Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38984276›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Exploring age-related differences in metacognitive self-regulation: the influence of motivational factors in secondary school students.

Ioannis Katsantonis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ioannis KatsantonisPsychology, Education and Learning Studies Research Group, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Metacognitive self-regulation is a crucial factor that promotes students' learning and achievement. However, the evidence regarding age differences in metacognitive skills is rather mixed, with some evidence pointing toward further refinement and development and other evidence suggesting declining levels. Academic motivation, an important antecedent of metacognitive self-regulation, has also been reported to decline steeply in adolescence. Hence, this raises the question whether there are any age-related differences in academic motivation and metacognitive self-regulation of adolescents and whether age differences in academic motivation drive decreases in metacognitive self-regulation. Method: A large sample size of 1,027 Greek adolescents (ages 12-16, Results: Invariance analyses revealed scalar invariance for metacognitive self-regulation, language self-efficacy, mastery and performance goal orientations and partially scalar invariance for task value. Older adolescents scored lower on metacognitive self-regulation, mastery and performance goals, and self-efficacy. Older students scored lower on metacognitive self-regulation via indirect effects through Cholesky decomposed motivational factors. Discussion: Self-efficacy, mastery and performance goals, and task value are similarly understood across adolescents in different age groups. Decreased mastery and performance goals and task value can lead to reduced metacognitive self-regulation in adolescents. The implications of the findings underscore the key role of making students more engaged with lessons' content in order to promote greater academic motivation and prevent decreases in metacognitive self-regulation.

Indexed as

achievement goalsage differencesCholesky decompositionmeasurement invariancemetacognitive self-regulationself-efficacy

Identifiers

PMID38984276
PMCPMC11231430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.