EFL Students’ Attitude Toward Using Metacognitive Strategies in Writing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metacognitive learning strategies are higher–order executive skills that help learners become more independent, autonomous, and capable of planning, monitoring and evaluating learning process. This research was aimed at investigating EFL students’ attitude towards the use of metacognitive strategies in writing. Data were generated through in-depth interviews with 10 EFL students purposively selected from Irbid secondary school, Jordan. Only students from experimental group, who received the intervention, were interviewed. The data obtained were analyzed using ATLAS.TI version 8. The findings indicate that the majority of students acknowledged the usefulness of metacognitive strategies in improving their writing performance, but some experience difficulties in implementing the strategies. The majority of students reported positive attitudes toward metacognitive strategies as they help them to improve their English writing and cultivate learning autonomy. This paper recommends that metacognitive instruction should be incorporated in writing classrooms as it helps students to become more self-regulated.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it