The Development of an Instructional Model based on Work-Based Learning to Improve the Metacognitive Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were (1) to study the factors that affect the development of metacognitive skills, (2) to develop an instructional model for improving metacognitive skills based on work-based learning, and (3) to compare students' metacognitive skills before and after using the work-based learning instructional model. The sample group was 40 students from the highway engineering supervision major of Qinghai Communications Technical College. The research was conducted in three steps: studying the factors that affect the development of metacognitive skills, developing the instructional model, and the experimental and improvement process. The research instruments were a questionnaire about factors that affect the development of metacognitive skills, an interview form about factors that affect the development of college students' metacognitive skills, an observation form about student behavior, an interview form about opinions on teaching, lesson plans, and a metacognitive skills test. The study's results were 1) the main factors affecting the development of metacognitive skills include the learning process, the environment, the teachers, and the students, respectively, 2) the instructional model based on work-based learning was developed consisting of four core components: a) principles, b) objectives, c) learning process, and d) results, and 3) after the implementation of the instructional model based on work-based learning, the metacognitive skill scores of the students were higher than the metacognitive skills of the students before the experiment, with a statistical significance of 0.01 level.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".