Metacognition gains after inquiry learning differed across three classes: knowledge gains differed among all three, while awareness gains differed only between Group A and Groups B and C, not between B and C¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? ANOVA on n-gain showed pre-post gains after inquiry learning differed significantly across the three classes for both metacognition knowledge (F = 30.838, p = .000) and awareness (F = 25.963, p = .000). → Asy’ari 2019 q2 i? LSD tests showed metacognition awareness of Group B and Group C was not significantly different (p > 0.05), while Group A differed from both. → Asy’ari 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Asy’ari 2019¶

Asy’ari, M., Ikhsan, M., & Muhali. (2019). The Effectiveness of Inquiry Learning Model in Improving Prospective Teachers’ Metacognition Knowledge and Metacognition Awareness. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 455-470. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12229a

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANOVA on n-gain across the three groups (knowledge: F = 30.838, p = .000; awareness: F = 25.963, p = .000) was used to measure consistency of the inquiry model's impact; the omnibus test showed significant between-group differences. All three classes received inquiry learning and there was no control class, so these are differences in pre-post gains between classes, not differences in an effect of inquiry learning. Only F and p printed.

"Table 6 shows that the score of significance (p) on prospective teachers’ metacognition knowledge and metacognition awareness in learning fluid is lower than alpha of the test (0.05), so that the impact of in quiry learning model as an attempt to increase subjects’ metacognition knowledge and awareness is significantly different in all three experimental groups (p < 0.05)."

Asy’ari 2019 (2)¶

Asy’ari, M., Ikhsan, M., & Muhali. (2019). The Effectiveness of Inquiry Learning Model in Improving Prospective Teachers’ Metacognition Knowledge and Metacognition Awareness. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 455-470. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12229a

q2 · i? · causal · r1

LSD post-hoc tests on n-gain differences: knowledge differed among all group pairs (p < 0.05), but awareness did not differ between Group B and Group C (p > 0.05), indicating inconsistent impact of the inquiry model across groups.

"On the other hand, subjects’ metacognition awareness is significantly different between Group A and Group B (p < 0.05) and between Group A and Group C (p < 0.05). Therefore, Group B and Group C prospective teachers’ metacognition awareness are not significantly different (p > 0.05) at significance level of 5%."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Prospective teachers’ overall metacognition awareness (MAI) rose significantly from pre-test to post-test after inquiry learning in three classes with no control group, at moderate overall n-gain in each class — related
• Prospective teachers’ metacognition knowledge rose significantly from pre-test to post-test after inquiry learning about fluid in three classes with no control group, with high n-gain in Group A and moderate n-gain in Groups B and C — related