MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408611049 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc124-44

A study on the design of constructivist learning environment model based on metacognitive regulation enhancement

2025· article· en· W4408611049 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xi Qu, Sumalee Chaijaroen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionConstructivist teaching methodsConstructivism (international relations)PsychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceTeaching methodPolitical scienceCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metacognition, as a fundamental ability for learners to adapt to complex environments, is equally adapted to constructivist teaching and learning activities. In this paper, we propose a model of learning environment characteristics for metacognitive regulation under constructivist learning theory, and utilize Item2Vec algorithm, Self-Attention mechanism, and BiGRU model to construct a model of metacognitive ability. The model presents a kind of multi-channel network characteristic composed of Self-Attention mechanism and BiGRU model. Design a theoretical model of the learning environment oriented to improving students’ metacognitive ability, and analyze the functional modules of the overall system of the learning environment. Propose a learning activity aiming at the improvement of metacognitive ability and incorporating constructivist theory as the guiding concept to allocate the various aspects of the whole constructivist teaching activity. Analyze the implementation effect of constructivist teaching activities based on metacognitive strategies and organize the influencing factors of metacognitive strategies. The bivariate correlation analysis of students’ total test scores and usual grades are closely related to planning strategies, monitoring strategies, and regulating strategies, and the significance (two-tailed) is less than 0.01. This indicates that the higher the students’ scores, the higher the corresponding level of metacognitive strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207