Metacognitive awareness and planning level show no significant interactive effects on fluency¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Neither metacognitive awareness, planning level, nor their interaction significantly affected fluency change from pre-test to post-test in the two-way repeated measures ANOVA. → Seifoori 2016

Evidence¶

Seifoori 2016¶

Seifoori, Z. (2016). Metacognitive awareness and the fluency of task-based oral output across planning conditions: The case of Iranian TEFL students. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 11-26. https://www.urmia.ac.ir/ijltr

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Two-way repeated measures ANOVA on pre-test and post-test fluency scores of all 114 participants. The time effect was significant (F=5.95, p=.01), but "none of the interactive effects" reached significance; no effect sizes were printed.

"none of the interactive effects of the metacognitive awareness (F=.93, p=.33 >.05), planning levels (F=2.6, p=.07 >.05), and the metacognitive awareness and levels of planning (F=.93, p=.39 <.05) had significant effects"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• A metacognitive awareness-raising program improves the repair fluency of TEFL students' task-based oral output — reports the opposite
• Neither monitoring feedback nor performance feedback improved kindergarteners' monitoring accuracy relative to an active control — related