Relationship between environmental and sustainability-related literacy and health behaviors: a systematic review.

In the context of 21st-century education, self-regulation (SR) is increasingly recognized as a critical competency that complements domain-specific knowledge and skills (Greene et al., ; Inzlicht et al., ). It enables learners to effectively navigate current and future educational challenges (Dumont et al., ; National Research Council, ; Wolters, ). Broadly defined, SR refers to the capacity to monitor and manage one’s cognitions, emotions, motivations, and behaviors in pursuit of personal goals or in response to contextual demands (e.g., Dinsmore et al., ; Roebers, ). This capacity is widely regarded as both a key determinant and a central outcome of educational processes, making it a subject of significant interest to both researchers and practitioners (Moore et al., ; Pintrich, ; Zimmerman, ). Reflecting its central importance, a substantial body of research has examined various dimensions of SR in educational contexts. This includes investigations into its antecedents, underlying mechanisms, targeted interventions, and its relationship with important educational outcomes such as academic achievement and student well-being (Duckworth & Seligman, ; Schunk & Greene, ). Despite this extensive scholarship, the field remains highly fragmented. For example, investigations under the umbrella term of SR in education range from studies of the cognitive foundations of SR (e.g., executive functioning), to the regulation of cognitive and metacognitive activities during learning (e.g., the core of self-regulated learning, SRL), to analyses of how effort, engagement, and perseverance can be supported during learning (e.g., motivational processes), and how stable dispositions shape educational careers (e.g., personality). The lack of a cohesive conceptual framework has impeded cumulative progress and contributed to theoretical ambiguity (e.g., Alexander, ; Dinsmore et al., ; Kaplan, ; Lajoie, ; Schunk, ). One major source of fragmentation stems from the jingle-jangle fallacies, which describe key conceptual confusions in psychological research (e.g., Wulff & Mata, ). Specifically, a jingle fallacy occurs when the same label (the same “jingle”) is used to refer to distinct constructs (measured by different indicators), so that the same label represents separate phenomena. A jangle fallacy, on the other hand, occurs when a core construct is referred to with different labels (resulting in a “jangle”), even though overlapping indicators are used for measurement. In particular, the introduction of novel labels for constructs that conceptually overlap with existing ones (a jangle fallacy) induces confusion for those who wish to study psychological processes, complicates theory development, and undermines efforts to synthesize findings across studies (Elson et al., ). Naming different things with identical names (a jingle fallacy), on the other hand, is often easier to handle because it simply requires differentiating a heterogeneous construct into more precise subconstructs (e.g., different types of inhibition, different types of engagement). Examples of jingle-jangle fallacies are frequent in educational psychology, and they can stymie research and theory development and misdirect the energy of educational practitioners (Hanfstingl et al., ; Teyssier-Roberge et al., ).