Research Library
Publication

Abstract

Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) opportunities decrease when students reach secondary education (Casey & Caudle, 2013). Nonetheless, adolescent students are still expected to apply SRL skills and achieve academic success, all with predeveloped brains and bodies vulnerable to psychophysiological dysregulation. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated adolescents’ deficits in SRL and led to chronic school absenteeism, with 16 million U.S. students considered chronically absent, compared to the pre-pandemic figure of 8 million students (NEA, October 2023). Time spent in the classroom is essential to learning and, therefore, was also measured as a variable in this study and referred to as Time To Learn (TTL) (Borg, 1980; Brown & Saks, 1986; Calma-Birling & Zelazo, 2022; Cotton & Savard, 1981; Drysdale, 2023; Dynaski et al., 2004; Frazier & Morrison, 1998; Gettinger & White, 1979; Lauer et al., 2006; YRBS, 2021; Zadina, 2023).

This 6-week empirical study delved into the potential of a psychophysiological intervention as a Tier 1 learning strategy for SRL, organized using Zimmerman’s SRL model. A quantitative analysis was conducted using several t-tests to assess SRL and TTL differences between a Treatment Group (TG) and a Control Group (CG) of 10th-grade students (N = 30). Empirical data were collected by a pretest/posttest design during the Metacognitive Self-Regulation (MSR) instrument and by a methodical collection of percentage of time data from the school’s check-in/check-out system measuring TTL.

Results from inferential statistics revealed that students who used biofeedback for 6-weeks did not show a significant difference in SRL compared to those who did not. Similarly, Time To Learn (TTL) opportunities did not provide sufficient evidence between the TG and CG to suggest a statistical difference; therefore, the null hypotheses for both research questions could not be rejected. Interestingly, the study revealed that the CG made more improvements in SRL but spent the least amount of time in the classroom. Meanwhile, the TG showed the least improvement in SRL and spent the most time together in the classroom. While not providing definitive answers, these findings highlight new avenues for research. For example, this information may lead future researchers to inquire about the relationship between SRL and TTL and how time out of the classroom may relate to SRL. Further exploration related to these findings may deepen the understanding of SRL and TTL. Overall, this study revealed some discoveries similar to that of other research, contributed valuable data to mitigate the identified problem facing the adolescent population, and added value to the field of educational psychology. This study supported previous research stating that SRL cannot be measured in isolation (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005). Students who received biofeedback may have shown some improved SRL, but it cannot be determined that biofeedback was the only factor influencing students’ improvements in SRL.

This study introduced a novel approach to SRL practices specific to the secondary level. Before this study, the potential of a biofeedback intervention as an in-classroom SRL strategy at the secondary level was largely unexplored, with most research focused on elementary and postsecondary education. The biofeedback intervention in this study was widely accepted among students, parents, administrators, and community stakeholders, suggesting the likelihood that SRL opportunities will continue to be supported at the secondary level. This study adds to the field of educational psychology by highlighting the current problems that adolescents face and identifying psychophysiological approaches that support SRL.