Overall, there was no significant difference in MLTA post-test achievement between the metacognitive and conventional classes¶

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? The t-test on total-sample MLTA post-test scores found no significant difference between the experimental and control classes. → 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

Independent-samples t-test on MLTA post-test for all 70 students (t = .914, df = 68, Sig. = .364, mean difference 1.24265); normality and homogeneity checks passed (Sig = 0.090, 0.051; Levene Sig = 0.620).

"There is no difference in the MLTA post -test of the experimental class and control class students (Sig = 0.364> 0.05)."

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
• 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
• Students' mathematical prior knowledge strongly influences MLTA: the higher the MPK, the higher the MLTA and its N-gain in both teaching approaches — related