Content uploaded by Sweta Saraff
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sweta Saraff on Oct 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Impact of Metacognitive Strategies on Self-Regulated
Learning and Intrinsic Motivation
Sweta Saraff,* Rishipal**, Malabika Tripathi*, RK Biswal***,
and Anupama Srivastava Saxena****
ABSTRACT
Metacognition is an act of thinking about your thinking, reasoning or decision
making or simply cognition. It may also be understood as being aware of your
cognitive mechanism and using it to learn in a more proactive way. Metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive regulation are the two types of metacognitive
strategies. Self- regulation as a construct implies controlling and maintaining one’s
behaviour. The theory of intrinsic motivation posits that there is a natural pull and
push to achieve mastery in areas of perceived competence. The aim of the present
research is to study the impact of metacognititive strategies on self- regulated
learning and intrinsic motivation. The primary motive of the study was to explore
whether metacognitive strategies effect self-regulated learning behaviour and
intrinsic motivation of undergraduate students. For all analysis, the significance
level was kept at 0.05. The statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS v. 25.0.
Data were collected from 440 undergraduate students divided in two group i.e.
experimental and control. The result revealed that in all domains of metacognitive
strategies, mean of experimental group was higher than the control group.
Keywords: Education, Intrinsic Motivation, Metacognitive strategies, Self-Regulated
learning,
INTRODUCTION
The complexities of Nature’s adaptive tendencies has intrigued all. Theory of learning
has moved beyond stimulus (S) – response (R) paradigm of Behavioural Theorists to
selecting information based on its value or usefulness. Adaptation to environment is
not limited to human beings only, even microorganisms like bacteria can select their
Journal of Psychosocial Research
Vol. 15, No. 1, 2020, 35-46
DOI No. : https://doi.org/10.32381/JPR.2020.15.01.3
Corresponding author. Email : malabikatripathi1@gmail.com uggup@gmail.comflame.edu.in
ISSN 0973-5410 print/ISSN 0976-3937 online
©2020 Dr. H. L. Kaila
http//www.printspublications.com
Sweta Saraff, Rishipal, Malabika Tripathi, RK Biswal and Anupama Srivastava Saxena
J. Psychosoc. Res.
36
food (Monod, 1942, Shapiro, 2011, Cowley et al., 2017). Adaptive tendencies are akin to
abstraction and intelligence. Intelligence can be defined as the adaptive prowess of an
individual in any given situation or an environment. Sternberg, R. J. (2019) defines
intelligence as “the ability to learn from experience as well as to adapt to the surrounding
environment.”
Thinking can also be assumed as information-processing, for consumption in some
active process of reasoning and decision – making which leads to learning. Some
behaviours are learned passively, merely by observation, without actively participating
in the process of deliberation. This study explores the role of motivation in application
of metacognitive strategies and self-regulated behaviour in learning of students. The
incessant competition to excel among students has forced them to race against time.
The quality of learning is deteriorating due lack of in-depth or insightful learning. To
gain new knowledge or skill, the experience of it must be a mixture of curiosity, facts,
processes and abstraction. The students’ motivation to learn has a deep impact upon
the quality and reproducibility of learning.
Metacognitive Strategies
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994) define metacognition as “the ability to reflect
upon, understand and control one’s learning”. It is an act of thinking about your
thinking, reasoning or decision making, simply cognition. It may also be understood
as being aware of your cognitive mechanism and using it to learn in a more proactive
way (Omrod, 2004). Metacognitive strategies have been further divided into
metacognitive knowledge & metacognitive regulation (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1987;
Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S., 1994; Young, A., & Fry, J. D., 2008).
Metacognitive knowledge has been conceptualised as an aggregation of
declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge (Schraw and Moshman, 1995).
Declarative knowledge is knowing about what we are learning or the concepts,
procedural knowledge is understanding the process or strategies of learning and
conditional knowledge is to be able to apply it. Having knowledge of metacognition
implies gaining an insight into ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘when’ of any educational
concept or material.
Regulation of cognition include planning, information management strategies,
comprehension monitoring, debugging and evaluation (Schraw, G., 1994; Schraw, G.
& Dennison, R. S., 1994; Schraw and Moshman, 1995). Organising the learning material
like books in a library with proper indexing is equally valuable for memory retention
and recall whenever required. Information management provides an easy & quick
access to stored material in the brain whereas debugging and evaluation serve as
essential strategies to make it permanent & accurate.
Impact of Metacognitive Strategies on Self- Regulated Learning and Intrinsic Motivation 37
J. Psychosoc. Res.
Self-Regulated Learning
Self- regulation as a construct implies controlling and maintaining one’s behaviour
(Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., 1987). It is viewed in continuity from more to less autonomy
or control over one’s learning (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Children who perceive external
pressure have comparatively low motivation to initiate regular studies than those
who are eager to study on their own. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987) proposes
that children’s self-initiating behavior towards learning can be observed by placing
them in an environment where there is no external pressure to perform. Learning is
conceived as an active process and is mostly successful when learners are motivated
and engaged in the act of knowing and remembering for later use (deCharms, 1976;
Thomas, 1980).
It was observed by Piaget (1971) that children have an innate desire to learn as
they grow in age and they also equip themselves with the skill to assimilate information.
Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985) credit the interest to learn to an internal locus of
control in the absence of external rewards or pressures. However parent’s influence
on children’s learning behaviour and outcome is paramount, Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan,
R. M. (1989) associate parent’s teaching strategies with child’s attitude and perception
towards education and its outcome. The main motive of education is to empower
children to develop autonomy and competency in specific fields for their personal
growth and development to sustain and flourish impeccably.
Motivation
The theory of intrinsic motivation posits that there is a natural pull and push to
achieve mastery in areas of perceived competence (Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., &
Grolnick, W. S., 1992). According to Ryan & Deci (2000), the relevance of extrinsic
motivation in case of today’s students plays a determining role in shaping their career
interests and learning outcome. The pressure to perform by parents, peers, teachers
or self – set idealistic or comparative goals may many a times lead to resentment or
it may generate a push to perform to achieve a goal (Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., 1987).
Many learning tasks are repetitive & boring in nature, they require continuous efforts
from educators to motivate children through extrinsic rewards like praise, marks &
other forms of appreciation which boosts their self- worth. Some children later
internalise and integrate the rewards as a part of their identity (Deci, E. L., & Ryan,
R. M., 1985, 1980).
Self-determination theory (SDT) of human motivation by Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.
M. (2008) is based on empirical evidence and targets not only extrinsic/ intrinsic types,
it also discusses amotivation, controlled and autonomous motivation. These factors
affect performance, learning & well-being by focusing on key areas of perceived
Sweta Saraff, Rishipal, Malabika Tripathi, RK Biswal and Anupama Srivastava Saxena
J. Psychosoc. Res.
38
competency, autonomy & relatedness. The relationship of self –determination with
mindfulness has a significant impact on various applied fields like healthcare,
relationship, sustainability, education, etc. (Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M.,1980).
Aim of the Present Research
In the present study, impact of applying metacognitive strategies on two components
of self- regulated learning was observed. The two components are autonomous
regulation and controlled regulation. The difference between the autonomous
regulation and controlled regulation was calculated to find out relative autonomy within
the students. Also their effect on different dimensions of intrinsic motivation viz. interest,
perceived competence, effort, tension and perceived choice in classroom activities was
also studied. Metacognitive strategies include two broad components as metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge includes
declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. Metacognitive regulation
(regulation of cognition) includes planning, information management strategies,
comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies and evaluation (Schraw, G., &
Dennison, R. S., 1994). To assess the usefulness of this model, we conducted an
experiment, in a semi- controlled environment, to study the impact of self- regulated
learning and intrinsic motivation.
We propose the following hypotheses:
H1: Experimental and control group differ significantly in application of metacognitive
strategies, self-regulated learning and intrinsic motivation in their regular
classroom activities.
METHODS
Research Design
For this research, an intervention programme was developed on the questions provided
in the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) by Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S.
(1994). The questions were like “I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goals.”,
“I consider several alternatives to a problem before I answer”, or “I try to use strategies
that have worked in the past.” Students were asked to contemplate whether they
check within a fixed time period (or monthly/fortnightly), that they were able to achieve
their goals. Then they were asked to write different alternatives for a problem and
choose the most likely (subjective) or the best/ correct solution.
The program was divided into six session with first two on discussion on different
components of metacognitive strategies and questioning self while solving problems,
learning difficult study material or evaluating self on a regular basis. Next two session
Impact of Metacognitive Strategies on Self- Regulated Learning and Intrinsic Motivation 39
J. Psychosoc. Res.
was on scaffolding by providing students with certain problems and showing them
the plan of action. Last two session were spent on students evaluating and brainstorming
on their learning difficulties and blocks which they need to identify and overcome.
Each session was from one to one & a half hour. This study employed a quasi-
experimental non randomized research design with a control group.
Participants
The participants in this experiment were undergraduate Indian students from private
universities. Out of total 460 second year undergraduate students (science major) 440
were selected for the study. The students who did not complete all the classes of the
intervention programme and also those who were previously diagnosed with any
mental illness were not selected for the study. Two groups, experimental and control,
were prepared with 220 students approximately in one group. 57% of the students
(both the groups) were boys and 43% students were girls. Total eight classes were
selected for the study, out of which four had been assigned to experimental group
(group 1) and rest four were allocated to control group (group 2). The selection of the
experimental group was done, using lottery.
MEASURES
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) was used to assess
the metacognitive awareness of the tutees. MAI consists of 52 question that were used
to assess two domains and eight components of metacognition. The internal consistency
of the factors was high (α = 0.91), coefficient for the entire instrument was 0.95 and has
a high predictive validity too.
Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L) enquires about the reason behind
the learning motivation of college students (William & Deci, 1996). It was divided into
two subscales – Controlled Regulation and Autonomous Regulation. Both the subscales
were tested for reliability (α = 0.75 for controlled regulation and α = 0.80 for
autonomous regulation) and validity. A Relative Autonomy Index can be calculated by
subtracting scores of controlled regulation from autonomous regulation.
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) measures interest, perceived competence,
effort, tension and perceived choice of the participants (Plant & Ryan, 1985; Ryan,
Connell, & Plant, 1990; Ryan, Koestner & Deci, 1991; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone,
1994). The interest/ enjoyment scale measures intrinsic motivation, perceived
competence and choice are considered to positively figure out self-reports of intrinsic
motivation and vice- versa for efforts and tension scales. A research on psychometric
properties of IMI was done by McAuley, Duncan, and Tammen (1987) and predicted
validity of the instrument and adequate reliability for the scale.
Sweta Saraff, Rishipal, Malabika Tripathi, RK Biswal and Anupama Srivastava Saxena
J. Psychosoc. Res.
40
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The primary motive of the study was to explore whether metacognitive strategies
effect self-regulated learning behaviour and intrinsic motivation of undergraduate
students. For all analysis, the significance level was kept at 0.05. The statistical analyses
were conducted with SPSS v. 25.0.
As per Table 1 in all domains of metacognitive strategies, mean of experimental
group was higher than the control group. For declarative knowledge mean of
experimental group was 6.91 in comparison to 5.32 (control group). Similarly for
procedural knowledge (3.76 vs 2.89) and conditional knowledge (group 1 (4.39)>
group 2 (3.34)). The second part of the strategy was regulation of cognition, where
also in planning group 1 scored 6.06 and group 2 scored 4.91. The scores of information
management strategies were (group 1:8.99 , group 2: 7.51), comprehension monitoring
(group 1: 5.86 , group 2: 5.07), debugging strategies (group 1: 4.75, group 2: 4.29), and
evaluation (group 1: 5.22, group 2: 4.23),
The mean score for relative autonomy for students in group 1 was 13.04, whereas
students in Group 2 were -8.73 suggesting lack of autonomy in self- regulation related
to learning tasks. Students of group 1 scored higher in interest (34.11) and perceived
choice (28.43). They scored lower in perceived competence (26.83), effort (21.60) and
tension (14.70).
Table 2 represents a summary of independent t test conducted to find out whether
there is significant mean difference in the groups in their metacognitive strategies,
self-regulated learning and intrinsic motivation of students after implementation of
the intervention program. The findings suggest significant mean difference (p < .001)
between metacognitive strategies used by students in group 1 and group 2. It also
indicates presence of relative autonomy (t = 23.13, p<.001) among students with higher
metacognitive knowledge (group 1), an implication of higher self-control.
It could also be inferred that students who used better metacognitive strategies
had more interest (t= 15.44, p < .00) and perception of choice (t=8.38, p < 0.00). Students
felt that they have to put more effort (t= -12.04, p < .00) and were tensed (t= -12.20,
p< .00), when their metacognitive strategies for learning were comparatively weaker.
Students in group 1 perceived themselves less competent (t=-21.41, p= .00) in comparison
with group 2. The findings reveal that although students who use better metacognitive
strategies had higher interest and perception of choice in their learning but they felt
comparative less competent. Although their feeling of effort and tension was
comparatively lower than the control group.
Impact of Metacognitive Strategies on Self- Regulated Learning and Intrinsic Motivation 41
J. Psychosoc. Res.
Table 1.
Summary of descriptive statistics of Metacognitive Strategies, Self-regulated
learning and intrinsic Motivation (N=440)
GROUP N Mean Std.
Deviation
Declarative Knowledge 1 221 6.91 1.251
2 219 5.32 1.672
Procedural Knowledge 1 221 3.76 .889
2 219 2.89 1.170
Conditional Knowledge 1 221 4.39 .811
2 219 3.34 1.262
Planning 1 221 6.06 1.327
2 219 4.91 1.506
Information Management Strategies 1 221 8.99 1.215
2 219 7.51 2.053
Comprehension Monitoring 1 221 5.86 1.477
2 219 5.07 1.504
Debugging Strategies 1 221 4.75 .555
2 219 4.29 .855
Evaluation 1 221 5.22 .915
2 219 4.23 1.566
Relative Autonomy 1 221 13.04 10.229
2 219 -8.73 9.487
Autonomous Regulation 1 221 37.09 6.172
2 219 26.89 7.034
Controlled Regulation 1 221 24.05 9.876
2 219 35.86 6.492
Interest 1 221 34.11 8.244
2 219 18.67 3.982
Sweta Saraff, Rishipal, Malabika Tripathi, RK Biswal and Anupama Srivastava Saxena
J. Psychosoc. Res.
42
Perceived Competence 1 221 26.83 6.429
2 219 48.23 10.781
Effort 1 221 21.60 5.974
2 219 33.63 7.723
Tension 1 221 14.70 6.109
2 219 26.89 6.423
Perceived Choice 1 221 28.43 7.850
2 219 20.06 7.216
1 = Experimental Group, 2= Control Group
Every decision has an output, the efficacy of which can be observed by the person
himself. This output has an impact on the further choices made by that person. Maehr,
M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997) explain motivation as ‘personal investment’, where the
authors assume that people have certain degree of motivation to invest time, energy,
knowledge & skill to invest in a specific task. The ‘investment’ is studied in the
“direction, intensity, persistence and quality of what is done and expressed”. This
paper assumes motivation as the drive or urge to invest. The choices which are made
by learners whether on –task or off- task, determine the direction of motivation. If the
choices made are self- satisfying or encouraging, the learner continues to be motivated.
This process of being able to freely choose among tasks can be experienced in a gaming
environment, which brings the player back to game. Similarly time and energy invested
or spent depends on competency level of the task. The need for the autonomy in
making a choice, developing a belief in self on the basis of personal competence is vital
for learning, thereby fostering the desire to look out for more challenging tasks (Valås,
H., & Søvik, N., 1994).
Exploring innovative scaffolding strategies to empower student’s learning is
vital in today’s radically changing environment in terms of technological advances
(Dwyer, S., 2018). Currently students feel they are burdened with extensive study
material, semester system, and continuous examination with interferences from various
external as well as internal factors (Winne, P. H., 2017). External factors may include
spending lot of time on social media, television, internet, etc. Some internal reasons
may be as lack of interest in a particular subject or course, feeling of incompetency
and perception of effort and tension. Accumulation of these factors create an unhelpful
situation where students lose their direction and feel as if they are incompetent to
study or the material is worthless. To avoid this situation, we worked upon
improvement of metacognitive strategies, which students employ while they
Impact of Metacognitive Strategies on Self- Regulated Learning and Intrinsic Motivation 43
J. Psychosoc. Res.
Table 2
Independent samples t-test for difference between means of
Group 1 and Group 2
t df Sig. Mean Std.
(2-tailed) Difference Error 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Declarative Knowledge 11.33 438 .00* 1.59 .14 1.31 1.87
Procedural Knowledge 8.78 438 .00* .87 .10 .67 1.06
Conditional Knowledge 10.40 438 .00* 1.05 .10 .85 1.25
Planning 8.54 438 .00* 1.16 .14 .89 1.42
Information Management 9.18 438 .00* 1.48 .16 1.16 1.79
Strategies
Comprehension 5.56 438 .000* .79 .14 .51 1.07
Monitoring
Debugging 6.62 438 .000* .454 .069 .32 .589
Evaluation 8.13 438 .000* .993 .12 .75 1.23
Relative Autonomy 23.13 438 .00* 21.76 .94 19.91 23.61
Autonomous Regulation 16.17 438 .00* 10.20 .63 8.96 11.44
Controlled Regulation -14.81 438 .00* -11.80 .80 -13.38 -10.24
Interest 24.98 438 .00* 15.44 .62 14.23 16.66
Perceived Competence -25.32 438 .00* -21.41 .85 -23.07 -19.74
Effort -18.29 438 .00* -12.04 .66 -13.33 -10.74
Tension -20.41 438 .00* -12.20 .60 -13.37 -11.02
Perceived Choice 11.648 438 .000* 8.38 .719 6.962 9.79
are studying (Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W., 2009; Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl,
D. R., & Masia, B. B., 1984; Bloom, B. S., 1956).
Implications of the study
Understanding, reviewing and improving learning is expected from every person
engaged in the process of continuous development. Contemplation on one’s problem
Sweta Saraff, Rishipal, Malabika Tripathi, RK Biswal and Anupama Srivastava Saxena
J. Psychosoc. Res.
44
and working on strategies to rectify the mistakes are the marks of a progressive
student. In every classroom, there is a mix of self-motivated, extrinsically motivated
or not motivated students. Self – motivated students easily develop a strategy of
reflection and regulation of their failures but students who feel pressurized due to
external factors have difficulty in assessing their problems and working upon them
diligently.
REFERENCES
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay,
20-24.
Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., and Masia, B. B. (1984). Bloom taxonomy of educational objectives.
In Allyn and Bacon. Pearson Education.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacogntion, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious
mechanisms. In F. Weinert and R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding
(pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowley, S. J., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., and Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2017). Cognition beyond the brain.
Springer International Publishing.
deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York: Irvington Deci, E.
L., and Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The
Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1(1), 33–43.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (VoI. 13, pp. 39-80). New York: Academic
Press.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024—1037.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation,
development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., and Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self -
determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Dwyer, S. (2018). Gameful Engagement: Gamification, Critical Thinking, and First-Year
Composition. Double Helix, 6.
Impact of Metacognitive Strategies on Self- Regulated Learning and Intrinsic Motivation 45
J. Psychosoc. Res.
Flavell, J.H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert
and R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grolnick, W. S., and Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in Children’s Learning: An Experimental and
Individual Difference Investigation. 52(5), 890–898.
Grolnick, W. S., and Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent style associated with children’s self-regulation and
competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 60, 48-58.
Krathwohl, D. R., and Anderson, L. W. (2009). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision
of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Maehr, M. L., and Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve been,
where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4), 371-409.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., and Tammen, V. (1987, April). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic
Motivation Scale in a sport setting. In annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Long
Beach, CA.
Monod, J. (1942). Recherches sur la croissance des cultures bactériennes. Paris: Hermann.
Ormrod, J.E. (2004). Human Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Plant, R. W., and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-
awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally-controlling styles. Journal of
Personality, 53, 435-449.
Ryan, R. M., and Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining
reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., and Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically motivated:
A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. Achievement and motivation: A social-
developmental perspective, 167(88), 167-88.
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., and Plant, R. W. (1990). Emotions in nondirected text learning. Learning and
individual differences, 2(1), 1-17.
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., and Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persistence: When free-choice
behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205.
Sweta Saraff, Rishipal, Malabika Tripathi, RK Biswal and Anupama Srivastava Saxena
J. Psychosoc. Res.
46
Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19, 143-154.
Schraw, G. and Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-
371.
Schraw, G., and Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational
psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
Shapiro, J. A. (2011). Evolution: a view from the 21st century. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2019). Intelligence. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
Thomas, J. W. (1980). Agency and achievement: Self-management and self-regard. Review of Educational
Research, 50, 213-240.
Valås, H., and Søvik, N. (1994). Variables affecting students’ intrinsic motivation for school
mathematics: Two empirical studies based on Deci and Ryan’s theory on motivation. Learning
and Instruction, 3(4), 281-298.
Williams, G. C., and Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students:
A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779.
Winne, P. H. (2017). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-
regulation of learning and performance (pp. 52-64). Routledge.
Young, A., and Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college
students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sweta Saraff, Assistant Professor – AIPAS, Amity University, Kolkata
Prof. Rishipal, Professor Pedagogy & Dean – Humanities and Applied Sciences, SVSU, Haryana
Malabika Tripathi, Assistant Professor – AIPAS, Amity University, Kolkata
Dr. Rama Krishna Biswal, Assistant Professor – Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, NIT, Rourkela.
Dr. Anupama Srivastava Saxena – Associate Professor & HOD – AIBAS, Amity University, Haryana
