CIE Template Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 1 Volume 23, Issue 1 May 9, 2022 ISSN 1099-839X Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Regulated Learning Interventions in K-12 Contexts: A Systematic Review Erin Cousins, Linda Bol, Tian Luo Old Dominion University Abstract: While research illustrates the benefits of interventions designed to improve self- regulated learning (SRL) and academic achievement, far fewer studies have examined the durability of these effects. This review synthesizes research on the lasting effects of 17 comprehensive SRL interventions on variables related to metacognition, cognition, motivation, and achievement in K-12 populations. Results reveal common patterns of design, domain- specificity, intervention complexity, and style of measurement instrument. Intervention effects tend to be durable regarding achievement and SRL but were mixed when presented across multiple measures of SRL. Overall findings imply that SRL interventions can lead to enduring effects on achievement and better achievement outcomes than content-strategy instruction alone and can be implemented successfully in a variety of contexts and subjects. Keywords: self-regulated learning, durability, K-12, systematic review Citation: Cousins, E., Bol, L., & Luo, T. (2022). Exploring long-term impacts of self-regulated learning interventions in K-12 contexts: A systematic review. Current Issues in Education, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol23iss1.2013 Accepted: March 14, 2022 Introduction Self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to the cyclical process wherein learners manage their own behaviors, emotions, and cognition before, during, and after a learning task (Panadero, 2017; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). SRL is beneficial and related to students’ academic performance in many contexts (Dorrenbacher & Perels, 2016; Panadero, 2017). Beyond formal academic environments, SRL is also valuable in ongoing personal and professional learning throughout one's life (Dignath et al., 2008; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Unfortunately, while SRL is clearly beneficial for learners, many individuals are not engaging in adequate self-regulation of learning and are unlikely to improve on their own; however, researchers have found that interventions can be helpful in improving learners’ self-regulation (Dorrenbacher & Perels, 2016; Panadero, 2017; Richardson et al., 2012). SRL is a rich area of research, and over time many interventions have been studied in an attempt to support SRL in a variety of contexts and populations. Many https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol23iss1.2013 Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 2 researchers have reported positive effects on students’ academic achievement and SRL (Dignath & Buttner, 2008; Donker et al., 2014; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Given the relevance of SRL for learning throughout one's educational career and beyond, it is valuable to explore the lasting effects of such intervention over time. However, only a small portion of SRL intervention studies have included follow-up or maintenance data after the implementation period. Synthesizing these empirical studies affords important implications regarding the lasting effects of SRL interventions, practical applications for designers and instructors, and gaps in research. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework Several models and variations of SRL have emerged over time, but one of the most enduring and widely used models is Zimmerman’s (2002) social cognitive model of SRL (Panadero, 2017). In fact, many of the studies included in this systematic review cite this model as the basis for their own theoretical frameworks. This model conceptualizes SRL as encompassing the metacognitive and cognitive processes that take place as a learner directs themselves through a learning task and cyclical feedback loop (Zimmerman, 2002). Zimmerman’s (2002) model includes three phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection. The first phase, forethought, occurs before learning and involves setting goals, planning what strategies to employ, assessing one’s self-efficacy related to the task, and forming expectations about outcomes. It also includes the orientation of their learning goal (e.g., performance or mastery) as well as its intrinsic value (Zimmerman, 2002). The second phase takes place during learning and involves processes of self-control and self-observation. In this performance phase, learners employ cognitive strategies, self-instruction, attention focusing, and self-recording. The final stage of self-reflection includes self-evaluation, making causal attributions for performance, and reacting to the learning experience with emotions and adaptations. Other models of SRL have commonalities with Zimmerman’s model and often include phases that capture learners’ processes of preparing for, completing, and reflecting on a learning event. They further emphasize many of the same subprocesses and components, such as motivation, goal-setting, metacognition, strategy use, reactions, and adaptations (Panadero, 2017; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). SRL is associated with academic achievement, and this relationship has been supported by research in many subject areas and with a wide range of grade levels. SRL interventions have led to academic improvements in content areas such as reading, writing, science, and math at levels ranging from elementary through college populations (Dignath et al., 2008; Richardson et al., 2012). Some research has shown the particular importance of SRL at times when students are transitioning to a novel environment with greater expectations for autonomy as a learner, such as moving between levels of schooling (Dorrenbacher & Perels, 2016). Further, SRL is helpful for professional and personal learning beyond academic contexts and throughout an individual’s life (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Unfortunately, many students lack adequate self-regulation skills, which is detrimental to their learning and performance (Dignath et al., 2008; Zimmerman, 2002). Meta-analyses and reviews offer insight regarding the construction of effective SRL interventions (e.g., Dignath & Buttner, 2008; Donker et al., 2014). While students are unlikely to make spontaneous improvements to their self-regulation of learning, research reveals that students can see improvements in SRL as a result of training and intervention (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Such interventions have been successful even with elementary students for enhancing SRL and academic achievement (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 3 Although research on SRL interventions is encouraging and offers useful, practical implications for designing instruction, most of these studies only evaluate short-term effects assessed at an immediate posttest. Relatively few studies have included delayed follow-up measures. Given SRL’s importance for learning at various stages, examining the durability of intervention effects is extremely valuable. When supporting SRL, educators should aim to bolster these skills so that students are able to continue engaging in these processes beyond the intervention period and contribute to ongoing academic success. However, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews and meta-analyses investigating these ongoing effects. One meta- analysis conducted by de Boer et al. (2018) explores the durability of metacognitive strategy interventions. However, while metacognitive strategies are a component of SRL, there are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses which examine the lasting effects of interventions targeting SRL more holistically and addressing multiple phases and subphases. Given the paucity of evidence, a review of studies which incorporate a comprehensive SRL intervention and assess its long-term effects is warranted in order to identify patterns for practical applications and gaps in the research literature. Research Questions This paper follows the guidance of Alexander (2020) in structuring a systematic review to address the following research questions: 1. What trends are present in SRL intervention studies that include follow-up measures? 2. Do SRL interventions have durable effects on students’ achievement and self- regulated learning? Method In addition to Alexander’s (2020) framework, guidance from Gough’s work (2007) was utilized in developing the methodology. It involved defining inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying sources of information and search terms, screening studies, extracting data, assessing methodological rigor of included studies, synthesizing the data, and interpreting overall findings. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria In choosing appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, several factors were considered. First, the review was confined to studies within an academic context, rather than self-regulation that is behavioral, such as smoking cessation or weight-loss interventions. Further, since the relationship between SRL and achievement is critically relevant, the intervention should be designed based on self-regulated learning principles and intended to improve participants' SRL or their academic performance. Additionally, because of the strong academic benefits of SRL, this review is limited to interventions which approach SRL more comprehensively and address one or more components of all three phases. Hacker and Bol (2019) reported that more comprehensive SRL interventions were associated with more accurate metacognitive judgments and improved academic outcomes. In the present document, the interventions included are termed holistic. Because this review is specifically focused on long-term effects of SRL interventions, included studies must involve a delayed follow-up measure eight or more weeks following the intervention implementation period. Eight weeks was chosen as the lower limit to ensure that measured effects were lasting beyond just a few days or weeks after the intervention, targeting impacts that were, in fact, long term. Eight weeks is also a similar timeframe for Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 4 evaluations in response to intervention (RTI) programs as well as grading periods in K-12 school systems (Averill et al., 2014). Finally, this review is limited to K-12 populations. The importance of SRL for K-12 students’ academic achievement has been well demonstrated, and SRL interventions have been impactful for this population and within K-12 school settings (Dignath & Buttner, 2008; Panadero, 2017). It is also theorized that students may rely on SRL even more as they transition to more autonomous learning environments, such as college and many workplace settings (Bembenutty, 2011; Dorrenbacher & Perels, 2016). Therefore, early intervention may promote student development of effective SRL skills. The focus on K-12 is further warranted due to validity threats present in higher education samples. College student samples often require incentivization and may not reflect students in K-12 education, given barriers to entry of postsecondary education (Ferguson et al., 2004; Peterson, 2001). This review also excluded studies published in a language other than English as well as gray literature. There were no limiters associated with the year of publication. To summarize, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were as follows: 1. The context of the study is academic. 2. The study involves an intervention based on self-regulated learning principles aimed at improving students’ SRL and/or academic achievement by way of SRL. 3. The SRL intervention is holistic, meaning that it targets subcomponents from each SRL phase of forethought, performance, and reflection, rather than focusing on a singular phase or subcomponent, or subcomponents from only two of the three phases. 4. The study includes a delayed posttest follow-up measure which takes place at least eight weeks after the intervention period. 5. The study sample consists of K-12 students. 6. The study is published in a peer-reviewed journal available in English. Search Strategy First, search terms were identified. The first search term was “self-regulated learning” or “self-regulation of learning.” The word “learning” was included in these specific search phrases as the review is not focused on simply self-regulation of a specific behavior. Rather, this review specifically concerns self-regulation as it pertains to learning. While metacognition is at times used synonymously with SRL, it was not included since it is nested within the overall framework of SRL (Dinsmore et al., 2008). Because several concepts and processes are subsumed by SRL, searching for each of these individually would not have been feasible for the scope of this review. Further, interventions grounded in the SRL framework of SRL guided this review. Additional search terms included “follow up,” “delayed follow up,” “longitudinal,” “lasting,” “long term,” “long-term,” “maintenance,” “intervention,” and “treatment.” These key terms were selected in order to retrieve studies which included a delayed posttest or follow-up measure, as well as experimental studies that included an intervention or treatment. Searches were conducted using the following databases: Education Source, APA PsycInfo, Education Research Complete, ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Academic Search Complete, APA PsycArticles, and Google Scholar. With the exception of Google Scholar, all databases were searched simultaneously utilizing a platform, EBSCOhost, which automatically removes duplicates. This initial search resulted in a total of 170 results. The first ten pages of Google Scholar results were reviewed, adding another 100 search results (n = 270). Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 5 Study Selection After searches were conducted, the resulting potentially relevant studies were initially screened using primarily abstracts and full texts as needed for clarification. At this point, studies were excluded if they did not include an SRL intervention, did not include delayed follow-up measures, were not in English, were not a peer-reviewed journal publication (such as a dissertation), or were purely aimed at behavior change or physical skill development rather than academic learning. Duplicate studies were also excluded at this time. Following this initial round of screening, a total of 35 studies were identified (22 from EBSCOhost searches, 13 from Google Scholar). An additional 11 studies were identified through reference tracking, bringing the total studies to 46. These remaining studies were retrieved in full for a more detailed screening against the identified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following this detailed evaluation against the above inclusion and exclusion criteria, 18 remaining studies were retained for coding and analysis. One study conducted by Fidalgo et al. (2008) is an additional delayed follow-up assessment to the earlier study published by Torrance et al. (2007), which also included its own shorter-term follow-up measures. Due to this occurrence, there are only 17 unique interventions within the 18 identified articles. The search process is illustrated in Figure 1, and the final set of articles is listed in Table 1. Figure 1 Search Process 270 search results from 8 databases 35 studies remaining after screening against initial selection criteria 11 additional studies identified through reference tracking 46 studies screened against final inclusion criteria 18 selected studies, 17 unique interventions Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 6 Table 1 Reviewed Studies Author and Year Journal Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal Cleary et al., 2017 Journal of School Psychology Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008 The Journal of Experimental Education Festas et al., 2015 Contemporary Educational Psychology Fidalgo et al., 2008* Contemporary Educational Psychology Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019 Instructional Science Hacker et al., 2015 Reading and Writing Quarterly Minnaert et al., 2017 Frontiers in Education Sanz et al., 2003 European Journal of Psychology of Education Schunemann et al., 2013 Contemporary Educational Psychology Schunemann et al., 2017 Instructional Science Sontag & Stoeger, 2015 Learning and Individual Differences Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006 Learning and Instruction Sporer & Schunemann, 2014 Learning and Instruction Stoeger et al., 2014 Journal of Educational Psychology Torrance et al., 2007 Learning and Instruction Vandevelde et al., 2017 The Journal of Educational Research Wagner & Perels, 2012 International Scholarly Research Network Education *Study contained an additional delayed follow-up for the intervention in Torrance et al. (2007). Data Analysis Articles were read in full and analyzed through an extensive coding scheme. In addition to authors, publication year, and journal, codes related to RQ1 included research design, type of data, participants, setting, domain, nature of control group, treatment conditions, duration of intervention, length of delay before follow-up measures, SRL measures, achievement measures, implementers of intervention, training provided for implementers, intervention components and materials, intervention instruction and timing, and use of existing or prescribed intervention programs. Codes related to RQ2 included SRL results, achievement results, and additional results. Additional codes were used to evaluate the methodological rigor and limitations of studies, including assignment to groups, attrition, equivalency of groups, monitoring fidelity of implementation, additional threats to external validity, additional threats to internal validity, and additional limitations identified by authors. Results The majority of the studies were from well-regarded journals with strong metrics. For example, three articles were from Contemporary Educational Psychology, and an additional three articles were found in Learning and Instruction, which each have an acceptance rate of 13% according to Cabell’s International and have 2020 impact factors of 4.277 and 5.146, respectively. However, because the review aims to be comprehensive, no journals were excluded. The studies were rigorous and most utilized a quasi-experimental design with random assignment of intact classrooms and incorporated control or comparison groups without Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 7 intervention. Exceptions from these standards are discussed in more detail in the following subsections. Results are further presented in response to each research question. Research Question 1: What trends are present in SRL intervention studies that include follow-up measures? Some salient trends were present amongst the reviewed studies. These will be addressed in the following subsections. Research Designs and Treatment Conditions As noted, the reviewed studies were almost exclusively quasi-experimental in design. One notable exception is Cleary et al. (2017), a true experimental study. Another exception is Fidalgo et al. (2008), which is an additional delayed follow-up using some individuals from a previous treatment group from another reviewed study (Torrance et al., 2007) but a newly sampled comparison group. Additionally, all included studies utilized quantitative data for analysis, including quantified scores and frequency counts from open-ended data and think- alouds in some cases. Only one study lacked a comparison group (Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019). Comparison conditions are listed in Table 2. The reviewed studies most frequently included one treatment group receiving an SRL intervention and compared them to a control group with unaltered classroom instruction or, in other words, a “business as usual” (BAU) control group (n = 8) (Dynarski, 2016). However, several studies did include two treatment groups (n = 7). Of these, four studies included a treatment group receiving only content strategy instruction in addition to a treatment group receiving the same content strategy instruction combined with SRL training (Schunemann et al., 2013; Schunemann et al., 2017; Stoeger et al., 2014; Wagner & Perels 2012). Each of these also included a no-treatment comparison group. Other studies included a treatment group that received strategy training that addressed only a component related to SRL, in addition to a treatment group receiving that same strategy training within a holistic SRL intervention (Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008; Minnaert et al., 2017). The remaining study with two treatment groups did not incorporate a control condition and instead compared an intervention group with fixed scaffolds to one with scaffolds that were gradually removed (Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019). Studies with three treatment groups each included one treatment group receiving a holistic SRL intervention including content strategies, which was compared to a treatment group receiving only content-strategy instruction and a treatment group receiving content-strategy instruction combined with a component of SRL (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). Treatment conditions are listed in Table 2. Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 8 Table 2 Conditions Author and Year Treatment Condition Control Condition Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Cleary et al., 2017 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008 2 treatment groups: 1 received attribution feedback, 1 received feedback and metacognitive control questions Control group worked with the same math software with no feedback or metacognitive questions Festas et al., 2015 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Fidalgo et al., 2008* 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019 2 treatment groups receiving SRL interventions: 1 group had consistent prompts, 1 group had faded prompts No control group Hacker et al., 2015 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Minnaert et al., 2017 2 treatment groups: 1 received self-regulated strategy instruction (SRSD), 1 combined this with behavioral support BAU Sanz et al., 2003 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Schunemann et al., 2013 2 treatment groups: 1 group received a reading strategies intervention, 1 group received reading strategies combined with SRL BAU Schunemann et al., 2017 2 treatment groups: 1 group received reciprocal teaching (RT) intervention, 1 group combined this with SRL BAU Sontag & Stoeger, 2015 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006 3 treatment groups: 1 group receiving a reading strategies intervention, 1 group combining that with cognitive self-regulation, and 1 group combining reading strategies with cognitive and motivational self-regulation BAU Sporer & Schunemann, 2014 3 treatment groups: 1 group receiving reciprocal teaching (RT) combined with strategy implementation, 1 group combining reciprocal teaching with outcome regulation, and 1 group combining all components Control group receiving reciprocal teaching program Stoeger et al., 2014 2 treatment groups: 1 group receiving text reduction intervention, 1 group combining that with SRL training BAU Torrance et al., 2007 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention BAU Vandevelde et al., 2017 1 treatment group receiving SRL intervention via tutoring Control group not receiving tutoring Wagner & Perels, 2012 2 treatment groups: 1 group receiving translation instruction, 1 group combining that with SRL training BAU Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 9 Populations Under Study This review was restricted to K-12 populations, but within that constraint, there are still variations regarding the participants, which are detailed in Table 3. Participants ranged from 4th grade to 10th grade, with each grade in between represented in at least one study. The highest proportion of studies were completed with an elementary population (n = 9) and a middle or junior high school population (n = 8), with some studies including multiple grade levels and thus reflected in both counts. There were fewer studies completed with high school participants (n = 2). Grade levels refer to the status of participants at the time of the intervention rather than at follow-up. Sample sizes ranged from 40 to 763, with the majority of studies including over 100 participants. Most of the studies focused on participants with no special demographic characteristics and described students as typical. However, five studies included more unique populations based on demographics, socioeconomic status, or academic risk factors such as learning disabilities or low grades in a subject area. Table 3 Study Samples Author and Year Number of Participants Participant Grade Special Characteristics Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007 73 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Learning disabilities Cleary et al., 2017 42 7th Low math scores and/or lacking motivation (teacher- reported) Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008 151 6th None Festas et al., 2015 380 8th None Fidalgo et al., 2008* 77 6th None Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019 134 4th None Hacker et al., 2015 393 7th Title 1 schools, most eligible for free or reduced lunch Minnaert et al., 2017 249 9th Prevocational Sanz et al., 2003 40 8th None Schunemann et al., 2013 323 5th None Schunemann et al., 2017 244 5th None Sontag & Stoeger, 2015 322 4th Students without migration background Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006 593 5th None Sporer & Schunemann, 2014 535 5th None Stoeger et al., 2014 763 4th None Torrance et al., 2007 95 6th None Vandevelde et al., 2017 401 5th, 6th Majority students of low socioeconomic or immigrant background Wagner & Perels, 2012 109 10th None Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 10 Intervention Structure The studies under review all included an SRL intervention, but the contexts, timeframe, and structure of these interventions vary; details for individual studies are included in Table 4. The majority of interventions were situated within a specific domain, with the most frequent being reading (n = 7), followed by writing (n = 4) and math (n = 3). Most interventions were also implemented during class, even when implemented by researchers rather than teachers. One notable exception is the intervention implemented by Vandevele et al. (2017), which took place during tutoring sessions. Interventions also ranged in frequency and length of intervention sessions as well as the duration of the overall implementation period. Intervention sessions ranged from 30 minutes to two hours in length, with 45 minutes as the most commonly reported amount of time. Studies reported sessions taking place from one time per week to daily. Overall durations of interventions ranged from three weeks to two years. The length of time between the end of the duration and the time of the delayed follow-up measure ranged from the initial inclusion criteria of eight weeks up to 28 months. Table 4 Intervention Structure Author and Year Domain Duration Time Between Posttest and Follow-Up Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007 Reading One academic year 3 months Cleary et al., 2017 Math 4 months 2 months Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008 Math 5 months 5 months Festas et al., 2015 Writing 4 months 2 months Fidalgo et al., 2008 Writing 10 weeks 28 months Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019 Math 7 weeks 3 months Hacker et al., 2015 Writing 6 weeks 2 months Minnaert et al., 2017 Writing 3 months 1 year Sanz et al., 2003 Not-domain specific Two academic years Two years Schunemann et al., 2013 Reading 7 weeks 8 weeks Schunemann et al., 2017 Reading 8 weeks 8 weeks Sontag & Stoeger, 2015 Reading and science 7 weeks 11 weeks Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006 Reading 4 months 5 months Sporer & Schunemann, 2014 Reading 8 weeks 8 weeks Stoeger et al., 2014 Reading and science 7 weeks 11 weeks Torrance et al., 2007 Writing 10 weeks 12 weeks Vandevelde et al., 2017 Not-domain specific 3 months 2 months Wagner & Perels, 2012 Latin 3 weeks 8 weeks Note. Language used in the table is based on the authors’ language in the original studies. Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 11 Common Intervention Programs Several studies utilized existing intervention designs which they implemented or adapted for their studies. Three studies incorporated a writing intervention using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) framework developed by Harris and Graham (1996) (Festas et al., 2015; Hacker et al., 2015; Minnaert et al., 2017). Three other studies utilized the same Reciprocal Teaching (RT) framework developed by Palincsar and Brown (1984) for the content strategy component of their interventions and appeared to share many common components within the SRL elements of their interventions as well (Schunemann et al., 2013; Schunemann et al., 2017; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). Two other studies employed an intervention framework developed by Stoeger and Zeigler (2008) (Sontag & Stoeger, 2015; Stoeger et al., 2014). Other existing frameworks used in single studies included the Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP) designed by Cleary & Platten (2013) and IMPROVE metacognitive prompts developed by Mevarech and Kramarski (1997) (Cleary et al., 2017; Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019). Other interventions were developed for studies by the authors, all of whom extensively cited SRL research. Intervention Components SRL interventions tended to involve a combination of teaching approaches, including combinations of direct instruction, teacher modeling and examples, in-class activities and tasks to facilitate guided practice, class discussion, interactive in-class games, and independent work on assignments. Interventions also often included tools to remind students about processes involved in SRL, such as cards, help sheets, mnemonic devices and charts, graphs, visual aids such as posters, and prompts within class content assignments and homework. These supplementary materials were sometimes just external aids to encourage students to engage in SRL processes. At other times, they were tools students had to use tools such as worksheets, logbooks, journals, and diagrams that required students to set written goals, monitor progress, plan and track strategy use, reflect on feedback, evaluate performance, and describe adaptations. Interventions typically followed a set schedule and introduced different components of SRL on a timeline, and some interventions reduced SRL scaffolding over time to encourage students to engage in the processes more autonomously. Interventions differed in complexity, but most were intricate and involved many components and tools in concert. One intervention which deviated from this pattern was implemented by Dresel and Haugwitz (2008). This simplified intervention required students to answer questions that were designed to support metacognitive control as they worked on math exercises. Students were also provided computer-generated attributional feedback alongside their scores. Some studies included clear information about the intervention’s theoretical basis, topics, and learning objectives, but offered only limited descriptions of the actual intervention implementation, which made them more difficult to compare to others (Sanz et al., 2003; Wagner & Perels, 2012). The use of group work in interventions to support shared or co-regulation of learning was less consistent than some other characteristics across studies. Six studies explicitly mentioned group, team, or partner work and/or peer feedback or discussions as a component of the intervention; three of these studies used a common intervention framework which incorporates rotating roles within small group activities (Schunemann et al., 2013; Schunemann et al., 2017; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). An additional two studies involved interventions that took place exclusively in a small group format: Vandevelde et al. (2017) implemented an intervention through small group tutoring, and Cleary et al. (2017) used a small group coaching format. It is Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 12 possible that additional interventions involved small group work during some of the included activities and did not explicitly differentiate group activities from individual activities. Intervention Implementation Interventions were most often implemented by existing teachers within their classrooms, but in multiple other studies, researchers or research assistants implemented the intervention. Exceptions included one intervention which was implemented by a handful of trained school employees, such as counselors, and one intervention that was facilitated by trained graduate student tutors with some supervision from classroom teachers (Cleary et al., 2017; Vandevelde et al., 2017). All studies utilizing teachers or school employees for implementation included training, with the exception of Dresel and Haugwitz (2008), which was heavily computer-based. Most trainings were reported to be several hours long and often over multiple days. They typically included materials for use during implementation, such as manuals containing sequences, structure, and guidelines for the intervention. Many authors also described ongoing meetings with teachers and school employee facilitators for support and training ranging from one additional meeting to weekly meetings throughout the implementation period. Some researchers also utilized checklists which served to aid facilitators in correctly implementing the intervention as well as offer evidence of fidelity for researchers. Other means of monitoring fidelity of implementation included periodic observations, facilitator notes and reports of sessions, and analysis of student materials for task completion. Measures Most studies included measures of both SRL and academic achievement; measures for all studies are listed in Table 5. In multiple studies, SRL was measured exclusively via student self- report measures, often primarily Likert-style rating scales. Other studies included a variety of other measurement forms for SRL, often in combination with one or more self-report scales. Some less complex additional measures included a calculation of calibration accuracy, a teacher self-report scale, and multiple-choice tests to assess understanding of content strategies. Other measures of SRL were more expansive, such as process logs, a think-aloud, and coding open- ended responses to reading tasks, scenario-based questions, or after an exam. The majority of studies that included measures beyond self-report scales also triangulated SRL data across multiple measures, with the exception of Schunemann et al. (2017) and Torrance et al. (2007). While studies included similar theoretical frameworks for their research, there is variation in how SRL was measured beyond the type of instrument employed. Some studies included one measure or a combination of measures that addressed all major phases and multiple subprocesses of SRL. Measures assessed subprocesses such as motivation, self-efficacy, self-concept, metacognition, metacognitive control, understanding and application of cognitive strategies, calibration, and attributions; however, the included subprocesses assessed were inconsistent from study to study. Studies which included a comprehensive measure to assess all phases of SRL also revealed few commonalities, with only one questionnaire being utilized in two different studies: the Questionnaire of Self-Regulated Learning-7, developed by Ziegler et al. (2010), was used by both Stoeger et al. (2014) and Sontag & Stoeger (2015). Other studies that measured SRL only included measures addressing a relatively small portion of SRL subprocesses. For instance, Minnaert et al. (2017) assessed only goal orientation. Other studies included a measure of domain-specific strategy knowledge or application along with a measure of self-efficacy or Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 13 motivation (Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007; Schunemann et al., 2013; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). Achievement measures in the reviewed studies typically consisted of one or two content tests and included both multiple-choice and open-ended measures. Most reading and math measures were standardized, but some reading measures involved longer responses and were analyzed for correctly identified main ideas. Writing tasks were scored for a variety of elements, including structure, coherence, quality, word counts, paragraphs included, and structural elements included. Researchers utilizing open-ended measures of achievement reported at least a portion of responses being scored by two or more independent raters. One writing measure was scored by an automated essay-scoring system (Hacker et al., 2015). Only one study incorporated course grades as a measure of achievement (Sanz et al., 2003). Table 5 Measures Author and Year SRL Measures Achievement Measures Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007 Reading-strategy knowledge task (students had to “grade” strategy use of others); Reading self-efficacy General intelligence; Vocabulary knowledge; Decoding speed; Reading comprehension (multiple choice and open-ended) Cleary et al., 2017 SRL scale; Hypothetical test preparation scenario; Microanalytic attributions; Microanalytic adaptive inferences; Self-efficacy for self- regulated learning Mathematics standardized exams Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008 Internality of success attributions; Stability of failure attributions; Ability self-concept; Helplessness scale; Metacognitive Control Strategies Math achievement (researcher- developed based on the official mathematics curricula) Festas et al., 2015 None Writing, opinion essay task (scored for number of words and for number of structural elements) Fidalgo et al., 2008 Writing metaknowledge/motivation open-ended questionnaire (coded for substantive processing, low-level processing, ability, and motivation); Writing self-efficacy; Writing processes log Writing quality (scored for structure, coherence, and general quality); Number of paragraphs and words and introductory and concluding paragraphs Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019 Metacognitive Awareness; Calibration judgments; Motivation (achievement goals) Standardized math achievement test Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 14 Author and Year SRL Measures Achievement Measures Hacker et al., 2015 None Persuasive essay task (scored using an automated essay scoring system) Minnaert et al., 2017 Goal Orientation Questionnaire None Sanz et al., 2003 Learning Strategies (to measure frequency of use of metacognitive strategies) General intelligence; Average grades in mathematics, language, and natural sciences Schunemann et al., 2013 Self-efficacy for reading; Strategy- related task performance activity (coded for strategy use) Reading comprehension; Reading fluency Schunemann et al., 2017 Strategy-related task performance activity (coded for strategy use) Reading comprehension Sontag & Stoeger, 2015 Preference for SRL Main ideas (number of correct main ideas identified in training materials) Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006 Reading strategies test; Open-ended application of reading strategies task (scored for correct strategy application); Self-efficacy; Motivational learning goal orientation Reading comprehension Sporer & Schünemann, 2014 Reading strategy application task (coded for quality); Reading motivation Reading comprehension; Reading fluency Stoeger et al., 2014 Preference for SRL Reading comprehension; Main ideas (number of correct main ideas identified in training materials) Torrance et al., 2007 Writing processes log Writing quality (scored for structure, coherence, and general quality); Number of words and number of paragraphs by type. Vandevelde et al., 2017 Teacher rating scale; SRL scale Think-aloud protocols None Wagner & Perels, 2012 SRL scale Latin translation test Research Question 2: Do SRL interventions have lasting effects on students’ achievement and self-regulated learning Results of the reviewed studies are included in Table 6. Of the studies that included a delayed measure of achievement, results for the majority (n = 12) indicated lasting effects on students’ achievement after a delay. Only two interventions deviated from this pattern; results for each indicated significant effects on achievement at an initial posttest, but these did not remain after a delay (Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008; Stoeger et al., 2014). While some of the successful Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 15 interventions resulted in similar effects at an initial posttest, in other studies (n = 5), significant differences did not emerge between the holistic SRL intervention treatment group and a control group until a delayed posttest (Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007; Hacker et al., 2015; Schunemann et al., 2017; Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). Gidalevich & Kramarski (2019) did not include a control group in their study and similarly did not report statistically significant within-group changes at an initial posttest, but did after a delay. Results of a few studies indicated lasting effects on student achievement with a holistic SRL intervention and included an additional treatment group targeting only content strategies; in each of these studies, the holistic intervention treatment group significantly outperformed or improved achievement more than the group receiving only strategy instruction (Schunemann et al., 2013; Schunemann et al., 2017; Wagner & Perels, 2012). In other studies showing durable achievement results, additional treatment groups varied regarding the phases of SRL that were supported in the intervention; however, results did not follow a clear pattern wherein the most comprehensive intervention led to the strongest achievement results (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). In Souvignier and Mokhlesgerami’s (2006) study, while the holistic SRL treatment group did outperform a control group at a delay, it had no statistically significant differences from the group receiving only strategy instruction or the groups receiving strategy instruction combined with less comprehensive SRL interventions. In Sporer and Schunemann’s (2004) study, students in the holistic SRL treatment group outperformed students receiving only reading strategy instruction but did not have higher achievement scores than treatment groups which supported only one or two phases of SRL. Overall, of the holistic SRL interventions resulting in long-term effects on achievement, most featured inclusion of domain-specific strategy instruction. Of the studies that included a delayed measure of SRL, the majority (n = 14) indicated lasting effects on one or more components of students’ SRL after a delay. Only one study measured SRL after a delay and provided no significant effects (Vandevelde et al., 2017). Studies differed greatly in the extent to which SRL was assessed, including how many measures were utilized and how many SRL processes were measured. Some studies included only a singular, close-ended self-report instrument designed to assess all phases of SRL; data from each of these studies suggested lasting effects on students’ SRL (Sanz et al., 2003; Sontag & Stoeger, 2015; Stoeger et al., 2014; Wagner & Perels, 2012). Other researchers utilized a combination of measures to address all phases of SRL; each of these studies resulted in mixed findings at a delay, rather than exclusively positive findings for all components of SRL (Cleary et al., 2017; Fidalgo et al., 2008; Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019; Torrance et al., 2007). Other researchers explored only limited components of SRL rather than including measures for each phase. Some of these studies similarly had mixed results for different components of SRL after a delay (Minnaert et al., 2017; Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). However, other studies addressing limited components of SRL found exclusively positive results for all the components examined (Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007; Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008; Schunemann et al., 2013; Schunemann et al., 2017). Three studies included treatment groups targeting only parts of SRL in addition to a holistic SRL intervention (Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008; Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014). None of these studies showed the holistic SRL intervention having significantly stronger results regarding SRL at a delayed follow-up on all measures of SRL, but they did show stronger results on some measures. Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 16 Table 6 Study Results Author and Year Results Posttest Follow Up Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007 No significant differences on reading comprehension; Treatment group significantly increased reading strategy knowledge compared to control; No significant differences on reading self-efficacy. Treatment group had significantly higher reading comprehension; Treatment group had significantly increased reading-strategy knowledge and reading self- efficacy compared to the control. Cleary et al., 2017 No significant differences in math achievement; Treatment group had significantly higher scores for microanalytic attributions and adaptive inferences and test preparation; No significant differences on self- efficacy or maladaptive regulatory behaviors. No significant differences in math achievement; Treatment group maintained significantly higher scores for microanalytic attributions and adaptive inferences; No significant differences on self-efficacy, maladaptive regulatory behaviors, or test preparation. Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008 Both treatment groups had significantly greater increase in math knowledge and motivation than control; Combined treatment group had significantly higher metacognitive control than the attributional feedback and control conditions; No significant differences on math knowledge; Combined treatment group had significantly higher metacognitive control than the attributional feedback and control conditions; Both treatment groups had significantly higher motivation than control. Festas et al., 2015 Treatment group had significantly greater improvements in writing. Treatment group had significantly greater improvements in writing. Fidalgo et al., 2008 Posttest results from Torrance et al. (2007): Treatment group had significantly greater increase in time on task and time spent planning than control; No significant differences for revising. Within-group results: Treatment group significantly increased text quality Treatment group had significantly higher quality writing; Treatment group had significantly higher time spent planning and metaknowledge of text structure; No significant differences on revisions or self- efficacy. Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2019 No significant differences on math; No significant differences on SRL measures. Faded treatment group had significantly higher math scores than fixed treatment group (no control group). Faded treatment group had significantly higher scores than fixed treatment group on some SRL measures: knowledge of cognition, mastery goal and performance-approach goal orientation; Fixed treatment group had significantly more accurate confidence judgments than faded treatment group. Hacker et al., 2015 No significant differences on writing scores. Treatment group had significantly higher writing scores. Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 17 Author and Year Results Minnaert et al., 2017 Mainly modest declines in motivation across groups. Significantly less decline in motivation for combined treatment group on task orientation, ego-enhancing orientation, and ego-defeating orientation than control; For the strategy instruction only, ego orientations showed significantly less decline than control. Sanz et al., 2003 Treatment group had significantly higher scores for general intelligence and academic achievement; Treatment group had significantly higher frequency of use of metacognitive strategies. Treatment group had significantly higher scores for general intelligence and academic achievement; Treatment group had significantly higher frequency of use of metacognitive strategies. Schunemann et al., 2013 Both treatment groups had significantly higher reading comprehension than control, but treatment groups did not differ; Both treatment groups had significantly higher strategy-related task performance and reading self- efficacy than control, but treatment groups did not differ. Both treatment groups had significantly higher reading comprehension than control, and the combined treatment group had significantly higher reading comprehension than the RT treatment group; Both treatment groups had significantly higher strategy-related task performance and reading self-efficacy than control, and the combined treatment group had significantly higher strategy-related task performance than the RT treatment group. Schunemann et al., 2017 No significant differences on reading comprehension. Combined SRL treatment group had significantly higher quality feedback and significantly more improved strategy-related task performance than the RT-only treatment group. Sontag & Stoeger, 2015 Within-group results: Treatment group including high achieving subgroup, average achieving subgroup, and average intelligence subgroup, had significantly increased self-reported SRL; Treatment group including all subgroups had significantly increased scores for correctly identified main ideas. Within-group results: Treatment group, including all subgroups, had significantly increased self-reported SRL. Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006 Comprehensive combined treatment group had significantly greater effects for reading comprehension compared to control; Partially combined treatment group had significantly higher understanding of reading strategies and significantly reduced learning goal orientation compared to control; No significant differences between treatment and control groups for self- efficacy. Comprehensive combined treatment group had significantly higher reading comprehension compared to control; Comprehensive combined treatment group had significantly higher understanding of reading strategies and application of reading strategies compared to control; No significant differences between treatment and control groups for self-efficacy. Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 18 Author and Year Results Sporer & Schunemann, 2014 No significant differences for reading strategies or motivation. All treatment groups had significantly higher reading comprehension than control; Combined SRL treatment group and strategy implementation treatment group had significantly higher reading strategy scores compared to the outcome regulation treatment and control groups; Outcome regulation treatment group had significantly higher motivation than the combined SRL treatment. Stoeger et al., 2014 When migration data was included as a predictor, the combined treatment group had significantly higher reading comprehension scores than the text reduction treatment and control groups; The combined group had a significantly higher preference for SRL and identified significantly more main ideas than other groups. No significant differences for reading comprehension; The combined group showed a significantly higher preference for SRL than other groups. Torrance et al., 2007 Treatment group had significantly greater increase in time on task and time spent planning than control; No significant differences for revising. Within-group results: Treatment group significantly increased text quality. Treatment group had significantly greater increase in time on task and time spent planning than control; No significant differences for revising Within-group results: Treatment group sustained increased text quality. Vandevelde et al., 2017 Treatment group had a significantly greater increase in teacher-rated SRL and significantly lower decrease in external regulation and memorizing compared to control. Treatment group had a significantly greater decrease in teacher-rated SRL; No significant differences on self-reported or think-aloud measures of SRL. Wagner & Perels, 2012 Both treatment groups had a significantly greater increase in translation competency and translation strategy application than control group; Both treatment groups had significantly higher SRL scores than control group. Within-group results: The combined treatment group maintained translation competency and translation strategy application; The translation-only treatment group significantly decreased in translation competency and strategy application. Note. Results included in the table are between-group results unless otherwise noted. Discussion This review evaluated studies that include holistic SRL interventions targeting all phases of SRL and were intended to improve students’ SRL or academic achievement. Because this review focused on the durability of effects of SRL interventions, only studies with a delayed follow-up measure that took place at least eight weeks following the intervention period were included. The studies are further restricted to K-12 populations. These studies included a wide range of participants from elementary to high school grade levels, including both typical student populations and populations with more specific characteristics typically related to academic risk. Studies generally included large sample sizes, and researchers executed rigorous, quasi- Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 19 experimental designs. The holistic SRL interventions tended to be complex, multi-faceted, and lengthy interventions typically implemented in classroom settings and within core academic domains. Given the quality of the identified studies, conclusions drawn from compiled results can be viewed as strong empirical evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions. These studies included mainly positive outcomes related to SRL variables after a delay and overall indicate that SRL interventions can have a lasting impact on students’ self-regulation, though results were mixed in several studies that included multiple measures of SRL. There were many differences in how SRL was operationalized and assessed due to the variety of subprocesses subsumed by SRL, which made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the specific contributing factors that led to these results beyond the general trends amongst the interventions previously described. Other researchers have similarly noted the challenges in measuring SRL and variations between studies (Rovers et al., 2019). Achievement results from these interventions were also largely positive after a delayed follow-up measure and were more readily synthesized. After examining the durability of intervention effects on achievement, one can conclude that holistic SRL interventions do often have lasting effects on student achievement, at least within the content area in which they were implemented. Furthermore, one study included a widespread intervention and showed lasting positive effects on a global measure of achievement, but this was not replicated in other studies (Sanz et al., 2003). Enduring achievement effects occurred across multiple domains, including reading, writing, math, and foreign language. These results were present for typical students, at- risk populations, and across grade levels. This pattern of effects on achievement across domains and populations illustrates the flexibility of these interventions to improve student success in a variety of contexts and without exacerbating existing achievement gaps. Another pattern from the reviewed studies indicates that combining SRL strategies with domain-specific strategy instruction leads to better long-term achievement outcomes than domain-specific strategies alone (Schunemann et al., 2013; Schunemann et al., 2017; Sporer & Schunemann, 2014; Wagner & Perels, 2012). This is an important implication for our classrooms, where instructors may focus on one domain at a time. Although students may receive a great deal of instruction regarding domain-specific strategies, they may consequently be provided with less emphasis on strategies that are transferable across domains. Finally, while most researchers that assessed achievement after a delay reported positive effects of holistic SRL interventions on achievement, several of these studies did not have the same results at an immediate posttest; rather, they did not see these effects emerge until the delayed follow-up. This finding implies that in some instances, the effect of holistic SRL interventions on academic achievement may not be realized until a delay, at which time many educators and administrators may have failed to continue to evaluate lingering effects and prematurely abandoned the SRL programs. Overall, this review supports the assertion of other researchers that holistic SRL interventions have the potential to induce lasting effects on students’ achievement. Hacker and Bol (2019) described a similar pattern supporting holistic interventions on metacognitive judgments and achievement; however, they did not focus on the durability of findings or differences across domains. Dignath and Buttner (2008) did address durability and concluded from their meta-analysis that longer SRL interventions were generally more effective for primary and secondary school students. Similarly, another review (de Boer et al., 2018) did focus on long-term effects but more broadly included interventions involving metacognitive strategy instruction. de Boer et al. (2018) reported that student achievement generally improved following Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 20 the intervention and that these improvements were sustained and sometimes increased further after a delay. While the studies reviewed here generally did not address transfer from one academic domain to another, and most achievement results are domain-specific, such results consistently occurred across domains. This suggests that similar supports could be implemented in a wide variety of classes, subjects, and domains and lead to improved student success. While domain- specific learning strategies are already being utilized within K-12 education, these results lend support for the implication that combining SRL training and domain-specific strategies can lead to better achievement outcomes in the long term. Results of this review translate into practical implications for educators. Designers and instructors should include comprehensive SRL supports in various domain areas. There is a need for more SRL support in our K-12 schools. If these interventions seem to work and lead to lasting effects, they should be incorporated frequently. Additionally, SRL is an important predictor of academic achievement in college environments as well (Dorrenbacher & Perels, 2016). Fostering SRL in earlier grades can have long-term benefits and help prepare students for continued academic success as they advance to postsecondary education. Limitations of Studies Reviewed The reviewed studies are not without limitations, many of which were identified by the authors themselves. Regarding methodology, the researchers typically utilized quasi- experimental designs. Although intact classrooms were generally randomly assigned to conditions, there was not true random assignment of participants to treatment and control groups. Selection bias cannot be ruled out completely as a potential confound. Also, in most studies, the control group was a “business as usual” condition, which limits clarity of conclusions given that it is not a true control condition (Dynarski, 2016). This is particularly salient when few details are provided regarding the BAU condition or when comparison groups are selected from classes taught by different teachers or from different schools, as occurred in many of the reviewed studies. There are also limitations regarding the fidelity of implementation of interventions. While most studies described steps taken to monitor and assess fidelity, these ranged in rigor, such as whether they included frequent observations or relied on few or no observations and instead focused on teacher self-reports. In other studies, the intervention was implemented by researchers or trained assistants; while this may improve the fidelity of implementation, it reduces the ecological validity of the studies (Schunemann et al., 2013). Another limitation is the frequent reliance on self-report measures to assess SRL. While there were some other creative approaches utilized, such as process logs, think-alouds, and analysis of writing tasks and other artifacts, these kinds of additional measures were less frequent, leading to a lack of triangulation of SRL data as well as the potential for self-report biases (Rovers et al., 2019). Also, as previously discussed, there was variation among studies in the components of SRL targeted and the instruments utilized. Gaps remaining in the literature become clear when examining the trends amongst the studies. There is a lack of exploration of the transfer of SRL skills across academic domains, with most interventions implemented and evaluated in only one domain. Most studies also took place with typical student populations resulting in less information regarding at-risk, neurodiverse, or ELL students. Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 21 Limitations of Present Review There are also limitations of this systematic review. The review includes a relatively small number of articles, and only articles available in English were selected. The review also excludes gray literature, further limiting the scope. An additional challenge of the present review concerns the complex nature of SRL. SRL is broad and encompasses many phases and subprocesses (Zimmerman, 2002). It is difficult to measure SRL comprehensively, and there are a multitude of ways to approach assessment (Rovers et al., 2019). There are also myriad options for interventions designed to target different combinations of subprocesses, and SRL is applicable in all different content areas. Because of these complexities, it can be difficult to make clear comparisons between studies which lack commonalities in measurement and intervention design. Suggestions for Further Research Authors of the reviewed studies had several suggestions for future research. They described extending research to other populations of grade levels and demographics, utilizing larger sample sizes, and including more treatment groups. Researchers also recommended including additional measures to address more components of SRL and to move beyond self- report measures. Authors discussed the need for additional interventions of varying structures of time blocks and implemented by teachers rather than researchers. The need for more observation of treatment groups was also noted, including video recordings and observations of control groups. The present authors agree with these identified areas for ongoing research. Increased monitoring of fidelity via observations would improve the rigor of future studies. Further, frequent observations of control groups would improve studies as well. Observations could also be a vehicle for assessing SRL and could be video recorded for in-depth analysis. Additional SRL measures are also needed in further research, such as think-aloud protocols, microanalytic measures, document analysis, and other process measures. Including more measures of SRL would consequently allow for triangulation of data to reduce bias in results. Future research could also explore long-term transfer effects of SRL and achievement in other domain areas and with global measures. Additionally, studies could include interventions that are reinforced periodically over time after the initial implementation period in comparison to those that are not to evaluate differences in durability. Also, as noted, SRL interventions were successful in many domain areas. Future research could explore interventions which are implemented in multiple domains simultaneously. Future reviews of lasting effects of SRL interventions can also be more comprehensive by including additional populations beyond K-12 as well as additional forms of literature. Ultimately, more studies which meet the inclusion criteria of this review are needed to form a larger data set to examine patterns and draw conclusions about specific intervention designs and components that are most effective in a variety of different contexts. Although this review illustrates the potential of holistic SRL interventions to improve K- 12 students’ academic achievement and self-regulation of learning, knowledge is still limited due to the relative paucity of studies that include longer-term follow-up outcome measures. This dearth of research could be explained by the complexities of designing and implementing holistic SRL interventions, including the resources required. In sum, these studies can be burdensome to conduct and sponsor, yet well worthwhile in order to enhance the validity, generalizability, and durability of findings. Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 22 References Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6-23. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352 Antoniou, F. & Souvignier, E. (2007). Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 41-57. Averill, O. H., Baker, D., & Rinaldi, C. (2014). A blueprint for effectively using RTI intervention block time. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(1), 29-38. http://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214532351 Bembenutty, H. (2011). New directions for self-regulation of learning in postsecondary education. In H. Bembenutty (Ed.), Self-regulated learning (pp. 117-124). Wiley Periodicals. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl Cabell’s International. (2021). Journalytics. https://www2.cabells.com/journalytics Cleary, T. J. & Platten, P. (2013). Examining the correspondence between self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A case study analysis. Educational Research International, 2013, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/272560 Cleary, T. J., Velardi, B., & Schnaidman, B. (2017). Effects of the Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP) on middle school students' strategic skills, self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 28-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.004 de Boer, H., Donker, A. S., Kostons, D.N.M, & Van der Werf, G. P. C. (2018). Long-term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student academic performance: A meta- analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 98-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.002 Dignath, C. & Buttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. (2008). How can primary school students learn self- regulated learning strategies most effectively? Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101- 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6 Donker, A. S., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath van Ewijk, C. C., & Van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta- analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002 Dorrenbacher, L. & Perels, F. (2016). More is more? Evaluation of interventions to foster self- regulated learning in college. International Journal of Educational Research, 78, 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.010 Dresel, M. & Haugwitz, M. (2008). A computer-based approach to fostering motivation and self- regulated learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.1.3-20 Dynarski, M. (2016). Going public: Writing about effectiveness studies and their results. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352 http://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214532351 https://doi.org/10.1002/tl https://www2.cabells.com/journalytics http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/272560 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.010 https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.1.3-20 Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 23 Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Analytic Technical Assistance and Development. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573629.pdf Ferguson, L. M., Yonge, O., & Myrick, F. (2004). Students’ involvement in faculty research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(4), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690400300405 Festas, I., Oliveira, A. L., Rebelo, J. A., Damião, M. H., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2015). Professional development in Self-Regulated Strategy Development: Effects on the writing performance of eighth grade Portuguese students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.004 Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., & García, J. N. (2008). The long-term effects of strategy-focussed writing instruction for grade six students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 672-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.09.001 Gidalevich, S. & Kramarski, B. (2019). The value of fixed versus faded self-regulatory scaffolds on fourth graders’ mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 47(1), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9475-z Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Applied and Practice-Based Research, Special Edition of Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189 Hacker, D. J. & Bol, L. (2019). Calibration and self-regulated learning: Making the connections. In J. Dunlosky & K. Rawson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook on cognition and education. Cambridge University Press. Hacker, D. J., Dole, J. A., Ferguson, M., Adamson, S., Roundy, L., & Scarpulla, L. (2015). The short-term and maintenance effects of self-regulated strategy development in writing for middle school students. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 31(4), 351-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.869775 Harris, K. R. & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Brookline Books. Mevarech, Z. R. & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0028312034002365 Minnaert, A., Prince, A., & Opdenakker, M. (2017). The effect of self-regulated strategy instruction and behavioral consultation on motivation: A longitudinal study on the effect of school-based interventions in secondary education. Frontiers in Education, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00061 Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(422), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450-461. https://doi.org/10.1086/323732 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573629.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690400300405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.09.001 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9475-z https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189 https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.869775 https://doi.org/10.3102/0028312034002365 https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00061 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 https://doi.org/10.1086/323732 Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 24 Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 Rovers, S. F. E., Clarebout, G., Savelberg, H. H. C. M., de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2019). Granularity matters: Comparing different ways of measuring self- regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 14, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09188-6 Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, L., Ugarte, D., Iriarte, D., & Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, T. (2003). Immediate and long-term effects of a cognitive intervention on intelligence, self- regulation, and academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173604 Schunemann, N., Sporer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class reciprocal teaching: A moderator–mediator analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’ reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 289-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.002 Schunemann, N., Vollinger, V., Brunstein, J., & Sporer, N. (2017). Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instructional Science, 45(4), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1 Sitzmann, T. & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777 Sontag, C. & Stoeger, H. (2015). Can highly intelligent and high-achieving students benefit from training in self-regulated learning in a regular classroom context? Learning & Individual Differences, 41, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.008 Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006 Sporer, N. & Schunemann, N. (2014). Improvements of self-regulation procedures for fifth graders' reading competence: Analyzing effects on reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and motivation for reading. Learning & Instruction, 33, 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.002 Stoeger, H., Sontag, C., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Impact of a teacher-led intervention on preference for self-regulated learning, finding main ideas in expository texts, and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 799-814. https://doi.org/0.1037/a0036035 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 and Learning, 3, 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008- 9027-z Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & Garcia, J. N. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth-grade writers. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.003 Vandevelde, S, Van Keer, H, & Merchie, E. (2017). The challenge of promoting self-regulated learning among primary school children with a low socioeconomic and immigrant https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09188-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173604 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.002 https://doi.org/0.1037/a0036035 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9027-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9027-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.003 Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 25 background. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(2), 113-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.999363 Wagner, D. & Perels, F. (2012). Evaluation of an intervention program to foster self-regulated learning and academic achievement in Latin instruction. International Scholarly Research Network Education, 2012, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/848562 Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., & Grassinger, R. (2010). Assessing self-regulated learning with the FSL–7. Journal für Begabtenförderung, 10, 24 –33. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1041- 6080(15)00144-2/rf0240 Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.999363 https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/848562 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1041-6080(15)00144-2/rf0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1041-6080(15)00144-2/rf0240 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 Cousins, et al.: Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Self-Tegulated Learning Interventions Current Issues in Education, 23(1) 26 Author Notes Erin Cousins Old Dominion University ecousins@odu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7508-147X Linda Bol Old Dominion University lbol@odu.edu Tian Luo Old Dominion University tluo@odu.edu More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Current Issues in Education is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University . mailto:ecousins@odu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7508-147X mailto:lbol@odu.edu mailto:tluo@odu.edu https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/