Impacts of Metacognition Management System (MMS) Training Course on Metacognitive Competencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metacognition is one of the vital competencies to seize the opportunities and overcome the challenges of twenty-first century; however, there is no precise definition of metacognition and it is a fuzzy concept. While classic, descriptive and procedural models try to describe the nature and ingredients of metacognition, theoretical clarity in terms of better definition and representation of its components is needed. This study by adopting theoretical models of metacognition through the Plan-Do-Check-Act principles (as a management instrument) proposes a conceptual framework, “Metacognition Management System (MMS)” that consolidates components, functions, and processes of metacognition in a single window. Then, impacts of a multidimensional intervention designed based on the MMS concept (MMS Training Course) provided in 12 hours, on 31 students’ metacognitive competencies was investigated using quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test design. The large effect size (Partial η2 = .939, 95% confidence interval) implied that MMS training course has a statistically significant impact on metacognitive competencies. This study has implications for further theoretical and experimental researches on the configuration and application of the MMS as well as designing multidimensional metacognitive intervention.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".