{"title":"Technology-Supported Interventions and Learners’ Metacognition: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis","authors":"Yijia Yuan,Yiran Du","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10227-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite the growing use of educational technologies, including AI and generative AI, how these technologies support learners’ metacognition remains insufficiently understood. The present study synthesised 33 studies using a three-level meta-analysis. Technology-supported interventions were associated with higher metacognitive outcomes on average, Hedges’ g = 0.653, 95% CI [0.520, 0.786], although heterogeneity was substantial. Technology type did not significantly moderate effects. Exploratory analyses showed descriptively larger estimates for interventions with technology-use guidance, immediate feedback, and system-directed learner control, but none remained significant after BH-FDR adjustment (adjusted p = .095 for each). Because these features overlapped, the patterns are hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of independent moderator effects. Interventions most frequently supported evaluation/reflection, monitoring, and strategic control, whereas planning was less consistently represented. Importantly, 77 of 94 effects (81.9%) concerned metacognitive regulation, and 90 (95.7%) relied on self-report measures, indicating that the pooled association primarily reflects self-reported metacognitive regulation. Overall, the findings suggest that technology-supported interventions can support metacognitive outcomes, while these effects should be interpreted in light of the specific regulatory processes targeted and how metacognitive outcomes are measured.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10227-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Despite the growing use of educational technologies, including AI and generative AI, how these technologies support learners’ metacognition remains insufficiently understood. The present study synthesised 33 studies using a three-level meta-analysis. Technology-supported interventions were associated with higher metacognitive outcomes on average, Hedges’ g = 0.653, 95% CI [0.520, 0.786], although heterogeneity was substantial. Technology type did not significantly moderate effects. Exploratory analyses showed descriptively larger estimates for interventions with technology-use guidance, immediate feedback, and system-directed learner control, but none remained significant after BH-FDR adjustment (adjusted p = .095 for each). Because these features overlapped, the patterns are hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of independent moderator effects. Interventions most frequently supported evaluation/reflection, monitoring, and strategic control, whereas planning was less consistently represented. Importantly, 77 of 94 effects (81.9%) concerned metacognitive regulation, and 90 (95.7%) relied on self-report measures, indicating that the pooled association primarily reflects self-reported metacognitive regulation. Overall, the findings suggest that technology-supported interventions can support metacognitive outcomes, while these effects should be interpreted in light of the specific regulatory processes targeted and how metacognitive outcomes are measured.
期刊介绍:
Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.