• Ying-Shao Hsu
  • Miao-Hsuan Yen
  • Wen-Hua Chang
  • Chia-Yu Wang
  • Sufen Chen


There is an increasing interest in conducting reading-related studies in science education using a self-regulated learning (SRL) lens. This exploration involved a content analysis of 34 articles (38 studies in total) in highly regarded journals from 1998 to 2012 using an SRL interpretative framework to reveal critical features and relationships in the science reading research. A cross-study comparison revealed that most researchers had applied mixed methods approaches (68 %), used instructional cues as an intervention (47 %), and collected both performance and process data (50 %). The summary figures indicated that a variety of instructional cues had different effects on science reading and SRL strategies and that there were interactions between task conditions and cognitive conditions. Customized or personalized metacognitive prompts are especially useful for comprehending hypertexts and conducting online information searches. Based on the findings, it was suggested that future research should apply the COPES model for SRL to design instructional cues for learners and to investigate how external task conditions influence cognitive conditions, self-regulated processes, and reading performance across different science text genres.


content analysis metacognition science learning science reading self-regulated learning SRL 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: the interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bromme, R., Pieschl, S. & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, B. A. & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A. & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duckworth, K., Akerman, R., MacGregor, A., Salter, E. & Vorhaus, J. (2009). Self-regulated learning: A literature review. London, England: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Enfield, M. (2014). Reading scientifically: Practices supporting intertextual reading using science knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 395–412. doi: 10.1007/s10972-013-9347-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene, J. A. & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S. & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy and classroom practice: A review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK, and the United States, 1998–2008. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the purpose? Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin, S.-S. (2013). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9451-7. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  13. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E. & Bromme, R. (2013). Adaptation to context as core component of self-regulated learning. The example of complexity and epistemic beliefs. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 53–65). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Shelley, M. C., II, Yore, L. D. & Hand, B. (2009). Education research meets the “gold standard”: Evaluation, research methods, and statistics after No Child Left Behind. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 3–15). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 37–76). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 951–970. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9203-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tobin, R. & Tippett, C. D. (2014). Possibilities and potential barriers: Learning to plan for differentiated instruction in elementary science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 423–443. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9414-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang, J.-R. & Chen, S.-F. (2014). Exploring mediating effect of metacognitive awareness on comprehension of science texts through structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Winne, P. H. & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Winne, P. H. & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–568). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all - More than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L. & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yore, L. D., Francis Pelton, L., Neill, B. W., Pelton, T. W., Anderson, J. O. & Milford, T. M. (2014). Closing the science, mathematics, and reading gaps from a Canadian perspective: Implications for STEM mainstream and pipeline literacy. In J. V. Clark (Ed.), Closing the achievement gap from an international perspective (pp. 73–104). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Yore, L. D. & Lerman, S. (2008). Metasyntheses of qualitative research studies in mathematics and science education [Editorial]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yore, L. D. & Tippett, C. D. (2014). Reading science. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_130-2.
  29. Young, J. D. (1996). The effect of self-regulated learning strategies on performance in learner controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yu, S.-M. & Yore, L. D. (2013). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students’ argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument–critique–argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1233–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 85–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ying-Shao Hsu
    • 1
  • Miao-Hsuan Yen
    • 1
  • Wen-Hua Chang
    • 1
  • Chia-Yu Wang
    • 2
  • Sufen Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of EducationNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuRepublic of China
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and EducationNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations