Does self-regulated learning happen? Learning socio-scientific argumentation through self-Assessment strategies

The current study addresses a notable gap in our understanding of what self-assessment design improves students’ socio-scientific argumentation. We investigated the effects of three self-assessment designs: (1) Prediction-only, where students predicted their performance; (2) Standards-informed, where students predicted their performance and compared it against evaluation criteria; and (3) Reflective-adaptation, which additionally engaged students in reflecting on and adjusting their learning strategies. A total of 116 eighth-grade students were assigned to one of these three groups. Over the course of three units focused on energy-related socio-scientific issues, we examined students’ cognitive and metacognitive outcomes–including the quality of their arguments (supporting claims and rebuttals), the accuracy of their self-assessments, and their self-regulation growth from pre–to post-test. Results showed that only the Reflective-adaptation group exhibited a significant improvement in self-regulation. Moreover, this group demonstrated the most substantial gains in argumentation quality over time, particularly in generating well-supported claims. These findings highlight the pivotal role of adaptation tasks in helping students move beyond monitoring toward active regulation. This shift not only enhanced cognitive performance but also strengthened metacognitive skills, underscoring the value of comprehensive self-assessment approaches in science education.