Technology-Supported Interventions and Learners’ Metacognition: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis

IF 11.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Yijia Yuan,Yiran Du
{"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.
技术支持干预与学习者元认知:一个三层次的元分析
尽管包括人工智能和生成式人工智能在内的教育技术的使用越来越多,但人们对这些技术如何支持学习者的元认知仍然知之甚少。本研究采用三水平荟萃分析综合了33项研究。技术支持的干预措施平均与较高的元认知结果相关,Hedges的g = 0.653, 95% CI[0.520, 0.786],尽管异质性很大。技术类型无显著调节效应。探索性分析显示,采用技术使用指导、即时反馈和系统导向学习者控制的干预措施的描述性估计较大,但在BH-FDR调整后,没有一个仍然显著(调整后的p = 0.095)。因为这些特征是重叠的,所以这些模式是假设产生的,而不是独立调节效应的证据。干预措施最常支持评价/反思、监测和战略控制,而计划则不太一致。重要的是,94个效应中有77个(81.9%)与元认知调节有关,90个(95.7%)依赖于自我报告的测量,表明汇总关联主要反映了自我报告的元认知调节。总体而言,研究结果表明,技术支持的干预措施可以支持元认知结果,而这些影响应该根据特定的调节过程和如何测量元认知结果来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书