Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39981387›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025

A bibliometric and content analysis of strategy-based instruction and self-regulated learning in second or foreign language teaching from 1994 to 2024.

Ruihua Chen, Xiao Wang, Kezhen Zhu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Ruihua ChenSichuan Normal University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Xiao WangBusiness School, Chongqing City Management College, Chongqing, China.
Kezhen ZhuSichuan Normal University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study aims to explore the research themes and identify gaps on strategy-based instruction (SBI) and self-regulated learning (SRL) in language education, spanning the period from 1994 to 2024. Using a systematic review methodology, this study examines the empirical research in the SBI and SRL in English as second or foreign language teaching contexts published during this period. Methods: The review employs both bibliometric and content analysis to reveal current trends to facilitate understanding of the role of SBI and SRL in teaching practices. Using VOSviewer, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted on 35 selected papers from Web of Science and Scopus databases. Results: The bibliometric analysis reveals a shift in research focus from student self-development to the impact of learning strategies on students' learning achievement. The content analysis indicates that studies have focused on writing instruction, enhancement of learners' SRL, and technology-assisted instruction, with the latter showing potential for developing students' SRL strategies. Discussion: Overall, this study highlights the significance of integrating SBI and SRL into language education, offering insights into writing instruction, technology-assisted learning, and SRL development. It emphasizes the need for future research to explore specific skills, technology-assisted learning, longitudinal mixed-methods approach. This paper aims to serve as a useful resource for researchers and practitioners involved in research related to EFL and ESL teaching.

Indexed as

bibliometric analysiscontent analysisEnglish as second or foreign language teachingself-regulated learningstrategy-based instructionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39981387
PMCPMC11841389

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.