Abstract

This study aimed at examining: (a) students’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation when they are doing school work or homework, and their self-regulated learning style regarding the four different types of behavioral regulation: external, introjected, identified and intrinsic; and (b) the role of metacognition in self-regulated learning style, and in the impact of self-regulated learning style on performance expectations, and subsequent performance in the school subjects of language, mathematics and physical education. The sample comprised of 243 primary school students, fifth and sixth grades, boys and girls, who randomly came from 20 state primary schools of various regions of Greece. The participants completed the scales at the middle of a school year, while their school performance was estimated by the teachers. The results showed that: (a) the students used metacognitive knowledge (predominately, declarative) and metacognitive regulation (mainly, planning) at a moderate extent, and they reported a mixed profile of self-regulatory learning style, favoring identified; (b) metacognitive regulation, compared with metacognitive knowledge, was a more powerful formulator of regulatory learning styles, mainly intrinsic and identified; (c) metacognition explained a small percentage of variance of both performance expectations, beyond self-regulatory style, and performance, beyond the interactive effect of performance expectations and regulatory learning style, in both language and mathematics, while it had no significant unique contribution in physical education; (d) external regulation had negative contribution in school performance across the three school subjects, while intrinsic regulation had no unique effect. Theoretical and practical applications of the findings are discussed.

Highlights

  • Metacognition and self-regulation are considered key competencies for successful learning in a wide range of domains, including education (Efklides, 2014; Gomes, Golino, & Menezes, 2014; Panadero, 2017; Veenman, 2016; Veenman, Wilhelm, & Beishuizen, 2004)

  • The results showed that: (a) the students used metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation at a moderate extent, and they reported a mixed profile of self-regulatory learning style, favoring identified; (b) metacognitive regulation, compared with metacognitive knowledge, was a more powerful formulator of regulatory learning styles, mainly intrinsic and identified; (c) metacognition explained a small percentage of variance of both performance expectations, beyond self-regulatory style, and performance, beyond the interactive effect of performance expectations and regulatory learning style, in both language and mathematics, while it had no significant unique contribution in physical education; (d) external regulation had negative contribution in school performance across the three school subjects, while intrinsic regulation

  • Post hoc pairwise comparisons and examination of the mean scores (Table 1) indicated that metacognitive regulation was at a moderate level, and that when the students are doing school work or home work, they mainly apply planning, compared to any other component of metacognitive regulation, while evaluation was the least used

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Metacognition and self-regulation are considered key competencies for successful learning in a wide range of domains, including education (Efklides, 2014; Gomes, Golino, & Menezes, 2014; Panadero, 2017; Veenman, 2016; Veenman, Wilhelm, & Beishuizen, 2004). Previous research indicates that metacognition is one of the key components in self-regulated learning which is defined as “the ways in which individuals regulate their own cognitive processes within an educational setting” (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001: 269). Learners who have high metacognitive ability, are highly likely to monitor, control, and regulate their own learning behavior, resulting in the achievement of their learning goals (Alexander, 2008; Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011; Carr, 2010; Kostaridou-Efklides, 2011; Zimmerman, 1989)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call