Effect of self-regulated learning strategies on students’ achievement in science: A meta-analysis

This study obtained 63 calculated effect sizes from 22 studies using 7,258 samples. Descriptive features of the studies are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of effect size value

Researcher	Num (k)	Year	Types of Science Subject	Category of SRL	SRL Strategy	Effect size (d)
DiBenedetto & Bembenutty	113	2013	Science	B	ADOG HSR HS	0.52 0.39 0.39
Olakanmi & Gumbo	60	2017	Chemistry	ME&C	GS	4.95
Medina & Pagan	30	2016	Science	ME&C	SM	0.31
Al Mutawah et al.	382	2017	Science	MO	GO TV SE	0.41 0.38 0.52
Peter & Kitsantas	162	2010	Science	ME&C	O E	0.50 0.80
Sebesta & Bray Speth	414	2017	Biology	ME MO	OT GSP SI SE KEM ES SC RA SA SIA SA RN RE RT RGW	0.18 0.25 0.24 0.30 0.11 0.09 0.23 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.25 0.32 0.17 0.22
Kaberman & Dori	793	2009	Chemistry	ME	PQ	0.70
Dike et al.	360	2017	Chemistry	ME	TA	0.97
Nbina & Viko	192	2010	Chemistry	ME	SA	4.36
Akyol& Tekayya	1517	2010	Science	ME	R E O C	0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01
Jayapraba	35	2013	Science	C	MSR	0.06
Ibe	21	2009	Science	ME	MQ	0.74
Theresa et al.	50	2019	Chemistry	ME	RT	4.75
Cook et al.	595	2013	Chemistry	ME	L	0.65
Nongtodu & Bhutia	797	2017	Science	ME	L	0.94
Yumusak et al.	519	2007	Biology	MO ME C	IGO EGO TV CVLR SE ER PL HL MSRT MRSE R E O CT	0.46 -0.28 0.83 0.12 0.6 0.84 0.39 0.29 0.60 0.69 0.49 0.17 0.65 0.41
Veluu et al.	358	2015	Chemistry	C	CT	0.05
Lawanto & Santoso	97	2013	Physics	ME	NT	0.43
Laureano	70	2015	Chemistry	B	R Ev T S F I A	0.36 0.26 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.004 0.04
Sadi	384	2017	Biology	C	R	0.08
Joo et al.	152	2000	Science	MO&C	SE	0.41
Harowitz et al.	157	2013	Chemistry	B	HS	0.69

ME Metacognitive, C Cognitive, MA Management, MO Motivation, B Behaviour, HP Help Seeking, SM Self-monitoring, SR Self-reflection, SE Self-evaluation, M Management, OI Organisation Information, GO Goal Orientation, TV Task Value, SE Self-efficacy, TA Thinking Aloud, R Rehearsal, E Elaboration, RE Researching, T Triggering, CT Critical Thinking, Ev Evaluation, MSR Metacognitive Self-regulation, ME Metacognitive Question, RT Reflective Thinking, F Formulating, I Implementing, IGO Intrinsic Goal Orientation, EGO Extrinsic Goal Orientation, MSRTSE Metacognitive Self-regulation and Study Environment, A Assessing, ER Effort Regulation, PL Peer Learning, II Interpretation Information, RI Representation Information, ADOG Academic Delay of Gratification, HSR Homework Self-regulation.

Effects of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies

The results showed a significant effect, with an overall mean effect of d =12. This finding suggests that SRL learning strategies improve students’ achievement in science subjects.

Effects of Moderator Influence

There were significant effects of moderator influence on students’ achievement (see Table 1). The effect size was varied depending on the study setting, educational level, and types of science subject. Figures 1 and 2 show the details of the results.

Categories of Self-regulated Learning Strategies

The overall mean effect for the eight categories of SRL was d=0.4, which was considered a medium effect. The total effect size for the first category which is metacognitive was d=15.6; for the second category which is cognitive, it was d=0.4; and for the third category which is behavioural, it was d=6.7. Meanwhile, for motivational strategy, which is the fourth category, the total effect size was d=1.3. For the combination of metacognitive and cognitive, the total effect size was d= 6.6; for the combination of metacognitive, cognitive, and motivational, it was 15 (d=7.0), while for the combination of metacognitive and motivational, it was d=3.0, and for the last category which is a combination of motivational and cognitive, the total effect size was d=3.0. Figure 1 shows the mean effect for each category in detail.

Based on the analysis, the self-regulated learning strategies were categorised into eight main SRL categories. Category 1 (metacognitive strategy) comprised i) posing question, ii) thinking aloud, iii) self-assessment, iv) metacognitive questions, v) Know, Want to know and Learn (KWL), vi) lecture, and vii) note taking. Category 2 (cognitive strategy) included i) rehearsal, ii) elaboration, iii) organisation, and iv) critical thinking. Meanwhile, Category 3 (behaviour strategy) consisted of i) academic delay of gratification, ii) homework self-regulation, iii) help seeking, iv) triggering, v) formulating, vi) searching, vii) implementing, vii) receiving, ix) evaluating, and x) assessing. Category 4 (combination of cognitive and metacognitive) included i) goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-reflection, ii) combination of self-monitoring strategies, self-evaluation strategies, self-reflection strategies and teachers’ feedback, iii) combination of rehearsal, elaboration, organisation, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation strategy, v) combination of organisation information, teachers’ feedback, interpretation of information, and vi) combination of content self-evaluation, self-monitoring, and think aloud. Category 5 (combination of metacognitive and motivational) comprised combination of self-evaluation, organising and transferring, goal setting and planning, seeking information, keeping records and monitoring, environmental structuring, self-consequating, rehearsal and memorising, seeking assistance from other resources, reviewing notes, reviewing exams, reviewing textbooks/screencast, and reviewing graded work. Category 6 (combination of cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational) included i) combination of intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and test anxiety. Lastly, Category 7 (combination of motivational and cognitive) comprised i) combination of cognitive strategy, self-efficacy, and self-regulation.

Figure 2. Categories of SRL strategy

Based on Figure 2, the overall mean effect for the categories of self-regulated learning strategies according to subject was 0.7, which was considered a large effect. Specifically, the mean effect for metacognitive was d=1 (large effect); for cognitive, it was d=0.1 (small effect); and for behaviour, the mean effect was d=0.3 (small effect). Meanwhile, for motivational, the mean effect was d=0.4 (medium effect); for metacognitive and cognitive, it was d=0.4 (medium effect); and for metacognitive, cognitive, and motivational, it was d=0.5 (medium effect). The mean effect for metacognitive and motivational was d=0.2 (small effect), and for the last category, which is motivational and cognitive, the mean effect was d=0.5 (medium effect).

Types of Science Subjects

As shown in Figure 3, the mean effect size was found to be different based on the types of science subjects. The overall mean was d=0.6, which was considered a large effect. The total effect size for science was (d=17.8,28), while for chemistry, it was (d=19.2,14). Meanwhile, for biology and physics the total effect size was (d= 9.6,11) and (d=0.4.8,1), respectively.

Figure 3. The mean of effect size