Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Exploring the Effects of Metacognitive Prompts in Simulation Games on Metacognitive Regulation,Cognitive,and Socio-Emotional Factors among University Students
Research indicates that metacognitive prompts support learning outcomes such as group metacognition, socially shared regulation of learning, and group cohesion. Yet, their application at the group-level within simulation-based learning environments remains underexplored. This study examines the effects of embedding metacognitive prompts into two business simulation games on metacognitive self-regulation, socially shared metacognitive regulation, collaborative knowledge building, team cohesion, and teamwork satisfaction. 16 undergraduate students from two finance-related modules participated in a two-wave longitudinal within-subjects design, with data collected through self-report surveys. Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no significant interaction effects of treatment and time, nor main effects of treatment, across outcomes. However, time effects were significant for all variables except for knowledge of cognition and shared planning. Pairwise comparisons showed improvements from Time-1 to Time-2 across most outcomes, with minor exceptions. Overall, these findings suggest that metacognitive prompts consistently foster regulatory and team outcomes regardless of the simulation game environment.
BachM. P.ĆurlinT.StjepićA. M.MeškoM. (2023). Quo vadis business simulation games in the 21st century?Information, 14(3), 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14030178
2.
BannertM. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts: A discussion. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139
3.
BannertM.MengelkampC. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think-aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalization method affect learning?Metacognition and Learning, 3, 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9009-6
4.
BiasuttiM.FrateS. (2018). Group metacognition in online collaborative learning: Validity and reliability of the group metacognition scale (GMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1321–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9583-0
5.
BlancaM. J.ArnauJ.García-CastroF. J.AlarcónR.BonoR. (2022). Non-normal data in repeated measures ANOVA: Impact on type I error and power. Psicothema, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2022.292
6.
BraadE.DegensN.IJsselsteijnW. (2019). Towards a framework for metacognition in game-based learning. In ElbaekL.MajgaardG.ValenteA.KhalidS. (Eds.), 13th International conference on game based learning (ECGBL 2019) (pp. 101–109). Dechema eV. https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.19.067
7.
BraunM. T.KozlowskiS. W.BrownT. A.DeShonR. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Research, 51(5), 551–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420907157
8.
ButlerD. L. (2002). Qualitative approaches to investigating self-regulated learning: Contributions and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 37, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_7
9.
ButlerD. L.WinneP. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
10.
ChanC. K. (2012). Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9086-z
11.
ChanC. K. K.ChanY.-Y. (2011). Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in knowledge forum. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1445–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003
12.
ChaoC. T.ChiuY. L.TsaiC. L.LinM. W.YangC. W.HoC. C.HsuC.ChenH. L. (2025). The role of team dynamics and team acquaintance in group metacognition during medical students’ collaborative learning. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), Article 946. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07522-y
13.
ChenJ.TangL.TianH.OuR.WangJ.ChenQ. (2023). The effect of mobile business simulation games in entrepreneurship education: A quasi-experiment. Library Hi Tech, 41(5), 1333–1356. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-12-2021-0509
14.
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
15.
CuevasH. M.FioreS. M.BowersC. A.SalasE. (2004). Fostering constructive cognitive and metacognitive activity in computer-based complex task training environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.016
16.
De BackerL.Van KeerH.ValckeM. (2015). Exploring evolutions in reciprocal peer tutoring groups’ socially shared metacognitive regulation and identifying its metacognitive correlates. Learning and Instruction, 38, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.04.001
17.
De BackerL.Van KeerH.ValckeM. (2020). Variations in socially shared metacognitive regulation and their relation with university students’ performance. Metacognition and Learning, 15, 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09229-5
18.
De BackerL.Van KeerH.ValckeM. (2021). Examining the relation between students’ active engagement in shared metacognitive regulation and individual learner characteristics. International Journal of Educational Research, 110, 101892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101892
19.
De BackerL.Van KeerH.ValckeM. (2022). The functions of shared metacognitive regulation and their differential relation with collaborative learners’ understanding of the learning content. Learning and Instruction, 77, 101527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101527
20.
De la TorreR.OnggoB. S.CorluC. G.NogalM.JuanA. A. (2021). The role of simulation and serious games in teaching concepts on circular economy and sustainable energy. Energies, 14(4), 1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14041138
21.
DeshpandeA. A.HuangS. H. (2011). Simulation games in engineering education: A state-of-the-art review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19(3), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20323
22.
DiDonatoN. C. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9
23.
DurakH. Y.ArslantaşT. K. (2025). Socially shared metacognitive supports in flipped or online classroom collaborative groups: examining the effect on motivation, group metacognition, group belonging, and cohesion. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-025-09430-y
24.
EfklidesA. (2008). Metacognition. Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
25.
EjazH.ShafiqueI.QammarA. (2024). The role of team cohesion and ambidexterity in enhancing employee adaptive performance: An examination of a multilevel model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(5), 1082–1101. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2023-0367
26.
ElKelishW. W.AhmedR. (2021). Advancing accounting education using LEGO® serious play simulation technique. Accounting Education, 31(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1905011
27.
FaisalN.ChadharM.Goriss-HunterA.StranieriA. (2022). Business simulation games in higher education: A systematic review of empirical research. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022(1), 1578791. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1578791
28.
FaithL. C.ProwseV. (2024). How a socially shared approach may rescue the teaching of learning regulation. Teacher Development, 28(3), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2024.2318326
29.
FilhoE.TenenbaumG.YangY. (2015). Cohesion, team mental models, and collective efficacy: Towards an integrated framework of team dynamics in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(6), 641–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.957714
30.
FiorellaL.MayerR. E. (2012). Paper-based aids for learning with a computer-based game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1074–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028088
31.
FiorellaL.Vogel-WalcuttJ. J.FioreS. (2012). Differential impact of two types of metacognitive prompting provided during simulation-based training. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.017
32.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
33.
FransenJ.WeinbergerA.KirschnerP. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.747947
34.
GarciaC.PrivadoJ. (2023). Predicting cooperative work satisfaction of autonomous groups using a wiki tool in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1764590
35.
GeorgeD.MalleryP. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
36.
GreenC.MolloyO.DugganJ. (2021). An empirical study of the impact of systems thinking and simulation on sustainability education. Sustainability, 14(1), 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010394
37.
HadwinA.JärveläS.MillerM. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In SchunkD. H.GreeneJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance ((2nd ed, pp. 83–106). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-6
38.
HadwinA. F.JärveläS.MillerM. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch5
39.
HinszV. B.BuiL. (2023). Socially shared affect: Shared affect, affect sharing, and affective processing in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 27(4), 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000207
40.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.DuncanR. G.ChinnC. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
41.
HuangY. M.SilitongaL. M.MurtiA. T.WuT. T. (2023). Learner engagement in a business simulation game: Impact on higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 96–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221106918
42.
HurmeT. L.PalonenT.JärveläS. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: An analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-9792-5
IiskalaT.VaurasM.LehtinenE.SalonenP. K. (2011). Socially shared metacognition in dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.002
45.
IiskalaT.VoletS.LehtinenE.VaurasM. (2015). Socially shared metacognitive regulation in asynchronous CSCL in science: Functions, evolution, and participation. Frontline Learning Research, 3, 78–111. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v3i1.159
46.
JärveläS.KirschnerP. A.HadwinA.JärvenojaH.MalmbergJ.MillerM.LaruJ. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9238-2
47.
KimB.ParkH.BaekY. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using metacognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.004
48.
KimD.LimC. (2018). Promoting socially shared metacognitive regulation in collaborative project-based learning: A framework for the design of structured guidance. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1379484
49.
KokX.-F. K. (2024). Quick Fix: A vignette-based approach to demystifying the concept of metacognition. College Teaching, 1–3. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2024.2440892
50.
KokX.-F. K. (2025a). Socially shared regulation of learning: Antecedents, strategies, and team outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore]. NIE Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.32658/10497/29732
51.
KokX.-F. K. (2025b). Measuring socially shared regulation of learning: A review and critique of existing self-report surveys. Metacognition and Learning, 20, Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09441-1
52.
KokX.-F. K.JutasompakornP.YeowE. Y. W.TehnJ. H. S.SeeM. F.AungM. M.ChanN. S. L.LohV. M. R. (2025a). Unpacking socially shared metacognitive regulation (SSMR) strategies in a simulation-based learning environment [Paper Presentation]. Applied Learning Conference 2025. Singapore Institute of Technology. https://doi.org/10.25447/sit.29231564.v1
53.
KokX.-F. K.JutasompakornP.YeowE. Y. W.TehnJ. H. S.SeeM. F.AungM. M.ChanN. S. L.LohV. M. R. (2025b). Exploring socially shared metacognitive regulation (SSMR) strategies in a simulation game environment. Education and Information Technologies, 25411–25439. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13766-4
54.
KozlowskiS. W. J.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
55.
KuH.-Y.TsengH. W.AkarasriwornC. (2013). Collaboration factors, teamwork satisfaction, and student attitudes toward online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(3), 922–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.019
56.
LeeC.FarhJ. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology, 53(1), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00164.x
57.
LiJ.LinY.SunM.ShadievR. (2020). Socially shared regulation of learning in game-based collaborative learning environments promotes algorithmic thinking, learning participation and positive learning attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(3), 1715–1726. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1857783
58.
LiJ.LiuJ.YuanR.ShadievR. (2022). The influence of socially shared regulation on computational thinking performance in cooperative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202201_25(1).0004
59.
LiW.LiuC. Y.TsengJ. C. (2023). Development of a metacognitive regulation-based collaborative programming system and its effects on students’ learning achievements, computational thinking tendency and group metacognition. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13358
60.
LinJ.-W. (2018). Effects of an online team project-based learning environment with group awareness and peer evaluation on socially shared regulation of learning and self-regulated learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(5), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1451558
61.
LiuC. Y.LiW.HuangJ. Y.LeiL. Y.ZhangP. R. (2023). Collaborative programming based on social shared regulation: An approach to improving students’ programming achievements and group metacognition. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(5), 1714–1731. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12828
62.
LiuY.YeY. (2025). Exploring how group cooperative learning affect college students’ online self-regulated learning—the important role of socially shared regulation, perceived task value, and teacher support. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 40(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00911-9
63.
LobczowskiN. G.LyonsK.GreeneJ. A.McLaughlinJ. E. (2021). Socially shared metacognition in a project-based learning environment: A comparative case study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30, Article 100543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100543
64.
López-HernándezC.Lizarraga-ÁlvarezG. I.Soto-PérezM. (2022). Enhancing learning of accounting principles through experiential learning in a board game. Accounting Education, 32(3), 300–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2059770
65.
MalmbergJ.JärveläS.JärvenojaH. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009
66.
MansorZ. D.HossanD. (2021). Effect of team cohesion on employee engagement among the millennials in Malaysia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/1939-4675-25-S4-59
67.
MaynardM. T.KennedyD. M.SommerS. A.PassosA. M. (2015). Team cohesion: A theoretical consideration of its reciprocal relationships within the team adaptation nomological network. In SalasE.VesseyW. B.EstradaA. X. (Eds.), Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice (pp. 83–111). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-085620150000017005
68.
MeijerJ.VeenmanM. V. J.van Hout-WoltersB. H. A. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500479991
69.
MelznerN.GreiselM.DreselM.KollarI. (2020). Regulating self-organized collaborative learning: The importance of homogeneous problem perception, immediacy and intensity of strategy use. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(2), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09323-5
70.
MichalskyT. (2013). Integrating skills and wills instruction in self-regulated science text reading for secondary students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1846–1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.805890
71.
MoserS.ZumbachJ.DeiblI. (2017). The effect of metacognitive training and prompting on learning success in simulation-based physics learning. Science Education, 101(6), 944–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21295
PanaderoE.KirschnerP. A.JärveläS.MalmbergJ.JärvenojaH. (2015). How individual self-regulation affects group regulation and performance: A shared regulation intervention. Small Group Research, 46(4), 431–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415591219
74.
PintrichP. R. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
QuinnC. N. (2005). Engaging learning: Designing e-learning simulation games. John Wiley & Sons.
77.
RogatT. K.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 375–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.607930
78.
RojasM.NussbaumM.GuerreroO.ChiuminattoP.GreiffS.Del RioR.AlvaresD. (2022). Integrating a collaboration script and group awareness to support group regulation and emotions towards collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 17(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09362-0
79.
RolandK. P.BuchananW. K. (2014). Innovate, engage, and impact: Experimental learning case used to meet new AACSB standards. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 2(10), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol2.iss10.241
80.
RoschelleJ.TeasleyS. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’MalleyC. (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5
ScardamaliaM. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In SmithB. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Open Court.
83.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge University Press.
84.
ShaoJ.ChenY.WeiX.LiX.LiY. (2023). Effects of regulated learning scaffolding on regulation strategies and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1110086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1110086
85.
SharmaK.NguyenA.HongY. (2024). Self-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning in adaptive digital learning environments: A systematic review of empirical studies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1398–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13459
86.
SilvaR.RodriguesR.LealC. (2021). Games based learning in accounting education – which dimensions are the most relevant?Accounting Education, 30(2), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1891107
87.
SitzmannT. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
88.
StahlG. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. The MIT Press.
89.
TsengH.KuH. (2011). The relationships between trust, performance, satisfaction, and development progressions among virtual teams. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRDE-06-2011-0002
90.
van den BosscheP.GijselaersW. H.SegersM.KirschnerP. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviours. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938
91.
van der GraafJ.RakovićM.FanY.LimL.SinghS.BannertM.GaševićD.MolenaarI. (2023). How to design and evaluate personalized scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 18(3), 783–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09361-y
92.
VelezA.AlonsoR. K. (2025). Business simulation games for the development of decision making: Systematic review. Education Sciences, 15(2), 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020168
93.
Vincent-LancrinS.González-SanchoC.BouckaertM.de LucaF.Fernández-BarrerraM.JacotinG., et al. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. OECD Publishing.
94.
VoletS.SummersM.ThurmanJ. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained?Learning and Instruction, 19, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001
95.
WanZ. H.LeeJ. C.-K.YanZ.KoP. Y. (2023). Self-regulatory school climate, group regulation and individual regulatory ability: Towards a model integrating three domains of self-regulated learning. Educational Studies, 49(5), 783–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1894093
XieK.HensleyL. C.LawV.SunZ. (2019). Self-regulation as a function of perceived leadership and cohesion in small group online collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12594
98.
ZhengL. (2017). A socially shared regulation approach to improving group cohesion, collective efficacy, and regulation skills in CSCL. In ZhengL. (Ed.), Knowledge building and regulation in computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 83–96). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1972-2_6
99.
ZhengL.LiX.ZhangX.SunW. (2019). The effects of group metacognitive scaffolding on group metacognitive behaviours, group performance, and cognitive load in computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.03.002
100.
ZhengL.ZhongL.NiuJ.LongM.ZhaoJ. (2021). Effects of personalized intervention on collaborative knowledge building, group performance, socially shared metacognitive regulation, and cognitive load in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202107_24(3).0013
101.
ZimmermanB.MoylanA. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). Routledge.
102.
ZumbachJ.RammerstorferL.DeiblI. (2020). Cognitive and metacognitive support in learning with a serious game about demographic change. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.026
