The role of metacognitive skills in learning to solve problems

Study III: added value of the task model 133
the KM model. The learning environment possibly requires a different
type of regulation in the two conditions. This is explored further in the
next two sections.
6.3.3.2 Effects of condition and metacognition
The General Linear Model (GLM) repeated measures procedure was
used in order to test the hypothesized interaction effect between condition
and use of metacognitive skills (hypotheses 3 and 4). This is
the same procedure as was used for testing the hypothesized interaction
effect concerning the self-report measures of metacognition (see
section 6.3.2.2). Independent variables were condition and the concurrent
measures of metacognition (G META and KM META). The metacognitive
contributions related to the TOOL category were discarded
since they did not occur frequently. Dependent variables were the preand
post-test measurements for declarative, general and KM modelspecific
procedural knowledge. A MANOVA was used for analysis of
the transfer scores. Only within-subject effects or between-subject effects
that include metacognition are reported since the other effects have
already been discussed at length in the earlier sections of this chapter.
No within-subject interaction effects exist nor between-subject interaction
effects. Since the latter are hypothesized, table 6.19 gives the
actual F and p-values. These results indicate that with regard to the
concurrent measure of metacognition no interaction effect between condition
and metacognition exists. The data do not support hypotheses 3
and 4.
One main effect of KM META can be reported though. Students in
the KM META+ group score higher on specific procedural knowledge
than students in the KM META− group (F = 4.06, p = 0.05). Students
in the KM META− group score initially 0.46 (SD = 0.15) on KM modelspecific
procedural knowledge in the pre-test. In the post-test they score
0.61 (SD = 0.13). Students in the KM META+ group initially score 0.50
(SD = 0.18) on the pre-test and on the post-test they score 0.65 (SD =
0.14). No effects of G META exist.
6.3.3.3 Correlation between learning and all measures of
metacognition
A partial correlation analysis was performed in order to investigate
the relation between the prospective, concurrent and retrospective measures
of metacognition and the results on the knowledge tests (post-test)
for the individual conditions. Pre-test scores of learning measures were
partialed out. This method gives additional insight into the data with