<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">46</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Social Sciences Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gssr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2520-0348</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2616-793X</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">390912</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr.2020(V-II).18</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">1381</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Can we boost the Meta-cognitive Awareness of Prospective Teachers through Reflective Journals?</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Siddiqui</surname>
      <given-names>Ghazal Khalid</given-names>
    </name>
    <email>ghazalkhalid@ue.edu.pk</email>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Lodhi</surname>
      <given-names>Huma</given-names>
    </name>
    <email>ghazalkhalid@ue.edu.pk</email>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="3">
    <name>
      <surname>Ghazanfar</surname>
      <given-names>Kalsoom</given-names>
    </name>
    <email>ghazalkhalid@ue.edu.pk</email>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>University of Education, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Assistant Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>The Superior College, Lahore, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Ghazal Khalid Siddiqui, Assistant Professor, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.. Email: <email>ghazalkhalid@ue.edu.pk</email></corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>30</day>
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2020</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2020</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>16</day>
  <month>02</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>5</volume>
  <issue>2</issue>
  <season>Spring</season>
  <fpage>190</fpage>
  <lpage>201</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>16</day>
      <month>02</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/article/can-we-boost-the-metacognitive-awareness-of-prospective-teachers-through-reflective-journals"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/uhSsdPatfL.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/uhSsdPatfL.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>Metacognition and reflective teaching are concepts that complement each other if we refer to a reflective teacher. This study investigates whether metacognitive awareness of prospective teachers can be improved through reflective journals. In present study reflective journals are comprised of practice sheets through which the prospective teachers can practice their metacognitive thoughts consciously. The methodology followed is experimental research by using qusai-experimental design into two phases. Both, control and experimental groups were taught through a combination of teaching strategies that we normally use in our classes such as lecture, discussion, or through inquiry, etc., in phase 1. In phase 2, reflective journals, along with other strategies that were used in the 1st phase, were introduced. The results of data analysis revealed a significant enhancement of prospective teachers metacognitive awareness and its constituent factors e.g., metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Metacognitive Awareness</kwd>
  <kwd>Reflective Teachers</kwd>
  <kwd>Reflective Journals</kwd>
  <kwd>Prospective Teachers</kwd>
  <kwd>Reflective Teaching</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>1157</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>In any education system, teachers play a vital role and are responsible for their students learning and teaching itself is a very demanding task that requires the alignments in content, student’s learning, and pedagogy (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Hammerness et al., 2005) Therefore, to meet the challenges of the teaching profession, the prime objective of teacher’s training programs is to convert prospective teachers into reflective teachers (Adadan and Oner, 2018). This means that teachers&apos; training programs must be designed to provide student teachers with a broad understanding and mastery of pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical skills but also make them think critically and reflect on their teaching.</p><p>According to Bransford et al., 2005, every teacher education program provides core understanding to the teachers so that they may be able to track down their development. So, after completion of a degree, each prospective teacher should be able to cope with all classroom problems, teach effectively but must have desired skills that are essential for a reflective teacher.</p><p>According to John Dewey (1933), reflective practices liberates us from the routine activity. It not only empowers us to direct our activities with prudence and intuition but to plan according to our desired outcomes. To be a reflective teacher, researchers are in favor of metacognitive awareness as a tool of reflective teaching and consider as an essential portion to understand the phenomenon of teaching and to develop preservice or in-service teachers personal teaching pedagogies for (Shulman and Shulman, 2004; Parsons and Stephenson, 2005; Loughran, 2013).</p><p>The teacher whose level of metacognitive awareness is high becomes cognitively habitual to self-evaluate themselves and modify their views and actions accordingly. Teachers who are less metacognitively aware mainly rely on external or other’s views regarding their teaching Hammerness et al. (2005). Many researchers often emphasized the leading role of reflective thinking in the teaching profession especially in producing teachers. (El-Dib, 2007; Jay and Johnson, 2002). For learning, teaching, learning to teach, and developing expertise reflective thinking is vital. It is also giving directions and impetus to professional growth (Rodger, 2002; Shulman and Shulman, 2004).  However, according to Adadan and Oner (2018) that researchers could not agree on the concrete concept of reflective thinking until now.</p><p>Keeping the precious efforts of various academics  along with Dewey, 1933, &amp;Ford and Yore, 2012,  it can be inferred that reflective thinking is associated with the notion of metacognition and is the conscious practice of one&apos;s thinking in respect of their teaching. It involves planning, monitoring, and evaluating the abilities of teachers to regulate their thinking towards their teaching. It also helps them to understand oneself as a teacher, being aware of one&apos;s strengths, weaknesses to explore and improve one&apos;s teaching skills.</p><p>There are assorted views about the concepts of metacognitive awareness, reflective thinking and their alignment with each other. Reflective thinking is thought to be an approach to metacognition (Desautel, 2009; Knight, 2002). For some researchers, metacognition and reflective thinking are similar concepts whereas, in several researchers&apos; view, metacognitive awareness is antecedent of reflective thinking. However, only a few types of research explored the effect of metacognitive strategies in developing reflective thinking in teachers. (Mcalpine and Weston, 2000; Hammerness et al., 2005; Parsons and Stephenson, 2005; Larrivee, 2008; Whittaker and vanGarderen, 2009; Sellars, 2014).</p><p>Theories elaborate the phenomenon of &apos;metacognitive awareness&apos; awareness of an individual for cognition related to the task and the strategy. These theories also focused on a mechanism that is self-controlled (by an individual) for monitoring the process within a context (task) (Adadan and Oner, 2018, p27).  Originally the idea of metacognition was presented by Flavell in 1976, according to him, metacognition is the persons&apos; knowledge for his process and products in the cognitive domain. The process of metacognition along with its constituents’ components has also been explained by others with inspiration and alignment by Flavell’s definition. (e.g., Kuhn and Dean, 2004; Schraw and Dennison, 1994).</p><p>There is a lack of common thread for the nature of metacognition found among experts in the field. Adadan and Oner (2018) reported that most researchers rely on the original portrayal of the construct of metacognition. Generally, most of the researchers concurred on the two interrelated components of metacognition i.e. metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulatory skills (Flavell, 1976; Brown, 1987; Schraw and Moshman, 1995).</p><p>The construct of metacognitive awareness adopted in this study has been driven from the metacognitive awareness inventory by Schraw and Denison in1994. According to them, declarative knowledge (DK), procedural knowledge (PK), and conditional knowledge (CK) are the component of metacognitive knowledge (MK) (Brown, 1987; Schraw, 2001; Zohar and Barzilai, 2013). Whereas, metacognitive regulation (MR) includes five aspects, planning (P), debugging strategies (DS), information management strategies (IMS), monitoring (M), and evaluation (E) (Schraw and Moshman, 1995; Zohar and Barzilai, 2013). The detail of these components is given in the form of flow chart given below.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Fig 1:</title>
<p>The Components of Metacognition.</p>
</sec>
<fig id="fig-1"><alt-text>Figure 1</alt-text><caption><title>Figure 1</title></caption><graphic xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/uhSsdPatfL/Figure 1.jpg"/></fig>
<sec id="sec-3">
<p>There are few empirical researches that indicate the improvement in prospective teachers&apos; metacognitive awareness may be observed as a result of any training. However, the shreds of evidence indicate that teaching metacognition can be amended (Dignath et al., 2008). For example; Kim (2005) revealed that through reflective thinking activities we can escalate students’ metacognitive awareness at the college level in online learning.  Similar to these studies the current study was focused on promoting preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness through reflective journals.</p><p>According to Hofer 2004, many studies are in favor that metacognition can be improved through conscious efforts and may lead to the automated performance. Metacognition is considered as part of reflective thinking and reflective teaching but researchers are still exploring the ways to improve metacognitive awareness. In this study, we consider reflective journals could be one mean to improve metacognitive awareness. Whereas reflective journals as the form of prospective teachers&apos; diaries based on classroom tasks and their metacognitive awareness. Students have to provide answers regarding their metacognitive awareness while performing a task during lectures either on a daily or weekly basis. The purpose of these journals was to let prospective teachers practice consciously to enhance their metacognitive awareness. The notion of the reflective journal s based on the idea that conscious efforts of practicing metacognitive thinking may lead towards achieving automatic performance.  If a person&apos;s metacognitive awareness is high then he or she may complete any task related to their teaching smartly, self-evaluate their teaching, and hence, be a reflective teacher. However, this study is limited to the investigation of the question of whether we can improve the metacognitive awareness of prospective teachers through reflective journals. Further studies are required to investigate the question that how prospective teachers having metacognitive awareness are practicing it in their teaching practice and its effectiveness in becoming reflective teachers.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Procedure of Study</title>
<p>In this segment particulars regarding the procedure of the study such as framework, participants, intervention, and instrument are described.</p><p><break/></p><p>Nature and Framework</p><p>By using a quantitative approach, employing a quasi-experimental design, the effectiveness of reflective journals was sought Two intact groups of participants; one as the control group and the other was an experimental group. The number of participants was different so non-equivalent control group design was considered as the most appropriate design in the range of quasi-experimental designs. Metacognitive awareness inventory by Schraw and Dennison 1994 was used as a pretest and the same was used as a posttest from both groups to check their metacognitive level. The total duration of the study was 32 weeks i-e; two consecutive semesters.  The study was divided into two phases each one was of 16 weeks duration. In the 1st phase, pretest and posttest were administered and no intervention was given to any of the groups and  was named as the 1st phase. This phase served two purposes: First, to check that    how much prospective teachers’ metacognition is improved while using a regular combination of teaching strategies. Second: it helped in minimizing or controlling several internal validity threats of the experiment. After 16 weeks of teaching duration for the 1st phase, there was a gap of two weeks as term break. After that, the Treatment phase was started in which treatment was given to the experimental group whereas the control group was taught by using a combination of various teaching strategies that are normally  used in everyday teaching such as, lecture, enquiring, or discussion, etc.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Framework of Study</title>
<p><break/></p>
</sec>
<fig id="fig-2"><alt-text>Figure 2</alt-text><caption><title>Figure 2</title></caption><graphic xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/uhSsdPatfL/Figure 2.jpg"/></fig>
<sec id="sec-6">
  <title>Subjects</title>
<p>The subjects for the research were prospective teachers studying in 4 years degree program. Female prospective teachers who were studying in their 2nd year and are of 18 to 20 years of age were included in this study. Total of 93 participants studying in B.Ed. (Hons) 2nd Semester was included in this study; one section of 45 prospective teachers was included in the control group whereas another section of 48 participants was selected as the experimental group. For different age groups and nomenclature of the program within the same institution may be different from the selected ones. Whereas results can be generalized on students of the same age group e.g., 18-20 years on other campuses of the same university by considering the environment as the same due to may common aspects all over the campuses.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-7">
  <title>Treatment</title>
<p>To give treatment one of the three researchers was chosen as an
instructor with the mutual decision. The selection of instructor and course
taught was the same for both the control and experimental groups. For the
control group, a combination of various teaching strategies was used to teach.
For the experimental group, two types of sheets were given to each prospective
teacher to compile their reflective journal at the end of the semester. One we
name as a worksheet and the other we name as a reflective sheet. Worksheets
were given to each prospective teacher to practice their metacognitive skills
during the session. Reflective sheets were more comprehensive and comprised of
more open-ended questions as compared to worksheets. Questions given in
reflective sheets were related to the whole week&apos;s works and covers
metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills.</p><p>At the end of the week, each prospective teacher has to submit her
whole week&apos;s work along with both work and reflective sheets. A brief
comparison of both sheets is given in the following table.</p><p><bold>Table1.</bold>Comparison of Questions in work and Reflective
Sheets</p><table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Table 1</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th valign="top"> <p><bold>Sample Questions of Work
   Sheets</bold></p> </th><th valign="top"> <p><bold>Sample Questions of
   Reflective Sheets</bold></p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>What the task
  is about?</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>While
  performing the task did you recall any information related to the
  concept/task?</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Enlist the
  targets that have been set by you to complete the task.</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>During
  performing the tasks, did you ask yourself periodically if you are achieving
  the targets that you set at the beginning?</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>During
  performing the assigned task have you checked whether you are going in the
  right direction or not?</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>While learning
  a new concept did you ask yourself about how well you are doing?</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>The Task was
  easy, difficult, very difficult.</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>What strategy
  you opt to learn a new concept given in the tasks.</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>What mistake I
  made and how did I resolve?</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>What are your
  intellectual strengthens and weaknesses in your opinion enlist them?</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Have I met all
  targets?</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>What strategy
  you use to complete the task and why?</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Do you think
  that there could be a better way to complete the task?</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>In your
  opinion how do you learn best? Enlist your points.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>At the start of the term, the instructor explained the concept of
metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills, how it is related to their learning,
and how it will help them to become a smart learner. The instructor also
explained the decorum of the class for the whole week by explaining to them the
detail of reflective journals. There were 48 sessions and each session were of
1.5 hours during 16 weeks of the treatment phase.  At the beginning of each session, the
instructor describes the concept according to the course outline then assign
some simple task to each student. Every student has to complete the task and
write answers in their worksheets individually. Examples of some tasks that
each participant has to complete are reading a paragraph, making a flow chart,
summarizing the content, or discuss the central idea of the text. At the end of
every session, participants were asked to fill reflective sheets and at the end
of every week, students have to submit their reflective sheets and worksheets
along with their classwork to the instructor.</p><p><bold>The Instrument of
the Study</bold></p><p>Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) by Schraw &amp; Denison (1994)
was adopted for this study. MAI was comprised of 52 items and it is further
subdivided into two main components i-e; metacognitive knowledge (17 items) and
metacognitive skills (35 items). Researchers ensured the reliability of the
instrument in the Pakistani context through pilot testing. In pilot testing,
MAI was given to 279 prospective teachers of three sessions of the B.Ed. Hons
program. Participants of this study were not part of pilot testing so that
validity threats of instrumentation may be avoided. The original inventory was
highly reliable, Cronbach’s alpha values for metacognitive knowledge (?=.88); metacognitive skills (? =.88); and that of the entire inventory was (? =.93) and after pilot testing, Cronbach&apos;s alpha values for
metacognitive knowledge was (?=.90); metacognitive skills were (? =. 89); and that of the entire inventory was (? =. 97).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-8">
  <title>Validity of Experiment</title>
<p>By nature, experimental designs face validity threats that can affect
the entire experiments and results may not be true.The table given below
depicts how researchers controlled the potential internal validity threats of
the experiments. However, control over external validity threats was limited
such as the interaction of history and treatment. Because the courses that were
included in this study are part of a scheme of study offered as a core course
for a prescribed degree. So, it would be difficult to conclude the sequential
effects of placement of course in the scheme of study may occur or not.</p><p><bold>Table 2.</bold> Internal Validity: Threats
and Controlling Measures</p><table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Table 2</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th valign="top"> <p><bold>Threats</bold></p> </th><th valign="top"> <p><bold>Controlling Measures </bold></p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>History</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>A
  1st phase was included.</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Maturation</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>This
  threat controlled by adding a control group and treatment duration was also
  one semester.</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Testing</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>To
  minimize this threat control group and 1st phase were added.</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Instrumentation</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>A
  valid and reliable instrument was used for both pretest and posttest.</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Selection</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>This
  threat was controlled through the 1st phase and pretest.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-9">
  <title>Results</title>
<p><bold>Table 3.  </bold>Analysis of Inter Group Comparison at the Beginning of the Study (1st
phase)</p><table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Table 3</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Control Group</bold></p> <p><bold>N=45</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Experimental</bold></p> <p><bold>Group</bold></p> <p><bold>N=48</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p><italic>df</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>t</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>p</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>d</italic></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DK</p> </td><td> <p>18.22</p> </td><td> <p>4.79</p> </td><td> <p>15.70</p> </td><td> <p>4.40</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>2.62</p> </td><td> <p>.010</p> </td><td> <p>0.54</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>PK</p> </td><td> <p>8.00</p> </td><td> <p>2.14</p> </td><td> <p>6.83</p> </td><td> <p>2.23</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>2.57</p> </td><td> <p>.012</p> </td><td> <p>0.53</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>CK</p> </td><td> <p>11.08</p> </td><td> <p>3.14</p> </td><td> <p>9.79</p> </td><td> <p>2.72</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>2.12</p> </td><td> <p>.037</p> </td><td> <p>0.43</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>P</p> </td><td> <p>13.84</p> </td><td> <p>4.50</p> </td><td> <p>12.56</p> </td><td> <p>3.66</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.49</p> </td><td> <p>.138</p> </td><td> <p>0.31</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>IMS</p> </td><td> <p>21.51</p> </td><td> <p>6.45</p> </td><td> <p>18.97</p> </td><td> <p>5.32</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>.043</p> </td><td> <p>0.42</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>13.46</p> </td><td> <p>3.99</p> </td><td> <p>10.97</p> </td><td> <p>3.52</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>3.17</p> </td><td> <p>.002**</p> </td><td> <p>0.66</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DS</p> </td><td> <p>9.17</p> </td><td> <p>2.99</p> </td><td> <p>8.83</p> </td><td> <p>2.50</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>.60</p> </td><td> <p>.550</p> </td><td> <p>0.12</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>E</p> </td><td> <p>11.48</p> </td><td> <p>3.79</p> </td><td> <p>10.20</p> </td><td> <p>3.12</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.77</p> </td><td> <p>.080.</p> </td><td> <p>0.36</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition
  Knowledge</p> </td><td> <p>37.31</p> </td><td> <p>9.32</p> </td><td> <p>32.33</p> </td><td> <p>8.39</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>2.70</p> </td><td> <p>.008</p> </td><td> <p>0.56</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition
  Regulation</p> </td><td> <p>69.48</p> </td><td> <p>20.21</p> </td><td> <p>61.56</p> </td><td> <p>16.15</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>2.09</p> </td><td> <p>.039</p> </td><td> <p>0.43</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognitive
  Awareness</p> </td><td> <p>108.53</p> </td><td> <p>29.03</p> </td><td> <p>95.95</p> </td><td> <p>24.12</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>2.26</p> </td><td> <p>.026</p> </td><td> <p>0.47</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><italic>**p&lt;.01</italic></p><p>This table depicts that at the start of phase 1 both groups were homogenous
in terms of metacognitive awareness in all respects except monitoring. The
monitoring skills of control groups were better than experimental groups.</p><p><bold>Table 4.</bold>Analysis of Inter Group Comparison after Completion
of the 1<sup>st</sup> Phase</p><table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Table 4</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Control Group</bold></p> <p><bold>N=45</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Experimental</bold></p> <p><bold>Group</bold></p> <p><bold>N=48</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p><italic>df</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>t</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>p</italic></p> </td><td> <p>d</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DK</p> </td><td> <p>17.33</p> </td><td> <p>5.47</p> </td><td> <p>16.00</p> </td><td> <p>4.28</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.301</p> </td><td> <p>.197</p> </td><td> <p>0.27</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>PK</p> </td><td> <p>8.02</p> </td><td> <p>1.82</p> </td><td> <p>7.70</p> </td><td> <p>1.24</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>.919</p> </td><td> <p>.361</p> </td><td> <p>0.20</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>CK</p> </td><td> <p>11.64</p> </td><td> <p>3.46</p> </td><td> <p>10.93</p> </td><td> <p>3.68</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>.954</p> </td><td> <p>.343</p> </td><td> <p>0.19</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>P</p> </td><td> <p>15.37</p> </td><td> <p>5.39</p> </td><td> <p>13.52</p> </td><td> <p>4.90</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.733</p> </td><td> <p>.086</p> </td><td> <p>0.35</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>IMS</p> </td><td> <p>23.80</p> </td><td> <p>6.57</p> </td><td> <p>21.43</p> </td><td> <p>5.99</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.807</p> </td><td> <p>.074</p> </td><td> <p>0.37</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>14.77</p> </td><td> <p>3.61</p> </td><td> <p>13.43</p> </td><td> <p>3.43</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.829</p> </td><td> <p>.071</p> </td><td> <p>0.38</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DS</p> </td><td> <p>9.62</p> </td><td> <p>3.24</p> </td><td> <p>9.22</p> </td><td> <p>2.26</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>.639</p> </td><td> <p>.525</p> </td><td> <p>0.14</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>E</p> </td><td> <p>11.80</p> </td><td> <p>4.54</p> </td><td> <p>10.33</p> </td><td> <p>3.91</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.664</p> </td><td> <p>.100</p> </td><td> <p>0.34</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Knowledge</p> </td><td> <p>37.00</p> </td><td> <p>9.80</p> </td><td> <p>34.64</p> </td><td> <p>8.39</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.24</p> </td><td> <p>.216</p> </td><td> <p>0.25</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Regulation</p> </td><td> <p>75.37</p> </td><td> <p>21.90</p> </td><td> <p>67.95</p> </td><td> <p>19.13</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.74</p> </td><td> <p>.085</p> </td><td> <p>0.36</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognitive Awareness</p> </td><td> <p>112.95</p> </td><td> <p>29.97</p> </td><td> <p>102.64</p> </td><td> <p>25.74</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>1.762</p> </td><td> <p>.082</p> </td><td> <p>0.36</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><italic>**p&lt;.01</italic></p><p>The above table illustrates that when the 1<sup>st</sup> ended both
groups were homogenous in terms of overall metacognitive awareness and its
sub-factors.</p><p><bold>Table 5</bold><italic>. </italic>Analysis of Inter Group Comparison After the
2<sup>nd</sup> Phase</p><table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Control Group</bold></p> <p><bold>N=45</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Experimental</bold></p> <p><bold>Group</bold></p> <p><bold>N=48</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p><italic>df</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>t</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>p</italic></p> </td><td> <p>d</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DK</p> </td><td> <p>18.04</p> </td><td> <p>5.02</p> </td><td> <p>32.04</p> </td><td> <p>2.46</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>17.224</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>3.54</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>PK</p> </td><td> <p>8.22</p> </td><td> <p>2.12</p> </td><td> <p>14.91</p> </td><td> <p>.941</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>19.889</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>4.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>CK</p> </td><td> <p>11.46</p> </td><td> <p>2.95</p> </td><td> <p>20.45</p> </td><td> <p>1.12</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>19.638</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>4.02</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>P</p> </td><td> <p>14.73</p> </td><td> <p>3.76</p> </td><td> <p>29.43</p> </td><td> <p>1.84</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>24.133</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>4.96</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>IMS</p> </td><td> <p>22.15</p> </td><td> <p>5.65</p> </td><td> <p>28.87</p> </td><td> <p>3.01</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>22.236</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>1.48</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>15.11</p> </td><td> <p>3.20</p> </td><td> <p>28.12</p> </td><td> <p>1.46</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>25.426</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>5.23</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DS</p> </td><td> <p>9.95</p> </td><td> <p>2.82</p> </td><td> <p>20.20</p> </td><td> <p>2.33</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>19.119</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>3.96</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>E</p> </td><td> <p>12.02</p> </td><td> <p>3.50</p> </td><td> <p>25.00</p> </td><td> <p>1.33</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>23.866</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>4.90</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Knowledge</p> </td><td> <p>37.73</p> </td><td> <p>9.03</p> </td><td> <p>67.41</p> </td><td> <p>3.30</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>21.29</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>4.36</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Regulation</p> </td><td> <p>73.97</p> </td><td> <p>16.97</p> </td><td> <p>145.6</p> </td><td> <p>7.92</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>26.35</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>5.40</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognitive Awareness</p> </td><td> <p>111.71</p> </td><td> <p>25.31</p> </td><td> <p>212.79</p> </td><td> <p>10.41</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>25.471</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>5.22</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><italic>**p&lt;.01</italic></p><p>The above table explains that metacognitive awareness of the
experiment was improved after using reflective journals in phase 2. A
significant difference is found in every domain of metacognitive awareness.</p><p><bold>Table 6.</bold> Intra Group Comparison of Control Group
Before Treatment</p> <table-wrap id="table6"><label>Table 6</label><caption><title>Table 6</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th valign="top">  </th><th colspan="2" valign="top"> <p><bold>Pretest-1st Phase</bold></p> </th><th colspan="2" valign="top"> <p><bold>Posttest 1st Phase</bold></p> </th><th colspan="4" valign="top">  </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p><italic>df</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>t</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>p</italic></p> </td><td> <p>d</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DK</p> </td><td> <p>18.22</p> </td><td> <p>4.79</p> </td><td> <p>17.33</p> </td><td> <p>5.47</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>1.232</p> </td><td> <p>.224</p> </td><td> <p>0.17</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>PK</p> </td><td> <p>8.02</p> </td><td> <p>1.82</p> </td><td> <p>8.22</p> </td><td> <p>2.12</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.705</p> </td><td> <p>.484</p> </td><td> <p>0.10</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>CK</p> </td><td> <p>11.08</p> </td><td> <p>3.14</p> </td><td> <p>11.64</p> </td><td> <p>3.46</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.986</p> </td><td> <p>.330</p> </td><td> <p>0.16</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>P</p> </td><td> <p>13.84</p> </td><td> <p>4.50</p> </td><td> <p>15.37</p> </td><td> <p>5.39</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-2.393</p> </td><td> <p>.021</p> </td><td> <p>0.30</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>IMS</p> </td><td> <p>21.51</p> </td><td> <p>6.45</p> </td><td> <p>23.80</p> </td><td> <p>6.57</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-2.627</p> </td><td> <p>.012</p> </td><td> <p>0.35</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>13.46</p> </td><td> <p>3.99</p> </td><td> <p>14.77</p> </td><td> <p>3.61</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-2.897</p> </td><td> <p>.006</p> </td><td> <p>0.34</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DS</p> </td><td> <p>9.17</p> </td><td> <p>2.99</p> </td><td> <p>9.62</p> </td><td> <p>3.24</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.927</p> </td><td> <p>.359</p> </td><td> <p>0.14</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>E</p> </td><td> <p>11.48</p> </td><td> <p>3.79</p> </td><td> <p>11.80</p> </td><td> <p>4.54</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.553</p> </td><td> <p>.386</p> </td><td> <p>0.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Knowledge</p> </td><td> <p>37.31</p> </td><td> <p>9.32</p> </td><td> <p>37.00</p> </td><td> <p>9.80</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>.225</p> </td><td> <p>.823</p> </td><td> <p>0.03</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Regulation</p> </td><td> <p>69.48</p> </td><td> <p>20.21</p> </td><td> <p>75.37</p> </td><td> <p>21.90</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-2.294</p> </td><td> <p>.027</p> </td><td> <p>0.27</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognitive Awareness</p> </td><td> <p>108.53</p> </td><td> <p>29.03</p> </td><td> <p>112.66</p> </td><td> <p>29.69</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>1.140</p> </td><td> <p>.261</p> </td><td> <p>0.14</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>**p&lt;.01</italic></p><p>The above table shows that in the beginning no change was found in
metacognitive awareness and its sub-factors of the control group.</p><p><bold>Table 7.</bold> Intra Group Comparison of Control Group
After Treatment</p><table-wrap id="table7"><label>Table 7</label><caption><title>Table 7</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th colspan="2"> <p><bold>Posttest-1st Phase</bold></p> </th><th colspan="2"> <p><bold>Posttest 2nd Phase</bold></p> </th><th colspan="4">  </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p><italic>df</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>t</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>p</italic></p> </td><td> <p>d</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>DK</p> </td><td> <p>17.33</p> </td><td> <p>5.47</p> </td><td> <p>18.04</p> </td><td> <p>5.02</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>1.185</p> </td><td> <p>.242</p> </td><td> <p>2.73</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>PK</p> </td><td> <p>8.00</p> </td><td> <p>2.14</p> </td><td> <p>8.22</p> </td><td> <p>2.12</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>1.055</p> </td><td> <p>.297</p> </td><td> <p>0.10</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>CK</p> </td><td> <p>11.64</p> </td><td> <p>3.46</p> </td><td> <p>11.46</p> </td><td> <p>3.46</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>.337</p> </td><td> <p>.738</p> </td><td> <p>0.05</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>P</p> </td><td> <p>15.37</p> </td><td> <p>5.39</p> </td><td> <p>14.73</p> </td><td> <p>3.76</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>1.081</p> </td><td> <p>.286</p> </td><td> <p>0.13</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>IMS</p> </td><td> <p>23.80</p> </td><td> <p>6.57</p> </td><td> <p>22.15</p> </td><td> <p>5.65</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>2.117</p> </td><td> <p>.040</p> </td><td> <p>0.26</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>14.77</p> </td><td> <p>3.61</p> </td><td> <p>15.11</p> </td><td> <p>3.20</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.812</p> </td><td> <p>.421</p> </td><td> <p>0.09</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>DS</p> </td><td> <p>9.62</p> </td><td> <p>3.24</p> </td><td> <p>9.95</p> </td><td> <p>2.82</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.690</p> </td><td> <p>.494</p> </td><td> <p>0.10</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>E</p> </td><td> <p>11.80</p> </td><td> <p>4.54</p> </td><td> <p>12.02</p> </td><td> <p>3.50</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.458</p> </td><td> <p>.649</p> </td><td> <p>0.05</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Metacognition Knowledge</p> </td><td> <p>37.00</p> </td><td> <p>9.80</p> </td><td> <p>37.73</p> </td><td> <p>9.03</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>-.627</p> </td><td> <p>.534</p> </td><td> <p>0.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Metacognition Regulation</p> </td><td> <p>75.37</p> </td><td> <p>21.90</p> </td><td> <p>73.97</p> </td><td> <p>16.97</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>.614</p> </td><td> <p>.542</p> </td><td> <p>0.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Metacognitive Awareness</p> </td><td> <p>112.66</p> </td><td> <p>29.69</p> </td><td> <p>111.71</p> </td><td> <p>25.31</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>.315</p> </td><td> <p>.754</p> </td><td> <p>0.03</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><italic>**p&lt;.01</italic></p><p>The above table illustrates that metacognitive awareness and in its
sub-factors of the control group were the same after phase 2.</p><table-wrap id="table8"><label>Table 8</label><caption><title>Intra Group Comparison of Experimental Group Before Treatment</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Posttest-1st Phase</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Posttest 2nd Phase</bold></p> </td><td colspan="4">  </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td><td> <p><italic>df</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>t</italic></p> </td><td> <p><italic>p</italic></p> </td><td> <p>d</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>DK</p> </td><td> <p>15.70</p> </td><td> <p>4.40</p> </td><td> <p>16.00</p> </td><td> <p>4.28</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-.379</p> </td><td> <p>.707</p> </td><td> <p>0.06</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>PK</p> </td><td> <p>6.83</p> </td><td> <p>2.23</p> </td><td> <p>7.70</p> </td><td> <p>1.42</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-2.487</p> </td><td> <p>.016</p> </td><td> <p>0.46</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>CK</p> </td><td> <p>9.79</p> </td><td> <p>2.72</p> </td><td> <p>10.93</p> </td><td> <p>3.68</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-1.839</p> </td><td> <p>.072</p> </td><td> <p>0.35</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>P</p> </td><td> <p>12.56</p> </td><td> <p>3.66</p> </td><td> <p>13.52</p> </td><td> <p>4.90</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-1.713</p> </td><td> <p>.093</p> </td><td> <p>0.22</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>IMS</p> </td><td> <p>18.97</p> </td><td> <p>5.32</p> </td><td> <p>21.43</p> </td><td> <p>5.99</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-3.025</p> </td><td> <p>.004</p> </td><td> <p>0.43</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>10.97</p> </td><td> <p>3.52</p> </td><td> <p>13.43</p> </td><td> <p>3.43</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-5.352</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td><td> <p>0.54</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>DS</p> </td><td> <p>8.83</p> </td><td> <p>2.50</p> </td><td> <p>9.22</p> </td><td> <p>2.62</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-1.105</p> </td><td> <p>.275</p> </td><td> <p>0.15</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>E</p> </td><td> <p>10.20</p> </td><td> <p>3.12</p> </td><td> <p>10.33</p> </td><td> <p>3.91</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-.227</p> </td><td> <p>.821</p> </td><td> <p>0.03</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Metacognition Knowledge</p> </td><td> <p>32.33</p> </td><td> <p>8.39</p> </td><td> <p>34.64</p> </td><td> <p>8.39</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-1.475</p> </td><td> <p>.147</p> </td><td> <p>0.27</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Metacognition Regulation</p> </td><td> <p>61.56</p> </td><td> <p>16.15</p> </td><td> <p>67.95</p> </td><td> <p>19.13</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-2.736</p> </td><td> <p>.009</p> </td><td> <p>0.36</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Metacognitive Awareness</p> </td><td> <p>187.79</p> </td><td> <p>47.11</p> </td><td> <p>205.20</p> </td><td> <p>51.58</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>-2.360</p> </td><td> <p>.022</p> </td><td> <p>0.35</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>**p&lt;.01</italic></p><p>This table confirms that in the beginning no change was found in
metacognitive awareness and its sub-factors of the experimental group.</p><p><bold>Table 9. </bold>Intra Group Comparison of Experimental Group
After Treatment</p><table-wrap id="table9"><label>Table 9</label><caption><title>Table 9</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td colspan="2" valign="top"> <p><bold>Posttest-1st Phase</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2" valign="top"> <p><bold>Posttest 2nd Phase</bold></p> </td><td colspan="4" valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>SD</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>SD</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><italic>df</italic></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><italic>t</italic></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><italic>p</italic></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>d</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DK</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>16.00</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.28</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>32.04</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.46</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>21.978</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.59</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>PK</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>7.70</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.42</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>14.91</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.94</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>30.511</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.21</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>CK</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>10.93</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.68</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>20.45</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.12</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>18.132</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.5</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>P</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>13.52</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.90</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>29.43</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.84</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>21.683</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.29</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>IMS</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>21.43</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.99</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>42.87</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.01</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>19.168</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.52</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>13.43</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.43</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>28.12</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.46</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>25.300</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.57</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>DS</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>9.22</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.62</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>20.20</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.33</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>21.272</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.42</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>E</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>10.33</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.91</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>25.00</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.33</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>23.421</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.02</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Knowledge</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>34.64</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>8.39</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>67.41</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.30</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>26.196</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.14</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognition Regulation</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>67.95</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>19.13</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>145.64</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>7.92</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>24.273</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.30</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Metacognitive Awareness</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>205.20</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>51.58</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>426.12</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>20.3</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>26.593</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.000</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.63</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><italic>**p&lt;.01</italic></p><p>This table depicts that metacognitive awareness and in its sub-factors
of the experimental group were significantly changed after treatment. After
using reflective journals metacognitive awareness in all sub-factors was
significantly improved.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-10">
  <title>Conclusion and Discussion</title>
<p>The results of this research indicate that both of the groups were almost homogenous in all respects of metacognitive awareness except &quot;monitoring&quot;. It was also observed that at the beginning monitoring skills of the control group were better than the experimental group. These results confirmed that both groups were homogeneous before the study. The difference in the monitoring aspect maybe because of the instructor&apos;s teaching style in the previous term. Results declared that metacognitive awareness of both of the groups was the same at the end of the 1st phase. The intragroup comparison showed that after the completion of the 1st phase, a very minimal change in mean scores of metacognitive awareness was observed. This change in mean score is not significant and effect sizes are also very low so, we may conclude that the curriculum and teaching methodologies that are used in daily routine do not help enhance metacognitive awareness of prospective teachers. It is also concluded that the metacognitive awareness of prospective teachers was boosted by using reflective journals. Although, the s effect size obtained by using Cohen&apos;s d formula was not high still highly significant changes were observed. This finding is also analogous with other studies such as Y?ld?z1 and Akda?, 2017; Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson, 2009; Çak?r, 2011; Erskine, 2010; Foster, 1989; Kincannon et al., 1999; Mevarech and Amrany, 2008; Peters and Kitsantas, 2010; and Takallou, 2011. Y?ld?z1 and Akda?, 2017 experimented to check the “Effect of Metacognitive Strategies on Prospective Teachers Metacognitive Awareness and Self Efficacy Belief”. They also used Journals and metacognitive questions in their training session and they observed that metacognitive awareness of prospective teachers was increased.</p><p>Another experimental study was coxswained by Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson in 2009. They explore alteration in the opinion of prospective teachers, as a result of the three metacognitive strategies, regarding the nature of science. They also reported that during the experiment metacognitive awareness of prospective elementary teachers was augmented. Similarly, Erskine (2010) assessed metacognitive awareness and its usage of first-year university students by direct and specific metacognitive training, and after engaging them in weekly metacognitive reflection assignments and reported significant differences in the metacognitive awareness.  Likewise, in 2011 Takallou also found that students’ awareness regarding metacognitive strategies significantly amplified after instruction. In 2019 another experimental study was conducted by Asy&apos;ari and Ikhsan. They studied whether metacognitive awareness of prospective teachers improves through Inquiry Learning Model. They also reported similar results that after training metacognitive awareness and metacognitive knowledge was significantly varied. Ibnu and Rahayu (2017) also observed the improvement in metacognitive awareness of chemistry students after utilizing various metacognitive learning strategies. The results of this study support the finding of Duman and Semerci (2019) and Özsoy and Ataman (2017).</p><p>Duman and Semerci (2019) investigated that prospective teachers’ metacognitive awareness can be affected through metacognition-based instructions. Whereas, the study by Özsoy and Ataman (2017) on 5th grade students mathematical problem-solving achievement is improved by using training of metacognitive strategy. The results of both studies showed that students became more aware of their metacognition after training.</p><p>It may be concluded that this study helps to address the feasibility of reflective journals in classroom settings. Although, this study concluded the positive impact of reflective journals on metacognitive awareness still more metacognition studies are needed.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-11">
  <title>Limitations of the Study</title>
<p>One limitation of this was that only female prospective teachers of one institution were included in this study so results can be generalized only on the age group of 18-20 years and on the female prospective teachers of the University of Education only. In this study both in baseline and treatment phase core courses were selected to teach so results may not be generalized on domain-specific courses or specialized courses. Another limitation of the study was observed in terms of internal validity threat of “history” as the same instructor taught one section (control group) and because of her teaching style control group performed better in monitoring skills. This threat was controlled during the semester and at the end of the 1st phase, when no treatment was given, metacognitive awareness was almost equal. There is one more deficiency that reflective journals used in this study were lengthy and are mostly open-ended questions and students spent much time filling it and it affects their interest as well.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-12">
  <title>Suggestions and Future Implications</title>
<p>This research confirmed that metacognition can be elevated by practicing through reflective journals but further confirmation through repeated intervention is essential. This can be done by using true experimental designs and longitudinal studies.  It is strongly recommended that for more in-depth analysis qualitative or mixed-method researches should be conducted.</p><p>It is suggested that training sessions and seminars should be organized that sheds the light on the importance of metacognition in the Pakistani scenario. This study suggests that more action plans may be developed for classroom settings keeping view the curriculum of the program that may support prospective teachers to become a reflective teacher. It is also strongly suggested that reflective journals use may be improved and focused when it is more amalgamated into the course and not just a &quot;one-shot&quot; application. Future interventions should be more reflective and focused, repeated intervention may be necessary, a combination of metacognitive teaching strategies may be investigated and additional methods of evaluating students&apos; metacognitive awareness other than self-report inventory should be considered.</p><p>As the reflective journals used in this study were lengthy so it is suggested that sheets may be developed by using restricted response questions and in form of prompt rather than full-length sheets to maintain the interest of prospective teachers.</p><p>It is also suggested that reflective journals may be used in our day to day teaching so that prospective teachers may better understand themselves and may regulate their learning. It is strongly suggested that more researches are required to check the effectiveness and pros and cons of reflective journals. Moreover, it is also suggested that reflective journals blended with other teaching techniques might affect not only level but also their learning, academic self-concept, higher-order thinking, and confidence.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/uhSsdPatfL.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Adadan">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Adadan, E., and Oner, D</person-group>
    <year>2018</year>
    <article-title>. Examining preservice teachers&apos; reflective thinking skills in the context of web-based portfolios: The role of metacognitive awareness</article-title>
    <source>Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online)</source>
    <volume>43</volume>
    <issue>11</issue>
    <fpage>26</fpage>
    Adadan, E., and Oner, D. (2018). Examining preservice teachers&apos; reflective thinking skills in the context of web-based portfolios: The role of metacognitive awareness. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(11), 26.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Asyari">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Asy&apos;ari, M., and Ikhsan, M</person-group>
    <year>2019</year>
    <article-title>. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Learning Model in Improving Prospective Teachers&apos; Metacognition Knowledge and Metacognition Awareness</article-title>
    <source>International Journal of Instruction</source>
    <volume>12</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>455</fpage>
    <lpage>470</lpage>
    Asy&apos;ari, M., and Ikhsan, M. (2019). The Effectiveness of Inquiry Learning Model in Improving Prospective Teachers&apos; Metacognition Knowledge and Metacognition Awareness. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 455-470.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Brown">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Brown, A</person-group>
    <year>1987</year>
    <article-title>. Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms</article-title>
    <source>Metacognition, motivation, and understanding</source>
    Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. Metacognition, motivation, and understanding.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Clarke">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Clarke, P. A. J</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Reflective teaching model: A tool for motivation, collaboration, self-reflection, and innovation in learning</article-title>
    <source>Georgia State University</source>
    <page-range>A</page-range>
    Clarke, P. A. J. (2007). Reflective teaching model: A tool for motivation, collaboration, self-reflection, and innovation in learning. Georgia State University
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="DarlingHammond">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Darling-Hammond, L., and Bransford, J. (Eds.)</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do</article-title>
    <source>John Wiley and Sons</source>
    <page-range>reparing</page-range>
    Darling-Hammond, L., and Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. John Wiley and Sons.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Desautel">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Desautel, D</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Becoming a Thinking Thinker: Metacognition, Self-Reflection, and Classroom Practice</article-title>
    <source>Teachers College Record</source>
    <volume>111</volume>
    <issue>8</issue>
    <fpage>1997</fpage>
    <lpage>2020</lpage>
    Desautel, D. (2009). Becoming a Thinking Thinker: Metacognition, Self-Reflection, and Classroom Practice. Teachers College Record, 111(8), 1997-2020.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Dewey">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Dewey, J</person-group>
    <year>1933</year>
    <article-title>. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process Vol</article-title>
    <source>8</source>
    <page-range>rocess</page-range>
    Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process Vol. 8.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Dignath">
  <label>8</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Dignath, C., Buettner, G., and Langfeldt, H. P</person-group>
    <year>2008</year>
    <article-title>. How can primary school students learn selfregulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programs</article-title>
    <source>Educational Research Review</source>
    <volume>3</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>101</fpage>
    <lpage>129</lpage>
    Dignath, C., Buettner, G., and Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn selfregulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programs. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101-129.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Duman">
  <label>9</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Duman, B., and Semerci, Ã‡</person-group>
    <year>2019</year>
    <article-title>. The Effect of a Metacognition-Based Instructional Practice on the Metacognitive Awareness of the Prospective Teachers</article-title>
    <source>Universal Journal of Educational Research</source>
    <volume>7</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>720</fpage>
    <lpage>728</lpage>
    Duman, B., and Semerci, Ã‡. (2019). The Effect of a Metacognition-Based Instructional Practice on the Metacognitive Awareness of the Prospective Teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 720-728.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="ElDib">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">El-Dib, M. A. B</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Levels of reflection in action research</article-title>
    <source>An overview and an assessment tool. Teaching and teacher education</source>
    <volume>23</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>24</fpage>
    <lpage>35</lpage>
    El-Dib, M. A. B. (2007). Levels of reflection in action research. An overview and an assessment tool. Teaching and teacher education, 23(1), 24-35
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="FeimanNemser">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Feiman-Nemser, S</person-group>
    <year>2001</year>
    <source>From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching</source>
    <page-range>reparation</page-range>
    Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Flavell">
  <label>12</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Flavell, J. H</person-group>
    <year>1976</year>
    <article-title>. Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving</article-title>
    <source>The nature of intelligence</source>
    <page-range>roblem-solving</page-range>
    Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. The nature of intelligence
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Ford">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ford, C.L., and Yore, L.D</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Toward convergence of metacognition, reflection, andcritical thinking: Illustrations from natural and social sciences teacher education and classroom practice</article-title>
    <source>In A. Zohar and J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 251-271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer</source>
    <page-range>ractice</page-range>
    Ford, C.L., and Yore, L.D. (2012). Toward convergence of metacognition, reflection, andcritical thinking: Illustrations from natural and social sciences teacher education and classroom practice. In A. Zohar and J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 251-271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Hofer">
  <label>14</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hofer, B. K</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. Introduction: Paradigmatic approaches to personal epistemology</article-title>
    <source>Educational psychologist</source>
    <volume>39</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>3</lpage>
    Hofer, B. K. (2004). Introduction: Paradigmatic approaches to personal epistemology. Educational psychologist, 39(1), 1-3.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Ibnu">
  <label>15</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <article-title>Ibnu, S., and Rahayu, S</article-title>
    <source>(2017, August). The Improvement of Metacognition of Chemistry Education Students using Metacognitive Learning Strategy. In the 1st Annual International Conference on Mathematics, Science, and Education (ICoMSE 2017). Atlantis Press</source>
    <page-range>ress</page-range>
    Ibnu, S., and Rahayu, S. (2017, August). The Improvement of Metacognition of Chemistry Education Students using Metacognitive Learning Strategy. In the 1st Annual International Conference on Mathematics, Science, and Education (ICoMSE 2017). Atlantis Press.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Jay">
  <label>16</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Jay, J. K., and Johnson, K. L</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education</article-title>
    <source>Teaching and teacher education</source>
    <volume>18</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>73</fpage>
    <lpage>85</lpage>
    Jay, J. K., and Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 18(1), 73-85.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Kim">
  <label>17</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Kim, Y</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <source>Cultivating reflective thinking: The effects of a reflective thinking tool on learners&apos; learning performance and metacognitive awareness in the context of online learning</source>
    <page-range>erformance</page-range>
    Kim, Y. (2005). Cultivating reflective thinking: The effects of a reflective thinking tool on learners&apos; learning performance and metacognitive awareness in the context of online learning.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Knight">
  <label>18</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Knight, P</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. A systematic approach to professional development: Learning as practice</article-title>
    <source>Teaching and Teacher Education</source>
    <volume>18</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>229</fpage>
    <lpage>241</lpage>
    Knight, P. (2002). A systematic approach to professional development: Learning as practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3), 229-241.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Kuhn">
  <label>19</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Kuhn, D., and Dean, D</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice</article-title>
    <source>Theory into Practice</source>
    <volume>43</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>268</fpage>
    <lpage>273</lpage>
    Kuhn, D., and Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Larrivee">
  <label>20</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Larrivee, B</person-group>
    <year>2008</year>
    <article-title>. Development of a tool to assess teachers&apos; level of reflective practice</article-title>
    <source>Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>341</fpage>
    <lpage>360</lpage>
    Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers&apos; level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(3), 341-360.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Loughran">
  <label>21</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Loughran, J</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching</article-title>
    <source>Routledge</source>
    <page-range>edagogy</page-range>
    Loughran, J. (2013). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="McAlpine">
  <label>22</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">McAlpine, L., and Weston, C</person-group>
    <year>2000</year>
    <article-title>. Reflection: Issues related to improving professors&apos; teaching and students&apos; learning</article-title>
    <source>Instructional Science</source>
    <volume>28</volume>
    <fpage>363</fpage>
    <lpage>385</lpage>
    McAlpine, L., and Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors&apos; teaching and students&apos; learning. Instructional Science, 28, 363-385.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Moon">
  <label>23</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Moon, J</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <article-title>. Guide for busy academics no</article-title>
    <source>4: learning through reflection. Higher Education Academy, 1</source>
    Moon, J. (2005). Guide for busy academics no. 4: learning through reflection. Higher Education Academy, 1.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="ref-24">
  <label>24</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ã–zsoy, G., and Ataman, A</person-group>
    <year>2017</year>
    <article-title>. The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem-solving achievement</article-title>
    <source>International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>67</fpage>
    <lpage>82</lpage>
    Ã–zsoy, G., and Ataman, A. (2017). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem-solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67-82.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Parsons">
  <label>25</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Parsons, M., and Stephenson, M</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <article-title>. Developing reflective practice in student teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships</article-title>
    <source>Teachers and teaching</source>
    <volume>11</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>95</fpage>
    <lpage>116</lpage>
    Parsons, M., and Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and teaching, 11(1), 95-116.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Rodgers">
  <label>26</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Rodgers, C</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking</article-title>
    <source>Teachers college record</source>
    <volume>104</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>842</fpage>
    <lpage>866</lpage>
    Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers college record, 104(4), 842-866.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Schraw">
  <label>27</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Schraw, G</person-group>
    <year>2001</year>
    <article-title>. Promoting general metacognitive awareness</article-title>
    <source>In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer</source>
    <page-range>romoting</page-range>
    Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sellars">
  <label>30</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sellars, M</person-group>
    <year>2014</year>
    <article-title>. Reflective practice for teachers</article-title>
    <source>London: Sage publications</source>
    <page-range>ractice</page-range>
    Sellars, M. (2014). Reflective practice for teachers. London: Sage publications.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Shulman">
  <label>31</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Shulman, L.S., and Shulman, J.H</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Curriculum Studies</source>
    <volume>36</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>257</fpage>
    <lpage>271</lpage>
    Shulman, L.S., and Shulman, J.H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36(2), 257-271.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Whittaker">
  <label>32</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Whittaker, C., and van Garderen, D</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Using a metacognitive approach with case-based instruction to enhance teacher reflection and promote effective educational practices for diverse learners</article-title>
    <source>Action in Teacher Education</source>
    <volume>31</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>5</fpage>
    <lpage>16</lpage>
    Whittaker, C., and van Garderen, D. (2009). Using a metacognitive approach with case-based instruction to enhance teacher reflection and promote effective educational practices for diverse learners. Action in Teacher Education, 31(2), 5-16.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Yildiz">
  <label>33</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Yildiz, H., and Akdag, M</person-group>
    <year>2017</year>
    <article-title>. The Effect of Metacognitive Strategies on Prospective Teachers&apos; Metacognitive Awareness and Self Efficacy Belief</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Education and Training Studies</source>
    <volume>5</volume>
    <issue>12</issue>
    <fpage>30</fpage>
    <lpage>40</lpage>
    Yildiz, H., and Akdag, M. (2017). The Effect of Metacognitive Strategies on Prospective Teachers&apos; Metacognitive Awareness and Self Efficacy Belief. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(12), 30-40.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Zohar">
  <label>34</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Zohar, A., and Barzilai, S</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions</article-title>
    <source>Studies in Science Education</source>
    <volume>49</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>121</fpage>
    <lpage>169</lpage>
    Zohar, A., and Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>