Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Case Study 2: An Evidence-Based Practice Review Report

Theme: School Based Interventions for Learning

Are interventions that teach self-regulated learning strategies in mathematics

effective in improving pupil’s mathematical performance?

Summary

Self-regulated learners are active participants in the learning process, who set

goals, apply strategies and reflect upon learning outcomes (Zimmerman, 2000).

Evidence appears to suggest a link between self-regulated learning (SRL) and

academic achievement (e.g. Zimmerman & Martinex-Pons, 1986) and consequently

school-based interventions which target self-regulatory skills are becoming

increasingly popular (e.g. Harris & Graham, 1992).

The current review considered whether interventions which target SRL are

effective in improving mathematical performance. Following a comprehensive search

of relevant databases, seven studies were found which met the inclusion criteria for

the current review. These studies were assessed for methodological quality,

appropriateness of method and relevance to the current review question in order to

determine an overall weight of evidence in line with Gough’s (2007) framework. In

addition, studies were compared and critiqued according to a range of

methodological features, including setting, participants, design, interventions,

outcome measures and findings.

Overall, evidence from the highest weighted studies appear to provide some

promising evidence that SRL interventions can improve pupil’s mathematical

Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

performance when compared to no intervention control conditions.

2 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

1.1 Introduction

What is self-regulated learning?

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is described as a “self-directive process by

which learners transform their mental abilities into academic skills”, through “self-

generated thoughts, feelings and behaviours that are oriented to attaining goals”

(Zimmerman, 2002, p.65). Rather than taking a passive role, self-regulated learners

are active participants in the learning process, who seek new information and take

steps to master new skills (Zimmerman, 1990).

Several models conceptualising SRL have been proposed. One model, by

Zimmerman, Boner and Kovach (1996), suggests that SRL is characterised by a 4-

stage process. At the first stage, self-regulated learners engage in self-evaluation,

assessing their previous behaviour in relation to earlier achievements. Therefore,

SRL is characterised by self-awareness with regard to one’s strengths and

limitations, and an insight into whether or not one possesses desired skills or

knowledge (Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman, 2000). Following this, at the second

phase of the model, learners analyse the task at hand, set goals and decide on task-

related strategies in order to promote successful outcomes. At the third stage of this

process, self-regulated learners apply the strategies that were selected during phase

two of the model and monitor progress towards their goals. Finally, within the last

stage, learners engage in a process of self-reflection in which they consider the

effectiveness of the strategies employed in relation to their learning outcomes. More

recently, this model has been incorporated into a 3-stage cyclical model of self-

regulatory processes (Zimmerman, 2000), outlined in figure 1.

3 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Performance Phase
Self-control:
Imagery
Self instruction
Attention focusing
Use of task strategies
(Stage 3: Zimmerman et al. 1996)
Self-observation:
Self-recording
Self-experimentation
(Stage 3: Zimmerman et al. 1996)

Forethought Phase Self-reflection Phase

Task analysis: Self-judgement:
Goal setting Self-evaluation
Strategic planning Causal attribution (Weiner, 1985)
(Stage 2: Zimmerman et al. 1996) Self-reaction:
Self-satisfaction/affect
Self-motivational beliefs (Weiner, 1985): (Stages 1 & 4: Zimmerman et al., 1996)
Self-efficacy
Outcome expectations

Figure 1. Three-Stage Model of Self-Regulatory Processes (Zimmerman, 2000)

Incorporating Elements of Zimmerman et al.’s (1996) Four-Stage Model.

SRL Interventions

Models of SRL identify specific behavioural and metacognitive processes

undertaken by self-directed learners to promote learning outcomes. These

processes do not rely upon any specific skill or trait, instead it appears that self-

regulatory processes can be taught (Schmuck & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman,

2002). In support of this, evidence suggests that interventions targeting SRL can

improve literacy outcomes (e.g. Harris & Graham, 1992; Page-Voth & Graham,

1999). SRL interventions are varied; however most incorporate the processes

outlined in Zimmerman’s 3-stage model (e.g. goal setting, self-monitoring).

4 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Consequently, it appears that school-based interventions which target each stage of

this cycle are likely to be successful in developing pupil’s self-regulatory skills and

academic outcomes.

Basis in psychological theory

Models of SRL are underpinned by Weiner’s (1985) ‘Attributional Theory of

Achievement Motivation and Emotion’ (see figure 1). Within this theory Weiner

argues that individuals are driven by a need to understand the causes of events.

Therefore, after completing tasks individuals make causal attributions about task

outcomes. These attributions draw upon perceptions of stability (i.e. whether the

cause of outcomes will stay the same) and control (i.e. whether performance is

caused by an uncontrollable or controllable factors), and are proposed to influence

future expectations. For example, individuals who attribute outcomes to

uncontrollable and stable factors expect the same outcomes to be repeated in future.

Consequently, causal attributions influence one’s affective reaction to task outcomes

and consequent motivation to engage in future tasks.

Drawing upon this theory, Zimmerman (2002) suggests that self-regulated

learners attribute task outcomes to strategy use, an unstable and controllable factor.

In contrast, pupils who do not engage in SRL are likely to attribute outcomes to

stable and uncontrollable factors, such as ability. As a result, following

unsatisfactory performance, passive learners may develop a sense of self-

dissatisfaction which reduces their self-efficacy and motivation to engage in similar

tasks. These attributions also influence future task performance, with passive

learners being less likely to select appropriate task strategies due to their perception

that outcomes cannot change. In contrast, self-regulated learners are likely to

5 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

maintain a sense of self-satisfaction following task performance (Zimmerman &

Bandura, 1994). This consequently influences the forethought phase of the self-

regulatory model, as self-satisfaction leads to higher levels of self-efficacy and

greater motivation to engage in tasks, apply strategies and set ambitious goals;

processes which increase the likelihood of future success.

1.2 Rationale

Evidence suggests that SRL is linked to positive academic outcomes. For

example, Zimmerman and Martinex-Pons (1986) found that students in high ability

groups employ more SRL strategies than students of lower ability. Additionally,

Zimmerman and Martinex-Pons (1988) found that engagement in SRL makes a

distinct contribution to achievement when analysed alongside general ability.

Therefore, teaching pupils to engage in SRL is likely to have a positive impact on

their academic outcomes, regardless of ability levels.

Teaching SRL also has practical benefits. Firstly, within the current climate,

Educational Psychologists (EPs) are required to use their time effectively, supporting

as many pupils as they can within their limited resources. As a result, EPs are

encouraged to ‘give psychology away’ (Miller, 1969), by empowering teachers with

the skills that they need in order to benefit as many pupils as possible. In line with

this, EPs can train teachers to apply SRL interventions at a whole-class level.

Secondly, EPs are expected to work preventatively, with the aim of promoting

outcomes for pupils who are at risk of academic failure (DfE, 2011). Consequently,

through interventions which target SRL, EPs can empower pupils to develop lifelong

skills that can maximise academic success (Zimmerman, 2000).

6 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

1.3 Review Question

Within the UK there is increasing concern that children are leaving school with

poor numeracy skills. A recent government survey found that one in two adults have

numeracy skills which are equivalent to those expected from primary aged pupils

(BIS, 2011). Moreover, there is concern that negative attitudes towards numeracy

within society may negatively influence pupil’s motivation to engage in mathematics

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/mar/07/world-maths-

day-adult-innumeracy). Consequently, there is a need for interventions which can

promote mathematical skills whilst maintaining motivation within the subject area.

Mathematical interventions which target SRL provide a method through which this

can be achieved, as models of SRL suggest that this approach to learning is linked

to increased motivation and self-efficacy. However, before recommending such

strategies, it is important to establish whether SRL interventions can improve

mathematical performance. Therefore, the current review aims to address the

following question:

‘Are interventions that teach self-regulated learning strategies in mathematics

effective in improving pupil’s mathematical performance?’

7 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Critical Review of the Evidence Base

2.1 Literature Search

A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted in February 2012,

using the databases PsychINFO, ERIC, Medline and the British Education Index.

The following search terms were used to identify relevant studies: ‘Self-regulat* or

self regulat*’AND ‘math* or numer*’ AND ‘intervention or strategy or program*’.

Limits were set to ensure that only studies written in the English language and

published within peer-reviewed journals were included in the search results.

The titles and abstracts of 103 studies were checked against the inclusion and

exclusion criteria outlined in ‘Appendix A’. Of these studies, 18 were selected for full-

text screening and 13 were excluded for reasons outlined in ‘Appendix B’. In

addition, an ancestral search was conducted to identify papers cited within the

selected studies which may be relevant to the review. Five studies were identified

and their abstracts inspected using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One study

was selected for full text screening and included within the review. An additional

paper was received upon contacting an author about their work; this was also

screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria and subsequently included in the

review. This review is based on 7 studies (see ‘Appendix C’).

2.2 Appraisal of Included Studies

Included studies were critically appraised using Gough’s (2007) ‘Weight of

Evidence’ framework. According to this model, the weight of evidence given to a

study is dependent on three factors (outlined in Table 1) which contribute to an

overall weight of evidence (D) for each study.

8 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Weightings for category A were assessed using an adapted version of the

‘Literature Review Coding Protocol’ outlined by Kratochwill (2003).  Further details

outlining how weightings were allocated can be found in ‘Appendix E’. Table 2

outlines the weightings given to each study.

Table 1:
Factors Considered When Weighting Studies According to Gough’s (2007) Framework
Weight of Evidence Weight of Evidence Weight of Evidence Overall Weight of Evidence
A B C (D)
The methodological Appropriateness of the Relevance of the
quality of the study method in answering the findings to review
review question question
Considers whether Considers whether Considers the extent Considers judgements of A,
the study is the method is fit for to which the study B and C to form an overall
methodologically purpose. contributes to weight of evidence. This
sound. answering the tells us to extent to which
review question. the study contributes to
answering the research
question.

Table 2:
Weight of Evidence for Included Studies
Author(s) Weight of Weight of Weight of Overall Weight
Evidence Evidence Evidence of Evidence (D)
A B C
Camahalan (2006). Low Low Low Low

Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, High High Medium High

Burch, Hamlett, Owen &
Schroeter (2003).  

Perels, Dignath & Schmitz Low Low Medium Low

(2009).  

Perels, Gurtler & Schmitz Medium High Medium Medium

(2005).

Stoeger & Ziegler (2005). Low Medium Low Low

Stoeger & Ziegler (2008). Medium Medium Medium Medium

Stoeger & Ziegler (2010). Medium Medium Medium Medium

9 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

2.3 Critique and Comparison

This section aims to address the review question by comparing and critiquing

the included studies (see ‘Appendix D’ for summary tables).

Setting

It is important to note that none of the studies received a high weighting for

‘C’, relevance to the review question. This is due to the fact that none were

conducted within the UK and therefore the extent to which the findings generalise to

UK pupils is unclear.

Within the current review, one study was conducted in the USA (Fuchs et al.,

2003), one was conducted in South Korea (Camalahan, 2006) and five were

conducted in Germany (Perels et al. 2005; Perels et al. 2009; Stoeger & Ziegler,

2005; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2008; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2010). This high representation of

German studies is likely to reflect the current emphasis on SRL within the German

curriculum, resulting from findings of a recent review which concluded that German

students lack competence in the use of self-regulatory strategies (PISA, 2004).

However, despite this focus, both Germany and the USA share similar cultures and

educational systems with the UK, and as a result studies within these countries were

given medium weightings for relevance to the review question. In contrast, South

Korea is a collectivist country in which there is less emphasis on some features of

SRL (e.g. self-reliance, autonomy and individual goals) than you would find in

individualistic countries such as the UK (Hofstede, 2001). Considering this,

Camalahan’s (2006) study was given a low weighting for relevance to the review

question.

10 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Participants

Participants within the included studies were aged between 8-15 years old.

However, most studies considered the effects of SRL interventions on pupils aged

10-11 years old. In the studies conducted by Stoeger and Ziegler (2005; 2008; 2010)

participants were in the fourth grade, with a mean age of 10.54-10.67 years.

Similarly, Perels et al. (2009) reported a mean age of 11.15 years and Camalahan

(2006) reported results of fourth and sixth graders, with a mean fourth grade age of

10.62 years. Therefore, this review is based on data within a restricted age range.

Five studies looked at the impact of SRL interventions on all pupils within the

intervention classes (Fuchs et al., 2003; Perels et al., 2005; Perels et al., 2009;

Stoeger & Ziegler, 2008, Stoeger & Ziegler, 2010). Therefore, these results are likely

to generalise to all pupils within mainstream classes. In contrast, Camalahan (2006)

and Stoeger and Ziegler (2005), considered the impact of SRL interventions on

special populations. In the study by Camalahan (2006) the intervention was

delivered to pupils with a low grade point average in mathematics, low mathematics

achievement scores and poor study habits. Similarly, Stoeger and Ziegler (2005)

focused their analysis on high ability pupils who demonstrated a discrepancy

between their IQ and mathematical performance. Consequently, the results of these

studies cannot be generalised to all pupils within mainstream classes and have less

relevance when considering the general efficacy of SRL interventions.

Design

Six studies used completely randomised or randomised block designs, in

which pre-test and post-test comparisons were made between intervention and

control groups. However, Perels et al. (2009) did not randomly assign participants to

11 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

experimental conditions and therefore received a low weighting for appropriateness

of method.

All included studies used control groups. Most studies selected no

intervention or wait list controls (Camalahan, 2006; Perels et al. 2009; Stoeger &

Ziegler, 2005; 2008; 2010). However, Fuchs et al. (2003) and Perels et al. (2005)

included active comparisons groups. In the study by Fuchs et al. (2003) pupils within

the control group received training on ‘transfer’ (i.e. applying mathematical

knowledge in new contexts). Similarly, in the study by Perels et al. (2005) the control

group received ‘problem solving’ training. Both of these studies also included

intervention conditions in which the alternative interventions were combined with

SRL instruction. Therefore, providing evidence into whether SRL instruction can

make a unique contribution to mathematical performance when incorporated into

existing interventions. Consequently, these studies received a high weighting for

appropriateness of method.

Intervention

Within the included studies, the length of intervention varied from 3 (Perels et

al., 2009) to 16 weeks (Fuchs et al., 2003), with most interventions lasting for 5-6

weeks (Camalahan, 2006; Perels et al., 2005; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005; 2008; 2010).

Within Zimmerman’s (2000) model of SRL, it is proposed that SRL is a cyclical

process in which positive feedback from previous experiences leads to an increased

motivation to learn. Therefore, longer interventions are more likely to have an impact

of pupil’s outcomes and, as a result, information regarding the length of interventions

was considered when weighting relevance to review question.

12 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

All of the interventions within the current review included elements of

Zimmerman’s (2000) 3-stage model. However, there were differences in the

interventions that were delivered. Stoeger and Ziegler (2005; 2008; 2010) used an

intervention programme which was developed by Zimmerman et al. (1996), within

which pupils were given multiple opportunities to apply SRL processes. For example,

they used standardised forms to set goals, reflect upon strategy use and evaluate

their performance. All other studies used SRL interventions that were developed by

the researchers. Camalahan (2006) devised a programme in which pupils were

taught the theory behind SRL, before learning and applying various strategies

proposed by Zimmerman (1989). Similarly, the interventions used by Perels et al.

(2005) and Perels et al. (2009) also included explicit teaching of SRL processes and

strategies. For example, Perels et al. (2009) taught pupils how to distinguish main

goals from sub goals. However, within these studies pupils appeared to spend less

time applying SRL strategies in practise. Finally, Fuchs et al. (2003) implemented an

intervention which combined SRL instruction with ‘transfer’ training and did not

consider the effects of SRL instruction alone. These differences in interventions

should be considered when interpreting the results of the included studies.

Outcome measures

Within the current review all of the studies measured mathematical

performance using tests which covered the material taught during the intervention.

Stoeger and Ziegler (2005; 2008; 2010) used tests which had been designed by

class teachers. Perels et al. (2005), Perels et al. (2009) and Fuchs et al. (2003) did

not state how their tests were developed, however they described the test content.

Camalahan (2006) provided no information regarding the content or construction of

13 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

their mathematical achievement measures. In addition, none of the studies provided

information about the validity of measures used.

Five studies reported the reliability of their mathematical performance

measures. Internal consistency was reported by Stoeger and Ziegler (2005; 2008;

2010) and Perels et al. (2005), with reported reliability coefficients of 0.73 and above.

Fuchs et al. (2003) reported ratings of interscorer agreement on test content, which

ranged from 0.94 to 0.98. Camalahan (2006) and Perels et al. (2009) failed to report

any information regarding the reliability of their measures. This is reflected in their

low weightings for methodological quality.

With the exception of Camalahan (2006) who considered the effects of SRL

interventions on mathematical achievement test performance and mathematical

school grade, and Fuchs et al. (2003) who used three tests to measure mathematical

performance, none of the studies used multiple methods or sources to measure

primary outcomes. As a result, the studies were unable to triangulate evidence for

the effectiveness of SRL training on mathematical performance, and this limited their

methodological quality.

Results

All of the studies collected quantitative data. Results were analysed using

ANOVA (Camalahan, 2006; Fuchs et al. 2003; Perels et al. 2005; Stoeger & Ziegler,

2005; 2008; 2010) and ANCOVA (Perels et al., 2009). Various methods were used

to establish group equivalence. Stoeger and Ziegler (2010) reported adjusted effect

sizes taking into account pre-test differences between groups. Stoeger and Ziegler

(2008), Fuchs et al. (2003), Perels et al. (2009) and Perels et al. (2005) conducted

post-hoc tests to establish group equivalence, concluding that there were no pre-test

14 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

differences between groups. Perels et al. (2005) and Fuchs et al. (2003)

demonstrated group equivalence using statistical matching, with Perels et al. (2005)

including pre-test scores as a covariate during analysis and Fuchs et al. (2003)

comparing groups on difference scores (i.e. post-test minus pre-test scores).

Therefore, all studies except Camalahan (2006) took measures to establish group

equivalence when analysing results and this is reflected within methodological

quality weightings.

The studies conducted by Camalahan (2006), Perels et al. (2009) and

Stoeger and Ziegler (2005) were based on small samples (60, 55 and 36 participants

respectively). As a result, power analysis revealed that Perels et al. (2009) had

statistical power of 0.44 and Stoeger and Ziegler (2005) had statistical power of 0.19.

Therefore, it appears that these studies may have lacked the power to detect effects

of SRL interventions on mathematical performance and as a result they were given

lower weightings for methodological quality.

With the exception of Camlahan (2006), effect sizes were available for all for

the included studies. Stoeger and Ziegler (2010) reported between-group effect

sizes, which indicated a small-medium positive effect of the SRL intervention on

mathematical performance (d=-0.37)1. In addition, Fuchs et al. (2003) reported large

between-group effects of combined SRL and transfer training on mathematical

performance when compared to the no intervention control group, with effect sizes of

d=2.81, d=2.43 and d=1.18 for each of the mathematical achievement tests. In

addition, their intervention also appeared to improve mathematical performance

                                                            
1&2
    Tests were scored inversely. Therefore positive effect sizes indicate a decline in performance and
negative effect sizes indicate an improvement. 

15 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

when compared to transfer training alone, once again resulting in large effect sizes

(d=1.05, d=0.89 and d=1.87).

Within-group effect sizes reported by Fuchs et al. (2003) were large for all

groups, suggesting that even in the no intervention condition pupil’s mathematical

performance improved over time. However, effect sizes were particularly large for

the group who received SRL instruction (d=8.28, d=4.30 and d=1.87 for each of the

mathematical performance measures). Similarly, Perels et al. (2009) found a

medium effect size of d=0.67 for the SRL intervention group compared to d=0.18 in

the control group. In contrast, Stoeger and Ziegler (2005, 2008) found very small

effects of SRL interventions on mathematical achievement within their intervention

groups, with effect sizes of d=-0.03 and d=0.052. However, in both of these studies

the control groups showed a small-medium decline in performance, with effect sizes

of d=0.33 and d=0.30, suggesting that SRL interventions had some positive impact

on mathematical performance compared to normal classroom instruction. Finally,

Perels et al. (2005) found a small effect of their SRL intervention on mathematical

performance (d=0.22), compared to d=0.35 in the problem solving group, d=0.12 in

the combined SRL/problem solving group and d=-0.11 for the control group. These

findings appear to suggest that SRL interventions are not as effective as problem

solving training in improving mathematical performance.

Secondary outcomes

All studies included measures of SRL as secondary outcomes. Studies which

measured pupil’s overall self-regulation found an increase in SRL intervention

groups (Camalahan, 2006; Perels et al., 2009). Similarly studies found increases in

self-efficacy (Fuchs et al., 2003, Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005; 2008; 2010), self-
                                                            
 

16 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

monitoring (Fuchs et al. 2003) and self-reflection (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005; 2008;

2010) within the SRL intervention groups, all of which are associated with SRL

processes (Zimmerman, 2000). In addition, Stoeger and Zielger (2005, 2008, 2010)

found a decrease in helplessness in the SRL intervention groups, suggesting that, in

line with Zimmerman’s (2000) model, SRL is linked to an improved sense of control

over learning outcomes. However, Perels et al. (2005) failed to replicate these

findings, instead finding no overall effect of SRL interventions on self-regulation.

Therefore, it appears that the interventions used within this study may not have

effectively targeted SRL and this should be considered when interpreting the results.

17 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

3.1 Conclusions

Within the current review one study received a high overall weight of evidence

(Fuchs et al., 2003). Within this study, findings indicated that pupils who received an

intervention which incorporated SRL instruction with transfer training performed

significantly better in mathematical problem solving tests than those who received no

intervention or transfer training alone. Effect sizes reported in this study very large,

suggesting that SRL training can have a meaningful impact upon mathematical

performance.

Of the studies which were given a medium overall weight of evidence, two

found significant differences between pupils receiving SRL interventions and those

within no treatment conditions. However, effect sizes within these studies were small

and observed differences appeared to reflect a decline in performance of the control

group rather than an increase in the intervention group (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2008;

2010). Unlike the study by Fuchs et al. (2003), pupils within these studies only

received the SRL intervention for a short period of time (5-6 weeks vs. 16 weeks). In

addition, the intervention group spent a significant part of their mathematics lessons

practising SRL activities and therefore spent less time learning mathematical content

than the control group. Consequently, these results are likely to underestimate the

true impact of SRL on mathematical performance and therefore appear to provide

some evidence that interventions which target SRL in mathematics may be linked to

greater increases in performance than normal classroom teaching.

Findings of the study by Perels et al. (2005), which also received a medium

overall weight of evidence, appear to suggest that interventions which target SRL are

18 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

less effective in improving mathematical performance than those that focusing on

teaching problem solving skills. However, within this study pupils receiving SRL

training appeared to spend more time learning the theory behind SRL than applying

strategies. Moreover, analysis of secondary outcomes failed to demonstrate an

increase in SRL within the training groups. Consequently, this study should be

interpreted with caution as it is unclear whether the implemented interventions were

effective in targeting SRL.

Within the studies that were given a low overall weight of evidence, there

appeared to be some support that SRL is linked to improved mathematical

performance (Camalahan, 2006; Perels et al., 2009). However, Stoeger and Ziegler

(2005) failed to find significant effects of SRL interventions on mathematical

performance; findings which were likely to have been influenced by limited statistical

power.

Consequently, the current review appears to provide some support that SRL

interventions have a positive effect on mathematical performance. The study with the

highest weight of evidence appears to provide the best support for the effectiveness

of SRL interventions (Fuchs et al., 2003). However, other studies also appear to

provide some promising evidence that SRL interventions may have a positive impact

on mathematical performance if they are sustained over time and do not detract from

time spent learning mathematical content (e.g. Stoeger & Ziegler, 2008; 2010).

Implications

The findings of the current review suggest that EPs can support schools in

improving mathematical attainment by training teachers to apply SRL interventions at

a whole-class level, alongside normal mathematics instruction. However, in order for

19 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

these interventions to work effectively, EPs should ensure that such programmes do

not disrupt the teaching of mathematical content and include opportunities for pupils

to actively engage in each stage of Zimmerman’s 3-stage model (Zimmerman,

2000). Recommendations for further research are outlined in Table 2.

20 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Table 2:

Recommendations for Future Research

Limitations of studies Recommendations for future research

within the review

No studies were conducted 1. Studies into the effectiveness of SRL interventions on

within the UK. mathematical performance should be conducted within the
UK, in order to determine whether outcomes can be
generalised to the UK education system.
Findings were based on a 2. In order to determine whether findings can be applied to all
limited age range. age groups further studies should consider the effects of
SRL interventions with pupils within infant primary classes
and those in the later stages of secondary school
Some interventions did not 3. In line with the interventions presented by Camalahan
appear to effectively (2006), Fuchs et al. (2003) and Stoeger & Ziegler (2005,
promote SRL (e.g. Perels et 2008 & 2010) studies should ensure that SRL interventions
al., 2005). include opportunities for participants to practice applying
these skills.
Six out of seven studies 4. Studies looking into the effect of SRL interventions on
failed to include multiple mathematical performance should aim to triangulate results
measures from multiple by including multiple measures of mathematical
sources for primary achievement from multiple sources.
outcomes.
Studies all reported 5. In order to develop an understanding of pupil and teacher
quantitative data. No perceptions of SRL intervention programmes, studies
qualitative data was looking into the effectiveness of SRL interventions should
collected. also collect qualitative data. It is important to know whether
teachers are willing to implement such programmes before
recommending them.
Interventions were limited in 6. Studies should ensure that interventions targeting SRL are
duration and in some conducted for an appropriate length of time and do not
studies time spent on SRL detract from teaching of mathematical content.
took away from learning
mathematical content
(Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005;
2008; 2010)
No studies reported long 7. Future research should consider the long term effects of
term effects of SRL SRL interventions on mathematical performance and
interventions on whether such interventions have an impact in other
mathematical performance. curriculum areas.

21 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

References

BIS (2007). 2011 Skills for Life Survey: Headline Findings. Department for Business

Innovation and Skills: London.

Braten, I., & Thorndsen, I. S. (1998). Cognitive strategies in mathematics, Part II:

Teaching a more advanced addition strategy to an eight-year-old girl with

learning difficulties. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(2),

151-175.

Breitkopf, L. (1985). On the validity and usefulness of the Helplessness Scale in

clinical and medical psychological research. Diagnostica, 31, 324-332.

Butler, D. L., Beckingham, B., Lauschler, H., & Novak, J. (2005). Promoting Strategic

Learning by Eighth-Grade Students Struggling in Mathematics: A Report of

Three Case Studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(3), 156-

174.

Cahrlebois, P., Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Normandeau, S., & Boudreau, J. (2004).

Examining dosage effects on prevention outcomes: Results from a multi-

modal longitudinal preventive intervention for young disruptive boys. Journal

of School Psychology. 42(3), 201-220

Camahalan, F. M. G. (2006). Effects of Self-Regulated Learning on Mathematics

Achievement of Selected Southeast Asian Children. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 33(3), 194-205.

De Corte, E., Verchaffel, L. & Masui, C., (2004). The CLIA-model: A framework for

designing powerful learning environments for thinking and problem solving.

European Journal of Psychology of Education,19(4), 365-384.

22 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

DfE. (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs

and disability. London: The Stationary Office.

Dresel, M., & Haugwitz, M. (2008). A computer-based approach to fostering

motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Education,

77(1), 3-18.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., &

Schroeter, K. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students mathematical problem

solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 95(2), 306-315.

Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality

and relevance of evidence. In J. Furlong, A. Oancea (Eds.) Applied and

Practice-based Research. Special Edition of Research Papers in Education,

22 (2), 213-228.

Gold, A. and Souvignier, E. (2000). Lernstrategien und Lernerfolg. Poster presented

at the 42nd Conference of the German Psychological Society. Jena,

Germany: Oct, 2000.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Helping Young Writers Master the Craft: Strategy

Instruction and Self-regulation in the Writing Process. Cambridge, MA:

Brookline Books.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

23 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Joseph, L. M., & Hunter, A. D. (2001). Differential application of a cue card strategy

for solving fraction problems: Exploring instructional utility of the cognitive

assessment system. Child Study Journal, 31(2), 123-136.

Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijjk, C., Buttner, G., & Klieme,

Eckhard. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms:

Investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance.

Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 157-171.

Kramarski, B., & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-Metacognitive Support for Online Inquiry in

Mathematics with Differential Self-Questioning. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 40(4), 377-404.

Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How Can Self-Regulated Learning Be

Supported in Mathematical E-Learning Environments? Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 22(1), 24-33.

Kratochwill, T.R., & Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Evidence-Based Practice: Promoting

Evidence-Based Interventions in School Psychology. School Psychology

Quarterly, 18(4), 389-408.

Miller, G. (1969). On turning psychology over to the unwashed. Psychology Today,

3, 53-54.

Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem

solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,

31(1), 73-44.

Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the

writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning

problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230–240.

24 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Pape, S. J., Bell, C. V., & Yetkin, I. E. (2003). Developing mathematical thinking and

self-regulated learning: A teaching experiment in a seventh-grade

mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(3), 179-202.

Perels, F., Dignath, C., & Schmitz, B. (2009). Is it possible to improve mathematical

achievement by means of self-regulation strategies? Evaluation of an

intervention in regular math classes. European Journal of Psychology of

Education, 24(1), 17-31.

Perels, F., Gurtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005).Training of self-regulatory and problem-

solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 123-139.

PISA. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. OECD

Publishing.

Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011).

CRSP's impact on low-income preschoolers' preacademic skills: Self-

regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82(1), 362-378.

Schmuck, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (1994). Self-Regulation of Learning and

Performance: Issues and Educational Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seabaugh, G. O., & Schumaker, J. B.(1994). The effects of self-regulation training

on the academic productivity of secondary students with learning problems.

Journal of Behavioral Education, 4(1), 109-133.

Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2005). Evaluation of an elementary classroom self-

regulated learning program for gifted mathematics underachievers.

International Education Journal 6(2), 261-271.

25 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2008). Evaluation of a classroom based training to

improve self-regulated learning in time management tasks during homework

activities with fourth graders. Metacognition Learning, 3(3), 207-230.

Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2010). Do pupils with differing cognitive abilities benefit

similarly from a self-regulated learning training program? Gifted Education

International, 26(1), 110-123.

Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., & Rauhanummi, T. (1999). The role of metacognition in

the context of integrated strategy intervention. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, 14(4), 555-569.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic

learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An

overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In

M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-

Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory

into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on

writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-

862.

26 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Zimmerman, B.J., Boner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing Self-Regulated

Learners: Beyond Achievement to Self-Efficacy. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured

interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies.

American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy

model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,

80, 284-290.

27 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Appendix A: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Exclusion

1. Publication
a) Peer reviewed journal article a) Dissertation or book

b) Written in English language b) Any language other than English

2. Participants
a) School aged participants (4-16 a) Participants not within school age
years) range

b) Participants without learning b) Participants with learning disabilities

disabilities (due to existing reviews
within the topic area, e.g.
Montague, 2008).

3. Design
a) Group study a) Case study

b) Includes a control group b) No control group

4. Intervention
a) School based intervention a) Intervention outside of school context (e.g.
home based intervention)

b) Intervention explicitly targeting self- b) Intervention not explicitly targeting self-

regulation skills at each stage of regulation skills at each stage of
Zimmerman’s (2000) 3-phase Zimmerman’s (2000) 3-phase model
model

c) Intervention based on teacher(or c) Intervention which is not based upon

researcher)-pupil instruction teacher(or researcher)-pupil instruction
(e.g. computer programmes)

5. Outcomes
a) New data presented a) No new data presented (e.g. review
paper)

b) Measuring mathematical b) Not measuring mathematical

performance as an outcome performance as an outcome variable
variable

28 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Appendix B: Excluded Studies

Study Reason for Exclusion

Braten, I. & Thorndsen, I. S. (1998). Cognitive 2b: Participants with
strategies in mathematics, Part II: Teaching a more learning disabilities
advanced addition strategy to an eight-year-old girl with
learning difficulties. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 42(2), 151-175.

Butler, D. L., Beckingham, B., Lauschler, H. & Novak, J. 3a: Reporting case
(2005). Promoting Strategic Learning by Eighth-Grade studies
Students Struggling in Mathematics: A Report of Three 2b:Participants with
Case Studies. Learning Disabilities Research & learning disabilities
Practice, 20(3), 156-174.

Cahrlebois, P., Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Normandeau, 2b: Participants with
S. & Boudreau, J. (2004). Examining dosage effects on learning disabilities
prevention outcomes: Results from a multi-modal
longitudinal preventive intervention for young disruptive
boys. Journal of School Psychology. 42(3), 201-220

De Corte, E., Verchaffel, L. & Masui, C. (2004). The 4b: Intervention focusing
CLIA-model: A framework for designing powerful on multiple factors,
learning environments for thinking and problem solving. including changing the
European Journal of Psychology of Education,19(4), environment, rather than
365-384. explicitly teaching self-
regulation skills

Dresel, M. & Haugwitz, M. (2008). A computer-based 4c: Computer based

approach to fostering motivation and self-regulated intervention, no direct
learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(1), 3- contact between pupil and
18. teacher/researcher

Joseph, L. M. & Hunter, A. D. (2001). Differential 2b: Participants with

application of a cue card strategy for solving fraction learning disabilities
problems: Exploring instructional utility of the Cognitive
Assessment System. Child Study Journal, 31(2), 123-
136.

Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijjk, 4a: No intervention,
C., Buttner, G. & Klieme, Eckhard. (2010). Promotion of looking at relationship
self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating between teacher
frequency, quality, and consequences for student approach and student
performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 157- outcomes
171.

Kramarski, B. & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-Metacognitive 4c: Computer based

Support for Online Inquiry in Mathematics with intervention, no direct

29 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Differential Self-Questioning. Journal of Educational contact between pupil and

Computing Research, 40(4), 377-404. teacher/researcher

Kramarski, B & Gutman, M. (2006). How Can Self- 4c: Computer based
Regulated Learning Be Supported in Mathematical E- intervention, no direct
Learning Environments? Journal of Computer Assisted contact between pupil and
Learning, 22(1), 24-33. teacher/researcher

Pape, S. J., Bell, C. V. & Yetkin, I. E. (2003). 3b: No control group

Developing Mathematical Thinking and Self-Regulated
Learning: A Teaching Experiment in a Seventh-Grade
Mathematics Classroom. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 53(3), 179-202.

Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. Zhai, F., Bub, 2a: Participants not all
K. & Pressler, E. (2011). CRSP's impact on low-income within school age, some
preschoolers' preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a below the age of 4 years
mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82(1), 362- old.
378. 4b: Intervention not
explicitly teaching self-
regulated learning
strategies

Seabaugh, G. O. & Schumaker, J. B.(1994). The 2b: Participants with

effects of self-regulation training on the academic learning disabilities
productivity of secondary students with learning
problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4(1), 109-
133.

Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R. & Rauhanummi, T. (1999). 4b: Intervention used a

The role of metacognition in the context of integrated range of strategies to
strategy intervention. European Journal of Psychology teach skills, including the
of Education, 14(4), 555-569. use of a game and
teacher use of
transactional scaffolding
principles. Self-regulated
learning just one
component of training so
unable to isolate effects

30 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Appendix C: Studies included within the current review

Studies included within the current review

1. Camahalan, F. M. G. (2006). Effects of Self-Regulated Learning on Mathematics
Achievement of Selected Southeast Asian Children. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 33(3), 194-205. 
 
2. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R. &
Schroeter, K. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students mathematical problem
solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(2), 306-315. 
 
3. Perels, F., Dignath, C & Schmitz, B. (2009). Is it possible to improve mathematical
achievement by means of self-regulation strategies? Evaluation of an intervention
in regular math classes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(1), 17-
31.  
 
4. Perels, F., Gurtler, T. & Schmitz, B. (2005).Training of self-regulatory and
problem-solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 123-139.  
 
5. Stoeger, H. & Ziegler, A. (2005). Evaluation of an Elementary Classroom Self-
Regulated Learning Program for Gifted Mathematics Underachievers.
International Education Journal 6(2), 261-271. 
 
6. Stoeger, H. & Ziegler, A. (2008). Evaluation of a classroom based training to
improve self-regulated learning in time management tasks during homework
activities with fourth graders. Metacognition Learning, 3(3), 207-230. 
 
7. Stoeger, H. & Ziegler, A. (2010). Do Pupils with Differing Cognitive Abilities
Benefit Similarly from a Self-Regulated Learning Training Program? Gifted
Education International, 26(1), 110-123. 

31 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Appendix D: Summary of Included Studies

Camahalan (2006).
Sample Design Intervention Measures Outcomes
Demographics Randomised Pre- Length of intervention: 6 weeks (30 sessions) Mathematics Significant difference
60 pupils. test Post-test achievement between treatment and
Setting: Intervention conducted every day in the school library, following regular
Selected on design with no treatment groups
classes. Designed and implemented by researcher.
basis of low GPA intervention and Maths school grade on mathematics
and mathematics control group Outline of intervention: achievement
achievement Mathematics SRL F(1, 56)=15.51, p<0.01.
scores and poor 30 pupils within • Pupils and facilitator discussed the purpose of self-regulated strategies,
study habits. each year group and how and when to use them. Pupils were taught the value of personal Significant difference
randomly responsibility, self-efficacy, learning goal setting and attribution to effort. in maths self-regulated
Age
Grade 4 : Mean
assigned to • Zimmerman’s (1989) 14 SRL strategies were formally introduced and learning between
experimental and pupils were given the opportunity to practice these skills (performance treatment and control
age of 10.62
control conditions phase: task strategy use). groups
years
F(1,56)=132.99, p<0.01
Grade 6: Mean • Pupils taught how to write learning goals, how to sequence and plan
age of 12.85 activities (forethought phase: goal setting and strategic planning and a No difference between
years think-aloud strategy to rehearsing and memorising information. treatment and control
Country • Pupils collated quiz scores, assignments and work to monitor their in mathematics school
Philippines, performance (performance phase: self-observation). They also grade
South East Asia completed self-evaluation forms (self-reflection phase: self-evaluation). F(1,56)=0.08, p>0.05

• Pupils taught the importance of rewarding oneself when task was Performance in
accomplished using if-then contracts and encouraged to seek assistance experimental group
from various sources when they need more information. generally improved in all
3 measures
Following this, pupils applied SRL strategies (performance phase: task strategy
use) in maths lessons whilst monitoring and evaluating their progress in line with
their strategy use (performance phase: self-observation, self-reflection phase).
Pupils completed weekly forms on goal setting (forethought phase), self-
evaluation and self-rewarding.

32 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlett, Owen & Schroeter (2003)

Sample Design Intervention Measures Outcomes
Size & Gender Pre-test Post-test Length of intervention: 16 weeks Mathematical Pupil improvement
395 children randomised block achievement: (pre-test –pos-test):
5 problem solving units covered over 30 sessions (6 sessions per unit). Plus 2
tested before design with 1x Measured using Main effect of
cumulative review sessions. Pupils taught for 32 sessions in total.
and after training group and transfer tests (problem treatment condition on
intervention. 2x control groups Setting: Took place during normal mathematics instruction. Administered by solving tests which immediate transfer.
teachers, although research assistants taught first problem-solution lesson and differ according to F(2, 21)=187.6,
Teachers 24 teachers transfer lesson for each unit. level of abstraction). p<0.001.
allocated pupil’s volunteered to
Outline of intervention: 1) Immediate transfer
mathematical participate, Pupil improvement:
Intervention focused on 4 mathematical problem types which are covered within the test-problems

33 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

achievement random allocation district’s curriculum. All groups completed the same units. presented using Main effect of
status as high to 3 conditions (8 problem structures treatment condition on
a) Control group:
(HA) (90 pupils), teachers in each). learned in class. near transfer.
average (AA) • Received normal mathematics instruction 2) Near transfer test-
F(2, 21)=46.76,
(199 pupils) or p<0.001.
problems presented
low (LA) (106
within a familiar
pupils). b) Transfer group: *For both, control group
problem structure.
improved less than
Control group- • Taught rules for problem solving. Teaching for transfer involved explicitly However, differences
transfer group, transfer
teaching pupils how they can apply skills to new situations included novel cover
120 pupils group improved less
stories and quantities,
Transfer group - • At the end of each teaching session pupils completed one problem than SRL + transfer
and one additional
138 Transfer + independently and checked work against an answer key. group.
superficial problem
SRL group- 137
• Pupils were given problems for homework to return the next morning. feature.
Pupil improvement:
Age 3) Far transfer test- Main effect of
rd
3 Grade Pupils presented with treatment condition on
c) Transfer plus SRL group: familiar problems that far transfer.
Setting were presented in a F(2, 21)=4.03, p<0.05.
• Following completion of independent tasks and homework activities, pupils
Pupils attending novel format. All *SRL + transfer
scored their responses using an answer key which provided credit for the
6 schools in problem features were outperformed control
process of work and accuracy of answers (performance phase: self-
south eastern simultaneously varied group. No SD between
observation, self-reflection phase: self-evaluation).
urban school to those that had been control and transfer
district in the • Pupils recorded daily scores using a ‘thermometer’, which went from 0 to the addressed in the group, or transfer and
USA maximum score for that problem type (performance phase: self- treatment conditions. SRL + transfer.
observation). Pupils kept charts in a personal folder.
Self-regulated
Main effect of
• At the start of each session pupils inspected their charts and set goals learning: Researchers
treatment on self-
(forethought phase: goal setting). devised a
efficacy as measured
questionnaire entitled
• At the start of each unit pupils were discussed examples of how they had ‘what do you think?’,
by item 1 of self-
transferred the units problem structure to another part of the school day/outside regulated learning
consisting of 4 scale, F(2, 21)=3.81,
of school and shared with class (performance phase: self-observation, self- statements assessing
reflection phase: self-evaluation). p<0.05,
SR processes (e.g. I
*No difference between
• Teacher completed a class graph in order to record the number of pupils who know how to transfer
transfer and control,
had submitted homework and the number of pairs reporting a transfer event. skills I learn to new
transfer + SRL has a
types of maths
significant effect over
problem). Questions
transfer alone and
assessed self-efficacy,
control.
goal orientation and

34 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

self-monitoring. Main effect of

treatment on goal
orientation and self
monitoring as
measured by item 3 of
self-regulated learning
scale, F(2, 21)=3.88,
p<0.05.
*No difference between
transfer and no
treatment control.
Transfer + SRL has a
significant effect over
transfer alone and no
treatment control.
Perels, Dignath & Schmitz (2009)
Sample Design Intervention Measures Outcomes
Size & Gender Pre-test Post-test Based on 3 stage model of self-regulation proposed by Zimmerman (2000). Mathematics Marginally significant
55 pupils, 28 in design with achievement: Test interaction between
Length of intervention: 3 weeks
treatment group, training and consisting of time and group for
27 in control control group Intervention focused on division and multiplication; teaching unit consisted of 9 5 tasks, including 2 mathematical
group. lessons on the topic. word problems. Two performance:
One mathematics items dealt with F(1,52)=3.28, p<0.10
28 girls (14 in teacher who Setting: Took place during normal mathematics instruction. Administered by
divisibility, one with (marginal)
control, 14 in taught two parallel teachers. multipliers, one with *Both classes improved
intervention) and classes Outline of intervention: divisibility by 3 and the after intervention. Post
25 boys (13 in participated in the Control group: last measuring hoc t-test revealed that
control and 12 in study, one class knowledge on the only the experimental
intervention) received the Taught a mathematics unit without any special intervention. Learned three divisibility of sums. group showed a
intervention and strategies for handling mathematical word problems (problem solving contents). Maximum score of 19 significant increase
Age the other class Not directly related to contents of teaching unit but incorporated to ensure that time points. (t=3.72, p<0.01).
Sixth grade served as a taken to teach unit was the same for intervention and control.
control group. Intervention group: Self-regulated Significant
Mean age Teacher was 52 learning: interactions between
intervention: years old and had Completed unit with additional instruction of SRL strategies. 49 item scale time and group on
11.15 years been teaching for Pupils taught 8 self-regulation strategies. Teacher began lesson with repetition of constructed and self-regulation:
Mean age 27 years. the last lesson’s contents. Classes then followed with the ratio of 1:2 self- evaluated in a F(9, 37)=5.09, p<0.01,
control: 10.92 regulation: maths contents teaching. At the end of the lesson the teacher repeated previous study with 5 *Intervention group

35 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

years new contents and set homework. In addition to curriculum content, during the graders (Perels et al., showed more self-
intervention period pupils: 2005). regulated behaviour at
Country Response categories post-test, control
Germany • Reflected on previous problem solving strategies (self-reflection phase) and ranged from 1-4 (1-I showed small but
worked in groups to learn about new strategies (e.g. goal setting, planning, don’t agree at all, 2-I significant drop
dealing with distractions) which they assigned to each of the 3 stages of SRL don’t agree, 3-I agree,
proposed by Zimmerman. 4- I agree completely).
• Were taught about goal setting, and how distinguish between main and Scale gives an overall
subgoals (forethought phase: goal setting). measure of self-
regulation. Subscales
• Were taught to reach goals by planning small steps. Introduced to a worksheet measure goal setting,
that could help them to set goals and monitor progress (forethought phase: motivation, volition,
goal setting, performance phase: self-observation). learning strategies,
• Reflected on self-motivational strategies that they use. Given a handout monitoring, attribution,
outlining further strategies (self-reflection phase: self-evaluation). handling mistakes and
self-efficacy.
• Were taught how to plan how they could proceed on a mathematical problem in
a well structured manner. Discussed concentration and practiced concentration
exercises (performance phase: use of task strategy).
• Talked about dealing with internal and external distraction, and practised
strategies. Introduced concept of self-instruction.
• Learned how to note mistakes and learn from them (self-reflection: self-
evaluation).
Pupils kept diaries of self-defined goals in order to support self-monitoring during
the intervention (performance phase: self-observation).

Perels, Gurtler & Schmitz (2005)

Sample Design Intervention Measures Outcomes
Size & Gender Randomised pre- Based on 3 stage process model of self-regulation proposed Zimmerman (2000). Mathematical Significant time x
249 pupils (106 test Post-test achievement condition interaction
Length of intervention: 6 weeks
boys, 143 girls) design with 3x /Problem solving on mathematical
training and 1x no Setting: 6x90 minute training sessions after school on a weekly basis. Training test: Two parallel tests achievement.
58-67 pupils in intervention presented to subgroups of no more than 19 pupils, four subgroups per training administered during F(3, 233)=3.94, p<0.05,
each control groups pre and post testing *Problem solving group

36 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

experimental condition. phases. Included 17 surpassed all other

condition Random problem solving tasks interventions following
Outline of intervention:
assignment to 4 covering basic training. SRL training
Age experimental a) Self-regulation training mathematical and also improved. No SD
8th Grade conditions heuristic strategies. between training groups.
Ages 13 (67%), Included self-regulatory components that were applicable to learning in general as
a) self-regulation
14 (31%) and training well as for specific mathematical problem solving tasks (goal setting, motivation, Self-regulation: Marginal interaction
15(2%) b) self-regulation volitional strategies, self-efficacy and self-reflection) Questionnaire between time and
with problem b) Self-regulation with problem solving. developed to include training for overall
Country solving components of the scale of self-
Germany c) problem solving • Sessions started with a written summary of the training content covered process models of regulation.
training previously. self-regulation. 14 F(3, 196)=2.23, p=0.10
d) control group • Pupils learned about training model. Pupils were encouraged to think about statements, responses *Improvement seen in
strategy use by completing a problem in which several strategies could be on a scale from 1 to 4 combined group,
implemented. Pupils were then introduced to a problem solving method (1-I don’t agree at all, improvements in other
(‘working forwards’) which they practiced. At the end of the session they 2- I don’t agree, 3- I groups minimal, SRL
reflected on this new strategy and thought about how they could regulate agree, 4- I agree intervention did not
attention (self-reflection phase). completely). Topics show greater increase
covered included than other conditions.
• Pupils learned and practiced heuristic strategies of ‘working forwards’ and goals,
‘working backwards’. motivation/volition,
• Pupils learned how to set goals and were taught about the importance of learning strategies,
commitment to these goals (forethought phase: goal setting). self-reflection/handling
errors and self-
• Pupils worked in teams to develop different volitional strategies, given volitional efficacy. Some
problems (e.g. procrastination) and described what they would do to handle subscale items taken
them (forethought phase: strategic planning). from established
instruments.
• Pupils considered the self-regulatory component of ‘motivation’.
• Practiced heuristic strategy ‘principle of invariance’. Taught volitional strategies-
how to handle interfering/distracting thoughts during mathematical problem
solving. Practised two strategies- ‘stop negative thoughts’ and ‘reformulation of
negative thoughts’ (performance phase: task strategies).
• Practised self-reflection/handling errors by analysing errors in work (self-
reflection phase: self-evaluation).
• Homework set at the end of each session.

37 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

c) Problem solving training

Focused on instruction of heuristic strategies (working forwards and backwards, the
principles of invariance, table, figure and equation) for mathematical word problems
d) Control group –Received normal instruction.
Stoeger & Ziegler (2005)
Sample Design Intervention Measures Outcomes
Number of Pre-test Post-test Based on procedure outlined by Zimmerman, Boner & Kovach (1996). Incorporates Mathematical No significant effect of
participants randomised block 3-stages of Zimmerman’s (2000) self-regulatory process model. achievement: intervention on
36 design with Test developed by mathematical
Length of intervention: 6 weeks
underachievers, training and teachers. Content achievement
identified as control group Setting: Took place during normal mathematics instruction. Administered by based on material
having a teachers. covered in 6 week Significant effect of
discrepancy Random training period. 14 intervention on self
between IQ test assignment of Outline of intervention: efficacy:
items.
scores and groups: 25 Pupils given a sheet outlining concept of SRL, which they discussed with the class. F(1, 30)=1.97, p=0.08
performance in teachers Pupils were also given 5 homework skill activity sheets, which included lists of Self-reflection on *Increase in training
Maths participated, 12 study ‘tips’ (strategies). Both sheets were regularly referred to over course of learning: Subtests group, no change in
randomly training. taken from ‘How do control group
15 received allocated to you learn?’ (Gold &
training (8 girls, intervention At the end of each lesson pupils were given homework sheets for which they could Souvignier, 2000). Significant effect of
7 boys) condition, classes score up to 10 points. Pupils were instructed to look at the sheets and write down Adapted for use on a 6 intervention on self-
21 participants in of remaining how many questions they thought that they would answer correctly. Pupils then point Likert scale (very reflection on learning:
control group (9 teachers served completed homework sheets alongside standardised forms on which they recorded seldom to very often). F(1, 30)=1.82, p=0.09
girls, 12 boys). as a control group their goals, the strategies that they had chosen to use (forethought phase- goal *Increase in training
setting and strategic planning) and their learning behaviours when completing Self-efficacy: 5 new group, decrease in
Age homework (performance phase- self-observation). Homework sheets scored in items constructed. control group
Fourth grade class the next day. In addition, pupils completed weekly maths quizzes for which Three items
they also predicted their scores. considered Significant effect of
Intervention Following scoring or homework activities/maths quizzes, pupils were encouraged to expectation to be able intervention on
group: compare their actual performance to predicted performance (self-reflection phase to maintain good helplessness:
Mean ages: –self-evaluation). Teachers drew a link between homework behaviour skills and evaluation of F(1,29)=4.06, p=0.03
10.50 years results. Pupils were given hints on how they could improve their skills. performance and 2 *Decrease in training
(girls), 10.42 considered the degree group, no change in
years (boys) Pupils continued to use standardised forms to record: to which pupils control group
Control group: • New goals (forethought phase) believed that they
Mean ages: • New strategies chosen (forethought phase) could attain learning

38 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

10.13 years • Daily scores on exercise sets (alongside score predictions) (performance gains. Rated on 6
(girls), 10.67 phase- self-observation; self-reflection phase- self-evaluation) point Likert scale
years (boys) (‘absolutely disagree’
• Weekly scores in Maths quizzes (alongside predictions) to ‘agree completely’).
Country • Learning behaviours when completing homework (performance phase- self-
Germany observation) Helplessness:
4 items taken from
• Reflection on whether strategy aided goal attainment (self-reflection phase- ‘Helplessness scale’
self-evaluation) Breikopf (1985),
This cycle was repeated on a weekly basis. measures anxiety and
beliefs of non
Control group worked on same mathematics assignments as treatment group but contingency between
received no SRL training. actions and
consequences. Rated
on a 6-point scale
(‘absolutely disagree’
to ‘agree completely’).
Stoeger & Ziegler (2008).
Sample Design Intervention Measures Outcomes
Size & Gender Pre-test Post-test Based on procedure outlined by Zimmerman, Boner & Kovach (1996). Incorporates Maths achievement: Interaction between
219 participants randomised block 3-stages of Zimmerman’s (2000) self-regulatory process model. 40 minute test time and group on
design with designed by teachers. mathematical
Length of intervention: 5 weeks
115 in treatment training and Based on material achievement.
condition (52 control group Setting: Took place during normal mathematics instruction. Administered by covered prior to and F(1, 217)=11.84,
girls, 63 boys) teachers. during training period. MSE=39.02, p<0.01.
104 in control 17 teachers Graded using German *Controlled dipped,
group (58 girls, Outline of intervention:
randomly grading system, training group remained
46 boys) allocated to See summary of intervention used by Stoeger & Ziegler (2005) 1=very good, constant
control/treatment 6=insufficient.
Age conditions (9 Assessment. Interaction between
Fourth grade classes received time and group for
treatment, 8 Self-reflection on self-efficacy.
Average ages at control) learning: Subtests F(2,216)=16.01,
start of study: taken from ‘How do MSE=0.263, p<0.001,
10.64 years you learn?’ (Gold & * Increased in treatment
(boys), 10.57 Souvignier, 2000). group and decreased
(girls) Adapted for use on a 6 slightly in control group.
point Likert scale (very

39 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Country seldom to very often). Interaction between

Germany time and group for
Self-efficacy: self-reflection on
Researchers learning.
constructed 5 new F(2,216)=4.20,
items. Assessed using MSE=0.55, p<0.05,
6 point Likert scale *Intervention group
(absolutely disagree to lower at pre-test, no
agree completely). differences following
intervention.
Helplessness: 4 items
taken from Interaction between
‘Helplessness scale’ time and group on
Breikopf (1985), helplessness.
measures anxiety and F(2, 216)=17.17,
beliefs of non MSE=0.35, p<0.001,
contingency between *Treatment lower levels
actions and at t2, control group
consequences. remained stable.
Assessed using 6
point Likert scale .
(absolutely disagree to
agree completely)
Stoeger & Ziegler (2010)
Sample Design Intervention Measures Outcomes
Size & Gender Pre-test Post-test Based on procedure outlined by Zimmerman, Boner & Kovach (1996). Incorporates Mathematics Significant main effect
201 participants randomised block 3-stages of Zimmerman’s (2000) self-regulatory process model. achievement: 40 of intervention on
design with minute test developed mathematical
Length of intervention: 5 weeks
Training group: training and by teachers. Content achievement.
100 pupils, 45 control group (8 Setting: Took place during normal mathematics instruction. Administered by based on material F(1, 191)=11.76,
girls & 55 boys classes for each) teachers. covered in training p<0.01.
Control group: period. Graded using *Performance
101 pupils, 56 Outline of intervention:
8 teachers German grading decreased in control
girls and 45 boys randomly chosen See summary of intervention used by Stoeger & Ziegler (2005) system, 1=very good, group.
to conduct 6=insufficient.
Age intervention from Significant main effect
Average age at pool of 16, pupils Self reflection on of intervention on self-
start of study: in remaining learning: 4 item scale reflection on learning.

40 
 
 Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

10.64 years teacher’s classes derived from ‘how do *Increased in treatment

(boys), 10.54 served as controls you learn?’ (Gold & group.
(girls) Souvignier, 2000)
Significant main effect
Country Self-efficacy: of intervention on self-
Germany Researchers efficacy. *Increased in
constructed 5 new treatment group.
Setting items as previously
German public used scales did not Significant main effect
schools appear to be of intervention on
Participants appropriate for sample helplessness.
across 16 during pilot. *Decreased in treatment
classes group.
Helplessness:
4 items taken from
‘Helplessness scale’
Breikopf (1985).

41 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

Appendix E: Weighting of Studies

(A) Methodological Quality

This weighting was based upon ratings given to each of the studies using the coding
protocols.

Within the coding protocol, ‘measures’, ‘type of comparison group’ and ‘quality of
evidence’ were rated on a scale from 0-3 with a score of ‘1’ indicating ‘weak
evidence’, ‘2’ indicating ‘promising evidence’ and ‘3’ indicating ‘strong evidence’. In
order to attain an overall measure of methodological quality these 3 ratings were
averaged.

• In order to receive a ‘high’ weighting for ‘methodological quality’ a study must

receive an average rating of 2.6 or above.
• In order to receive a ‘medium’ weighting for ‘methodological quality’ a study
must receive an average rating between 1.5 and 2.5.
• In order to receive a ‘low’ weighting for methodological quality a study must
receive an average rating of 1.4 or below.

(B) Methodological Relevance

This weighting considers whether the methodological design was suitable for
evaluating the efficacy of self-regulated learning interventions in improving
mathematical performance.

• In order to receive a ‘high’ weighting for ‘methodological relevance’ a study

must include random assignment of participants to an intervention group and
an ‘active’ comparison group (e.g. alternative intervention condition). The
study must also include pre and post measures for both the intervention and
the control group.
• In order to receive a ‘medium’ weighting for ‘methodological relevance’ a
study must include random assignment of participants to an intervention
group and no intervention control group. The study must also include pre and
post measures for both the intervention and the control group.
• In order to receive a ‘low’ weighting for ‘methodological relevance’ a study
must include a comparison group. Random assignment to conditions is not
necessary. The study does not need to include both pre and post test
measures.

(C) Relevance to review question

This weighting considers whether the study contributes to answering the research
question.

42 
 
Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology Sinead Neal

• In order to receive a ‘high’ weighting for ‘relevance’ a study must include

pupils from the United Kingdom. The intervention should be conducted by a
teacher within the natural classroom setting. The intervention period should
exceed 6 weeks.
• In order to receive a ‘medium’ weighting for ‘relevance’ a study must include
pupils attending schools within Europe or the USA. The intervention should be
either a) conducted by teachers or researchers within the natural classroom
setting, or b) the intervention period should last no fewer than 3 weeks.
• In order to receive a ‘low’ weighting for ‘relevance’ a study may include pupils
attending schools outside of Europe or the USA. The intervention may be
conducted by teachers or researchers outside of the natural classroom
setting. The intervention may last fewer than 3 weeks. Pupils may be from a
special population (e.g. high ability pupils who are underachieving in Maths).

(D) Overall weight of evidence

In order to determine the overall weight of evidence (D), studies were assigned
numerical values for each of the three weighting categories: A (methodological
quality), B (methodological relevance) and C (relevance to review question). For
each category studies received a numerical value of ‘1’ for a low weighting, ‘2’ for a
medium weighting and ‘3’ for a high weighting. These three scores were then
averaged to give an overall weight of evidence score (D).

• In order to receive a ‘high’ overall weighting a study must receive an average

score of 2.6 or above.
• In order to receive a ‘medium’ overall weighting a study must receive an
average score between 1.5 and 2.5.
• In order to receive a ‘low’ overall weighting a study must receive an average
score of 1.4 or below.

43