted with their SRL activities in the process of performing an engineering task. Results reveal that prior science and design knowledge positively predict SRL activities. They also show that reformulation and analysis are the two SRL activities that can lead to an improvement in post science and design knowledge, but excessive observation can hinder post design knowledge. These results have important implications for the construction of learning environments to support SRL based on students’ prior knowledge levels.
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 | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".