MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391810141 · doi:10.1080/00461520.2023.2294881

An integrated model of socially shared regulation of learning: The role of metacognition, affect, and motivation

2024· article· en· W4391810141 on OpenAlexafffund
Cara A. Singh, Krista R. Muis

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Psychologist · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetacognitionPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Self-regulated learningCognitionCognitive psychologyTask (project management)ElaborationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated theoretical model of socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL), which is an elaboration of Efklides’ Motivation and Affect in Self-Regulated Learning model that situates metacognition, affect, and motivation at the socially shared level. Building from existing theoretical and empirical work, the role of metacognition, affect and motivation in socially shared regulation of learning is described along with how these facets may facilitate or constrain regulatory phases and processes in relation to the individual and the group, and in consideration of the learning task. Educational implications are discussed including increasing focus on the social and cognitive processes involved in SSRL in pre-service teaching programs and advocating for the development of learning situations where students practice SSRL strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational PsychologistSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207