MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998829066 · doi:10.5539/jel.v9n1p156

Analysis of Metacognitive Awareness of Primary and Secondary School Students in Terms of Some Variables

2020· article· en· W2998829066 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Selva Bakkaloğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionPsychologyMathematics educationCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metacognition is important for learners of all ages. Therefore, this situation raises all important questions about how to develop metacognitive skills and habits in the classroom regardless of primary, secondary and high school. The aim of this study is to investigate the metacognitive awareness of primary and secondary school students according to the variables of gender, grade level and region. The model of this research, which was conducted to determine the metacognitive awareness levels of the students in primary and secondary school, is a survey model. Metacognitive Awareness Scale was administered to 399 students (195 girls, 204 boys) in third, fourth and fifth grade. The research shows that the metacognitive awareness scores of primary and secondary school students do not differentiate in gender. According to another result obtained in the research; metacognitive awareness scores of pirmary and secondary school students differentiate in locality. The students’ metacognitive awareness is higher than that of the urban local. When the metacognitive awareness scores were examined according to the grade level, it was seen that the metacognitive awareness scores of the fifth grade students were higher than the other groups. However, there is no significant difference between the metacognitive awareness scores of the third and fourth grade students. Similar studies aiming to examine the development of metacognitive awareness of students are thought to be useful in planning the education process in this direction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207