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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Among medium-MPK students, MLTA post-test and N-gain differed significantly between the MTL and conventional classes. → Aminah 2018 q3 i? Among low-MPK students and in the total sample, MLTA post-test and N-gain showed no significant difference between the two teaching approaches. → Aminah 2018 (2)

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

Quasi-experiment (Nonequivalent pretest-posttest control-group design) with 36 MTL and 34 conventional tenth-graders; Table 4 reports Med-Med post-test Sig. 0.041 and N-Gain Sig. 0.023, both interpreted as "Different".

"Table 2 point s out that on students of high and medium MPK, the attainment of MLTA and its N -gain of students who were taught by MTL are better than students taught who were by conventional teaching."

Aminah 2018 (2)¶

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 · r2

Same quasi-experiment; Table 4 reports Low-Low post-test Sig. 0.661 and N-Gain Sig. 0.543, and Total-Total post-test Sig. 0.364 and N-Gain Sig. 0.190, all interpreted as "No difference".

"However, there is no difference of MLTA and their N-gain of students of low MPK and of total."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• There is an interaction between learning approach and MPK on SRL but no interaction on MLTA — 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
• Overall, there was no significant difference in MLTA post-test achievement between the metacognitive and conventional classes — related
• There is no interaction between learning approach (SSML vs CL) and mathematical prior knowledge (upper, middle, low) on enhancement of MPSA — related
• The SSML advantage in MPSA enhancement is significant for middle-MPK students but not for upper- and low-MPK students — related
• Metacognitive teaching-learning improved students' self-regulated learning more than conventional teaching, overall and at high and medium MPK levels — related