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

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

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Overall metacognition awareness (MAI) rose significantly from pre-test to post-test in all three inquiry-taught classes (Group A Wilcoxon z = -4.785, p = .000; Groups B and C paired t-tests p = .000); with no control class, the design cannot attribute the rise to inquiry learning. → Asy’ari 2019 q2 i? Overall awareness n-gain was moderate in each class (0.68, 0.60 and 0.60); by aspect it ranged 0.66–0.71 in Group A (declarative knowledge 0.71, high by the article's > 0.70 cut-off) and 0.58–0.62 in Groups B and C, with no significance test reported per aspect. → 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

Wilcoxon test on Group A's MAI pretest-posttest data (n = 30, non-normal) gave z = -4.785, p = .000; Table 5 reports paired t-tests for Groups B and C (t = 51.427 and 84.926, p = .000). The tests are on the overall MAI score, not on its eight aspects. The design is one-group pretest-posttest in each of three classes (n = 30 each) with no control class, which the authors call weak-experimental, so the gains cannot be attributed to inquiry learning rather than to testing, maturation or the course itself. Only test statistics printed, no effect size.

"Table 4 shows that the Z value is of -4,785 within the level of significance value of p < .05. The result indicates that inquiry learning model has given an impact towards metacognition awareness of subjects in Group A."

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

Descriptive n-gain analysis of MAI scores across eight aspects (declarative, procedural, conditional knowledge, planning, information management, monitoring, debugging, evaluating) in the three groups; the article reports overall moderate n-gains of 0.68, 0.60 and 0.60. By aspect (Table 3), Group A ranged 0.66–0.71, with declarative knowledge at 0.71 (high under the article's > 0.70 threshold) and conditional knowledge at 0.70; Groups B and C ranged 0.58–0.62. These are descriptive pre-post gains with no control class and no per-aspect significance test.

"Table 3 shows scores of prospective teachers’ metacognition awareness in pre-test and post-test based on MAI during learning fluid in three experimental groups, in which all group members records increase at moderate level of n -gain (0.68; 0.60; and 0.60) after engaged in learning using inquiry learning model."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.