There is an interaction between learning approach and MPK on SRL but no interaction on MLTA¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Tests of between-subjects effects found a significant Learning × MPK interaction for SRL post-scale (Sig. = 0.010) but not for MLTA post-test (Sig. = 0.284). → Aminah 2018

Evidence¶

Aminah 2018¶

Aminah, M., Kusumah, Y. S., Suryadi, D., & Sumarmo, U. (2018). The Effect of Metacognitive Teaching and Mathematical Prior Knowledge on Mathematical Logical Thinking Ability and Self-Regulated Learning. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1134a

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Two-way ANOVA on 70 students: MLTA model shows Learning Sig. 0.010, MPK Sig. 0.000, LearningMPK Sig. 0.284; SRL model shows Learning Sig. 0.036, MPK Sig. 0.002, LearningMPK Sig. 0.010.

"Noted that , there is no interaction between learning -teaching approaches and MPK toward MLTA (Sig. = 0.284 0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Metacognitive teaching-learning improved students' self-regulated learning more than conventional teaching, overall and at high and medium MPK levels — related
• Metacognitive teaching-learning produced higher MLTA post-test scores and N-gain than conventional teaching among medium-MPK students, but not among low-MPK students or the total sample — related
• Overall, there was no significant difference in MLTA post-test achievement between the metacognitive and conventional classes — related
• Mathematical proof was the most difficult MLTA component for students in both teaching approaches — related
• Students' mathematical prior knowledge strongly influences MLTA: the higher the MPK, the higher the MLTA and its N-gain in both teaching approaches — related
• There is no interaction between learning approach (SSML vs CL) and mathematical prior knowledge (upper, middle, low) on enhancement of MPSA — related