The role of metacognitive skills in learning to solve problems

128
No − model
Model
Retrospective Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
Declarative
MS− .51 .16 13 .63 .13 13 .49 .08 11 .63 .11 11
MS+ .52 .09 10 .64 .09 10 .50 .12 12 .59 .08 12
Specific procedural
MS− .41 .20 13 .56 .14 13 .50 .16 11 .71 .12 11
MS+ .48 .10 10 .57 .10 10 .54 .16 12 .69 .10 12
General procedural
MS− .47 .11 13 .62 .09 13 .50 .14 11 .64 .10 11
MS+ .51 .14 10 .55 .11 10 .56 .13 12 .56 .08 12
Transfer
MS− .71 0.07 13 .67 0.11 10
MS+ .72 0.07 11 .71 0.07 12
Table 6.13. Mean and standard deviation of the pre- and post-test scores on declarative
knowledge measured in proportion of correct answers. Retrospective measurement
of metacognition.
Condition * Metacognition Prospective Retrospective
Declarative F = 1.03 p = 0.32 F = 0.11 p = 0.64
Specific procedural F = 0.37 p = 0.55 F = 0.26 p = 0.62
General procedural F = 0.66 p = 0.42 F = 0.09 p = 0.76
Transfer F = 0.35 p = 0.56 F = 0.38 p = 0.54
Table 6.14. F-value and significance of the between subjects interaction effect of
Condition * Metacognition for both test-takings of the MSLQ.
For the individual conditions, no significant correlation coefficients
exist between time-on-task versus declarative, specific or general procedural
knowledge or transfer. For the first three measures, effects of the
pre-test scores were partialed out. In the model condition no relation exists
between total time spent playing KM Quest and learning measures,
nor in the no-model condition. Only if time-on-task correlates significantly
with post-test measures of learning in the individual conditions,
could it be used as a covariate (Stevens, 2002). Since this is not the
case, the conclusion is that in this study time-on-task is not related to
learning results. Therefore, the fact that students in the model condition
acquire more KM model-specific procedural knowledge than students in