Examining the Interplay between Self-regulated Learning Activities and Types of Knowledge within a Computer-simulated Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the temporal co-occurrences of self-regulated learning (SRL) activities and three types of knowledge (i.e., task information, domain knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge) of 34 medical students who solved two tasks of varying complexity in a computer-simulated environment. Specifically, we explored the effects of task complexity on SRL activities, types of knowledge, and their interplay using epistemic network analysis (ENA). We also compared the differences between high and low performers. The results showed that the use of SRL activities, especially the planning and monitoring activities, was more intensive in a difficult task compared to an easy task. Students also used more domain knowledge to solve the difficult task. For both tasks, domain knowledge and metacognitive knowledge co-occurred most frequently, followed by the co-occurrence of domain knowledge and planning. Nevertheless, the interplay of SRL activities and types of knowledge is generally different between the two tasks. Moreover, we found that high performers used significantly more metacognitive knowledge than low performers in the easy task. However, no significant differences were found in the use of SRL activities between high and low performers in both tasks. This study makes theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions to the area of SRL in clinical reasoning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".