Exploring the Metacognitive Orientation of the Science Classrooms in a Thai Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metacognitive orientation of a learning environment is the extent to which that environment supports the development and enhancement of students' metacognition. Social constructivism was the guiding referent informing the instrument's orientation and development. The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale - Science (MOLES-S) is the instrument measures students' perceptions of the extent to which certain psychosocial dimensions evident in learning environments where interventions have resulted in enhanced student metacognition are evident in their science classrooms. This study aim to explored the metacognitive orientation of the classrooms of 1,376 Grades 10-12 students in Northeast Thailand and their perceptions of those environments. The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale - Science (MOLES-S) analysis of the data revealed that the participants' classroom learning environments had as not be sufficiently oriented to developing and enhancing students' metacognition only item 18 on students' voice and item 21-25 on students' contribute control. The participants with different school, grade, gender and age did not significantly have different metacognitive orientation of the classrooms there were no interaction among school, grade, gender and age variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".