未来研究建议生成

论点陈述（中文） 基于社会认知理论与自我调节学习（self-regulated learning, SRL）框架，现有证据显示学业自效能（academic self-efficacy, ASE）不仅预测SRL的策略使用与坚持性，同时也在学习活动中被SRL的监控与成就反馈动态塑造；两者可能呈现交互效应并共同影响学业结果（Bandura, 1997; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 2002; Dent & Koenka, 2016; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016）。在此基础上，提出三条面向因果识别、测量优化与情境边界条件的未来研究方向。

Three future directions (English thesis) Grounded in social-cognitive theory and SRL models, evidence indicates that academic self-efficacy (ASE) and self-regulated learning (SRL) reciprocally shape each other during learning and may interact to influence achievement (Bandura, 1997; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 2002; Dent & Koenka, 2016; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016). We propose three directions that emphasize causal identification, measurement rigor, and contextual boundary conditions.

一、方向一：揭示SRL与ASE交互的时间动态与因果机制

• 核心主张：SRL与ASE的交互应在“个体内、过程性”的时间尺度上检验，而非仅停留在横断面或个体间水平。短时段（分钟—天）的自我效能波动可能影响策略选择与坚持性，反过来，策略实施成败与外部反馈又重塑自我效能，构成交互耦合的闭环。
• 关键问题与假设：
  1. 个体内时滞效应：时点t的ASE是否预测t+1的监控与调节行为，且这种效应是否受当前任务难度或先前绩效调节？反向路径是否同样显著（Hamaker, Kuiper, & Grasman, 2015; Asparouhov, Hamaker, & Muthén, 2018）？
  2. 非线性或阈值：ASE过低时策略训练无效，过高时可能降低监控强度，存在倒U型关系的可能（Bandura, 1997; Winne, 2010）。
  3. 机制中介：动机性监控准确性与反馈归因是否在SRL→ASE、ASE→SRL的路径中发挥中介作用（Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Azevedo, 2005）。
• 方法建议：
  • 设计：经验采样/密集纵向设计（每日或每任务多次测量，≥30–50个时间点/人，样本量≥150–200），并在数字化学习环境收集客观轨迹数据（点击流、笔记、查看提示、重试次数）以减少共同方法偏差（Winne, 2010）。
  • 分析：采用RI-CLPM估计个体内交互，结合DSEM刻画短期动态与个体差异；比较线性与非线性规格；预注册模型与稳健性检验（Hamaker et al., 2015; Asparouhov et al., 2018）。
  • 因果增强：嵌入微型操控（如难度标记、规范性反馈）瞬时上调或下调ASE，以检验对后续SRL行为的因果影响；或在任务中随机提供不同监控提示，检验其对ASE的回授效应（Azevedo, 2005）。
• 预期贡献：澄清交互效应的时间粒度与方向性，识别何种时刻及条件下出现“协同增益”或“去耦合”，为精准干预提供时机与剂量信息。

1. Direction 1: Unpack temporal dynamics and causal mechanisms of the SRL × ASE interaction

• Claim: The SRL–ASE interaction should be examined within persons and across time during learning episodes. Short-term fluctuations in ASE may shape strategy selection and persistence, while strategy enactment and feedback recursively update ASE, forming a coupled system.
• Research questions:
  1. Within-person lagged effects: Does ASE at time t predict monitoring/control at t+1, moderated by task difficulty or prior performance? Are reverse paths comparable (Hamaker et al., 2015; Asparouhov et al., 2018)?
  2. Nonlinearity/thresholds: Very low ASE may dampen benefits of strategy training; very high ASE may reduce monitoring. Test potential inverted-U effects (Bandura, 1997; Winne, 2010).
  3. Mechanisms: Does accuracy of metacognitive monitoring and attribution mediate ASE→SRL and SRL→ASE (Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Azevedo, 2005)?
• Methods:
  • Design: Intensive longitudinal or experience-sampling with ≥30–50 measurements per person and N≥150–200; collect trace data from digital environments to limit common-method bias (Winne, 2010).
  • Analysis: RI-CLPM for within-person dynamics and DSEM for short-term coupling and heterogeneity; compare linear vs nonlinear models; preregister and conduct robustness checks (Hamaker et al., 2015; Asparouhov et al., 2018).
  • Causal leverage: Embed micro-manipulations (e.g., normative feedback, difficulty labels) to exogenously nudge ASE and test downstream SRL; randomize monitoring prompts to test feedback-to-efficacy effects (Azevedo, 2005).
• Contribution: Identifies time windows and conditions for synergy vs decoupling, informing just-in-time support.

二、方向二：面向个体差异的“协同干预”试验与个案化适应

• 核心主张：如果SRL与ASE存在交互，则单一成分干预可能产生边际效应受限；有必要检验“策略训练×效能提升”的协同方案及其对不同学习者的差异化作用。
• 关键问题与假设：
  1. 协同效应检验：2×2因子随机对照试验（SRL策略训练是/否 × 自效能提升是/否）检验交互项，对比单一干预与组合干预的增量效应与成本效益（Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Dent & Koenka, 2016; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016）。
  2. 画像与定制：采用潜在剖面分析识别High SRL–High ASE、High SRL–Low ASE等画像；比较画像间干预响应差异，评估是否需要分层/适配路径（Morin, Meyer, Creusier, & Biétry, 2016）。
  3. 实时适配：在数字环境中开展“即时自适应干预”（JITAI），基于实时ASE与SRL状态触发不同提示或反馈，采用微随机化试验优化触发规则与剂量（Nahum-Shani et al., 2018）。
• 方法建议：
  • 设计：多地点RCT以提高外部效度；预先功效分析针对交互项效应量（例如小到中等交互需更大样本）；过程测量嵌入学习分析证据链（策略使用质量、监控准确性）。
  • 测量：结合MSLQ等验证量表的自效能与策略分量表与表现/轨迹指标，降低共同方法偏差（Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Winne, 2010）。
  • 分析：多水平结构方程或层级模型估计组别×时间×画像的三重交互；进行调节的中介分析，分离“提升ASE→更有效SRL→成就”的路径。
• 预期贡献：为“何时、对谁、以何种组合”最有效提供因果证据，推动从统一处方走向个案化、成本敏感的教学支持。

2. Direction 2: Test synergistic “co-interventions” and person-centered adaptation

• Claim: If SRL and ASE interact, single-component interventions may be insufficient. Factorial designs should test SRL strategy training crossed with efficacy-enhancement components and evaluate heterogeneity of treatment effects.
• Research questions:
  1. Synergy: 2×2 factorial RCTs (SRL training × ASE enhancement) to test interaction terms and incremental cost-effectiveness (Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Dent & Koenka, 2016; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016).
  2. Profiles and tailoring: Use latent profile analysis to identify SRL–ASE configurations and compare differential responsiveness (Morin et al., 2016).
  3. Real-time adaptation: Implement JITAIs that trigger supports based on momentary ASE and SRL states; optimize via micro-randomized trials (Nahum-Shani et al., 2018).
• Methods:
  • Design: Multi-site RCTs; power analyses focused on interaction effects; embed process measures and learning analytics to capture mechanism.
  • Measurement: Combine validated self-report (e.g., MSLQ subscales) with performance/trace indicators to mitigate common-method bias (Pintrich et al., 1993; Winne, 2010).
  • Analysis: Multilevel SEM/HLM estimating group × time × profile interactions; moderated mediation to test ASE→SRL→achievement pathways.
• Contribution: Delivers causal, actionable evidence about for whom and under what combinations SRL–ASE co-interventions yield the greatest gains.

三、方向三：考察情境与文化边界条件，扩展至社会性调节情境

• 核心主张：SRL×ASE交互的强度与形式可能随学科、课堂气候、反馈文化与社会互动而变。跨情境与跨文化研究、以及从个体调节扩展到共调节与共享调节，有助于界定外部效度与公平性。
• 关键问题与假设：
  1. 多层情境效应：教师反馈实践与课堂规范可能通过影响效能来源（掌握体验、替代经验、言语劝导、情绪唤起）而调节SRL×ASE交互（Usher & Pajares, 2008）。
  2. 跨文化与群体差异：不同文化/移民背景的效能信念与自我陈述倾向差异，可能改变交互效应的表现与测量特性（Klassen, 2004）。需进行测量等值检验，防止虚假交互。
  3. 社会性调节：在协作学习中，个体ASE与群体层面的共效能、共调节规范共同作用，可能出现跨层交互（Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013）。
• 方法建议：
  • 设计：跨班级/学校的多层抽样；跨文化比较研究并进行测量等值与结构等值检验；在协作任务中采集会话与协作日志，编码社会性调节行为。
  • 分析：多层模型估计个体内（SRL×ASE）与班级/文化层面的交互（cross-level interactions）；将学科（如数学、写作）作为情境调节变量（Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012）。
  • 伦理与公平：报告不同子群体的异质性效应，评估干预的公平性与潜在副作用，避免“强者恒强”的马太效应。
• 预期贡献：明确SRL×ASE交互的情境与文化边界，支持在不同教育生态与学习任务中的可转移性与公平实施。

3. Direction 3: Contextual and cultural boundary conditions, extending to social regulation

• Claim: The magnitude and form of SRL × ASE interactions likely vary by subject domain, classroom climate, feedback culture, and social interaction. Cross-context and cross-cultural work, and moving from individual to co-/socially shared regulation, will clarify external validity and equity.
• Research questions:
  1. Multilevel context effects: Teacher feedback and classroom norms may shape sources of efficacy (mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, affect), moderating SRL × ASE coupling (Usher & Pajares, 2008).
  2. Cross-cultural and group differences: Cultural and immigrant-background differences in efficacy beliefs and self-report styles can alter observed interactions; measurement invariance is essential (Klassen, 2004).
  3. Social regulation: In collaborative learning, individual ASE, collective efficacy, and shared regulation norms may produce cross-level interactions (Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013).
• Methods:
  • Design: Multilevel sampling across classes/schools; cross-cultural comparisons with measurement and structural invariance tests; collect and code discourse/log data for socially shared regulation.
  • Analysis: Multilevel models estimating individual-level (SRL × ASE) and cross-level interactions; include subject-domain moderators (Richardson et al., 2012).
  • Equity: Report heterogeneous treatment effects and assess unintended consequences to avoid “Matthew effects.”
• Contribution: Specifies where SRL × ASE interactions generalize and how to implement equitable supports across educational ecologies.

参考文献（APA第七版）

• Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 369–388.
• Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 507–533.
• Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A meta-analysis on intervention studies in primary school. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264.
• Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116.
• Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84.
• Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers for metacognition and self-regulated learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.
• Klassen, R. M. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy beliefs of South Asian immigrant and Anglo Canadian early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 731–742.
• Morin, A. J. S., Meyer, J. P., Creusier, J., & Biétry, F. (2016). Multiple-group analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1645.
• Nahum-Shani, I., Smith, S. N., Spring, B. J., Collins, L. M., Witkiewitz, K., Tewari, A., & Murphy, S. A. (2018). Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: Key components and design principles for ongoing support. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(6), 446–462.
• Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.
• 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.
• Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 267–276.
• 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). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
• Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422.

基于近年来课后服务政策的试点与跟踪评估，现有证据普遍显示：实施质量在地区与校际之间差异显著、学生受益具有显著异质性、资源配置与治理模式影响项目成效与可持续性（Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010；Lauer et al., 2006；教育部办公厅，2021；中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅，2021）。围绕这些规律性发现，提出三条面向政策与实践改进的未来研究方向。

一、从“是否有效”转向“如何、对谁、在何条件下有效”的机制与实施质量研究

• 核心论点：单纯检验平均效果不足以指导改进。需要阐明课后服务通过何种活动要素与组织条件发挥作用，并辨析不同学生、不同学校情境下的差异化效果与边际条件，从而形成可复用的改进路径（Fixsen et al., 2005；Pawson & Tilley, 1997）。
• 关键问题：
  • 机制：活动设计特征（例如循序性、主动性、聚焦性与明确性，SAFE 原则）与教师实施行为如何通过学习投入与课堂气氛影响学业与社会情感结果（Durlak et al., 2010）。
  • 实施质量与剂量：实施忠实度、出勤率、持续时间与活动强度对效果的贡献度及阈值。
  • 情境与群体异质性：不同学业起点、家庭社会经济地位、城乡与校际资源条件下的差异化效应。
• 方法设计与测量：
  • 混合方法的多点位追踪：量化层面采用多层线性/广义线性模型，嵌入实施忠实度（Carroll et al., 2007）与剂量指标；质性层面开展跨案例比较与因果机制溯源（包括扎根理论与真实主义评估的“情境—机制—结果”配置）。
  • 质量测量：采用标准化过程性量表（如课堂互动质量量表或本土化同类工具）、观察量表与活动脚本编码；学生层面同时测量学业成绩与社会情感能力（OECD, 2021），并记录时间利用与学习投入。
  • 异质性估计：事前分层与事后交互项分析，结合分位数效应与倾向得分加权，识别“对谁有效”。

二、以强因果识别为核心的公平性与参与效果评估

• 核心论点：在“普及+弹性实施”的政策环境下，课后服务的参与存在选择性，且地区推进存在时间错位，需采用严谨的因果推断策略估计对不同群体的净效应与分布效应，特别关注弱势群体的可及性与收益（Lauer et al., 2006）。
• 关键问题：
  • 可及性与使用差异：城乡、校际、流动儿童与低社会经济地位家庭的参与障碍与机会结构。
  • 净效应与分布效应：对学业、出勤、行为、身心健康与家校合作的平均与分位数效应；“双减”背景下时间再配置的替代与互补效应（中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅，2021）。
• 方法设计与数据基础：
  • 因果识别：利用地区与学校层面的分期推进开展多期DID并采用异质处理效应稳健估计（Callaway & Sant’Anna, 2021；Sun & Abraham, 2021）；在容量约束或资格阈值存在时考虑回归不连续设计；扩大试点时可采用阶梯楔形集群随机试验以提高外部效度（Hemming et al., 2015）。
  • 数据整合：建立学生纵向行政数据库（学业、出勤、行为）、课后服务出勤与活动记录、教师工作负荷与学校资源台账，并联结家庭背景与时间利用调查，确保度量的信度与效度。
  • 公平分析：采用逆概率加权与分解方法识别参与差距来源；开展交叉分层的异质性分析与分布效应估计，评估“缩小差距”或“马太效应”的风险。

三、成本—效果与可持续性：将成效、负担与治理模式纳入综合评价

• 核心论点：在常态化推进与财政约束并存的背景下，亟需比较不同供给模式与活动组合的成本—效果、教师与学校负担、以及治理与问责安排对可持续性的影响（Levin & McEwan, 2001, 2018）。
• 关键问题：
  • 供给与治理模式比较：校内教师主导、校外机构合作与区域统筹等模式在成效、成本、质量控制与安全合规方面的差异。
  • 师生负担与组织健康：教师工作时长、职业压力与离职意向的变化，学生课余时间分配与福祉指标的影响（OECD, 2019）。
  • 预算影响与规模化路径：不同配置方案的边际成本与预算影响，规模化扩展中的质量保持机制。
• 方法设计与评估框架：
  • 经济评价：采用“要素法”进行全成本核算并计算单位效果成本，开展情景分析与敏感性分析（Levin & McEwan, 2018）。
  • 综合评估：结合CIPP等项目评估框架，对投入—过程—产出—结果进行链式评价，并纳入安全与合规指标。
  • 可持续性追踪：设置学校与教师面板，利用DID或固定效应模型识别治理与排班策略对教师负荷与学生福祉的中长期影响；辅以质性过程追踪，识别可复制的管理实践与激励机制。

上述三项方向互为支撑：机制与质量研究为精准改进提供可操作要素，强因果与公平评估为政策取舍提供效应与分配证据，成本—效果与可持续性研究为治理与资源配置提供决策依据。建议在省—市—校三级搭建标准化数据与共同指标体系，以保障多点位、长周期、可复用的证据积累。

参考文献

• Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(1), 40.
• Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. C. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230.
• Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309.
• Hemming, K., Haines, T. P., Chilton, P. J., Girling, A. J., & Lilford, R. J. (2015). The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: Rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ, 350, h391.
• Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. (2006). Out-of-school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313.
• Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., & Shand, R. (2018). Economic Evaluation in Education: Cost-Effectiveness and Benefit-Cost Analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2021). Beyond Academic Learning: First Results from the OECD Study on Social and Emotional Skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.
• 中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅. (2021). 关于进一步减轻义务教育阶段学生作业负担和校外培训负担的意见.
• 教育部办公厅. (2021). 关于进一步做好义务教育课后服务工作的通知.