An Investigation into the Metacognitive Writing Strategies of Turkish Cypriot University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents findings from a study done in an English preparatory school of a University in North Cyprus. The study focused on the use and awareness of metacognitive learning strategies in relation to writing skills. Data collection was done through the means of quantitative, student-questionnaire, and qualitative, teacher-interview, measures. The findings show that less than half of the participants used and were aware of metacognitive learning strategies. Although teachers mentioned such strategies during the lessons, according to the questionnaire results, less than half of the 250 participants used strategies or had awareness of them. Conclusion would, therefore, be that mentioning strategies to encourage students to use strategies is not enough. A statistically significant correlation between the success rate and metacognitive strategy use and awareness was proved in support of the findings in the literature. The implication of this finding for teachers is that, implementing strategy instruction in our classrooms could increase the success of students and, as the success rate of the students is increased, they will use more strategies with an increased awareness.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".