Effectiveness of Self-Regulated Learning Intervention on Foreign Language Learning at Tertiary Level: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-regulated learning (SRL) has been widely recognized as an efficient way of enhancing foreign language learning (FLL) outcomes in the sphere of higher education. The current study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of SRL interventions or supports in improving foreign language learning among learners in tertiary institutions. The review involved 20 studies pertaining to exploring the effects of SRL interventions on improving FLL. According to this systematic review, SRL interventions can be successful in improving various aspects of FLL, including language proficiency, language learning strategies (LLS), motivation, and self-efficacy. The review also provides practical implications for language practitioners and researchers, including the need to tailor SRL interventions to the specific specialized demands of EFL learners and the importance of considering contextual factors to devise and administer SRL interventions in the sphere of FLL at tertiary education. However, several limitations of the existing studies are also identified, including limited assessment of long-term effects, limited use of control groups, insufficient consideration of individual differences, and lack of use of the mixed-methods approach. The findings also provide implications for future studies to address these limitations and provide a more nuanced understanding of the effectiveness of SRL interventions on foreign language learners. Specifically, future studies should incorporate longer-term assessments, stronger control groups, assessments of individual differences, and the mixed-methods approach. Overall, the paper provides insights into the strengths and limitations of existing research and highlights areas for future inquiry concerning SRL and foreign language acquisition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".