↓ Skip to main content

The Regulation of Task Performance: A Trans-Disciplinary Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Regulation of Task Performance: A Trans-Disciplinary Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01862
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Clark, Guillaume Dumas

Abstract

Definitions of meta-cognition typically have two components: (1) knowledge about one's own cognitive functioning; and, (2) control over one's own cognitive activities. Since Flavell and his colleagues provided the empirical foundation on which to build studies of meta-cognition and the autonoetic (self) knowledge required for effective learning, the intervening years have seen the extensive dissemination of theoretical and empirical research on meta-cognition, which now encompasses a variety of issues and domains including educational psychology and neuroscience. Nevertheless, the psychological and neural underpinnings of meta-cognitive predictions and reflections that determine subsequent regulation of task performance remain ill understood. This article provides an outline of meta-cognition in the science of education with evidence drawn from neuroimaging, psycho-physiological, and psychological literature. We will rigorously explore research that addresses the pivotal role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in controlling the meta-cognitive processes that underpin the self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies learners employ to regulate task performance. The article delineates what those strategies are, and how the learning environment can facilitate or frustrate strategy use by influencing learners' self-efficacy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 23%
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 21%
Neuroscience 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,098,903
of 24,513,158 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,740
of 33,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,693
of 403,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#166
of 447 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,513,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 447 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.