Training interventions for self-regulated learning foster the use of strategies and skills as well as their transfer to new learning tasks. Because cognitive strategies or motivation regulation strategies are task-specific, their transfer is limited. In contrast, metacognitive skills are task-general and transferable to a wide variety of learning tasks. Questions arise, therefore, as to whether students transfer metacognitive skills spontaneously and how to support metacognitive skill transfer. Previous research shows that hybrid training, which addresses both metacognitive skills and cognitive strategies, supports near transfer. However, it is not clear whether hybrid training also fosters far transfer of metacognitive skills. In investigating this research question, 233 fifth-grade students were randomly assigned to six different conditions: two hybrid-training conditions (metacognitive skills and one out of two cognitive strategies), two non-hybrid training conditions (“only” one out of two cognitive strategies), and two control training conditions (neither metacognitive skills nor cognitive strategies). After 15 weeks of training, transfer of metacognitive skills to learning tasks similar to training tasks (near transfer) was tested. In the following 15 weeks, all students received a second, non-hybrid training involving a new cognitive strategy. Far transfer of metacognitive skills to the new cognitive strategy was tested afterward. The results show that hybrid training, compared to non-hybrid and control training, improved both students’ near and far transfer of metacognitive skills. Moreover, cognitive strategy use increased in at least one of the hybrid-training conditions. However, since the level of metacognitive skills use remained low, further means to support transfer are discussed.

Models of self-regulated learning emphasize the active and intentional role of learners and, thereby, focus mainly on conscious processes in working memory and long-term memory. Cognitive load theory supports this view on learning. As a result, both fields of research ignore the potential role of unconscious processes for learning. In this review paper, we propose an interactive layers model on self-regulated learning and cognitive load that considers sensory memory, working memory, and long-term memory. The model distinguishes between (a) unconscious self-regulated learning initiated by so-called resonant states in sensory memory and (b) conscious self-regulated learning of scheme construction in working memory. In contrast with conscious self-regulation, unconscious self-regulation induces no cognitive load. The model describes conscious and unconscious self-regulation in three different layers: a content layer, a learning strategy layer, and a metacognitive layer. Interactions of the three layers reflect processes of monitoring and control. We first substantiate the model based on a narrative review. Afterwards, we illustrate how the model contributes to re-interpretation of inconsistent empirical findings reported in the existing literature.

Lively research on self-regulated learning has produced a great number of models of self-regulated learning competence and it is still a challenge to integrate them within a single coherent framework. However, such a framework is necessary for, among other reasons, the development of valid assessment methods. We argue that one common characteristic of all models is that they consider the competence to make solid comparisons as a key competence of self-regulated learning. However, the kind of comparisons and the kind of standards used for these comparisons differ between models. The same is true for assessment methods. Valid assessment methods also have implemented comparisons and they also differ concerning the kind of comparison and the kind of standards used for assessment. In order to categorize both, models as well as assessment methods, we propose to distinguish between component models and process models of self-regulated learning. Component models imply the use of offline standards for assessment whereas process models imply the use of online standards. Both offline and online standards can be either quantitative or qualitative. We show that using qualitative standards leads to a higher validity of the assessment than using quantitative standards. This advantage of qualitative standards can be shown for both offline standards as well as online standards.

Metacognitive skills are often considered domain-general, therefore they have the potential to transfer across domains, subjects, and tasks. However, transfer of metacognitive skills seldomly occurs spontaneously. Schuster et al., (2020) showed that training can have beneficial effects on spontaneous near and far transfer of metacognitive skills. However, evidence of metacognitive skill transfer resulting in superior acquisition of content knowledge is pending. In the present study we set out to extend prior findings by investigating whether students benefit from training metacognitive skills not only regarding metacognitive skill application but also regarding content knowledge acquisition in learning tasks of different transfer distances. 243 fifth-grade students were randomly assigned to three different conditions for the first 15 weeks of a school year: two hybrid metacognitive skill training conditions (metacognitive skills and one out of two cognitive strategies) and one non-hybrid training condition (cognitive strategies or motivation regulation only). For the second 15 weeks of the school year, all students received non-hybrid training involving a new cognitive strategy. Spontaneous metacognitive skill transfer of different transfer distances (near and far) was tested after the first and after the second 15 weeks of training. The effect of hybrid metacognitive skill training on the acquisition of content knowledge was measured once directly after the first 15 weeks. Results show that hybrid metacognitive skill training supported spontaneous transfer of metacognitive skills to learning scenarios of both near and far transfer distance. However, hybrid metacognitive skill training only had a positive effect on content knowledge acquisition if metacognitive skill transfer was near.

Problem solving competence cannot be described as a unidimensional construct. At least analytical and dynamic aspects of problem solving competence have to be distinguished if all aspects of problem solving are to be covered. Analytical problem solving abilities are needed to structure, represent and integrate information. Dynamic problem solving includes aspects of self-regulated learning as well as the ability to adapt the problem solving process to a changing environment by continuously processing feedback information. The assessment of dynamic aspects of problem solving competence requires dynamic test environments. As a German national option of PISA 2000, the analytical and dynamic problem solving competencies of 15-year-old students were tested using paper-and-pencil tests as well as computer-based assessments. Results show that analytical aspects of problem solving competence are strongly correlated with reasoning, while dynamic problem solving reflects a specific dimension of self-regulated exploration and control that can be identified across computer-simulated domains.

Time management is regarded as an important prerequisite for effective and efficient learning in higher education. However, university students’ time management frequently proves to be deficient, especially with freshman students, who can therefore benefit from appropriate time management interventions. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of an intervention focused on imparting time management knowledge with those of an intervention focused on time management practice. We conducted an experiment with N = 118 university students who took part in a course over the duration of one semester. Participants with a time management deficit at the beginning of the semester (n = 88) were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (a) time management knowledge, (b) time management practice, (c) control group. Exam scores at the end of the semester were considered as an indicator of participants’ academic performance. The results showed significant time management improvements for both time management intervention groups, but the time management practice group appeared superior. Academic performance was better in the time management practice group also, although the results were inconsistent. The effect of time management practice on academic performance was mediated by students’ time management skills.