Bilinguals, Monolinguals and their Choices of Metacognitive Strategies in Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking
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
The purpose of this explorative study is to compare the choices of metacognitive strategies made by bilinguals and monolinguals in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Kovelman, Baker & Petitto (2008) compare bilingual and monolingual brains and observe that there is a differential activation in the syntactic process between bilinguals and monolinguals. Could there be a difference between monolinguals and bilinguals in the choice of metacognitive strategies too? The data, collected in three private institutions, one in Quebec, and two in Alberta, consists of 144 students, 72 monolinguals, and 72 bilinguals. The instrument of research is a questionnaire. The results of this study show that 63.8% of all participants are unaware of the concept of metacognition. This lack of awareness is found not only in high school students but also in senior university students. In the category of bilinguals, the students acknowledge being bilinguals, but the percentage of those who feel comfortable in both languages is only 47.2%. Regarding the choices of metacognitive strategies, there are more similarities than differences between bilinguals and monolinguals. The implications of these results could lead educators to be intentional in bringing awareness of the concept of metacognition in a more efficient manner. Further research is needed to determine if the choice of specific metacognitive strategies would improve the four language skills.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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