What is Informatics Education Students’ Impression
of Using Metacognitive Training System at The First
Time?
Wahyu Nur Hidayat1, Setiadi Cahyono Putro2
Department of Electrical Engineering
Universitas Negeri Malang
Malang, Indonesia
1
wahyu.nur.ft@um.ac.id, 2setiadi.cahyono.ft@um.ac.id
Abstract— The use of Metacognitive Training System (MTS)
is relatively new in Indonesia. Previously, a prototype of MTS
has been developed and applied in Universitas Gadjah Mada. To
become a massive product, the prototype of the MTS must be
tested on a larger scale. It is intended to capture user impression
about a new product. In this paper, we present User Experience
(UX) measurement for the developed MTS in larger scale,
involving 90 undergraduate students of informatics education at
Universitas Negeri Malang. Two UX measurement methods are
used, including User Experience Questionnaires (UEQ) and
short-interview. UEQ is used for capturing general impressions,
whereas, short-interview is conducted to get deeper feedback
about the efficacy of the MTS in their studies. The UX
measurement result is benchmarked and revealed that
Attractiveness, Efficiency, and Stimulation categorized excellent
and the interview result shows that more than 75% respondent
responds with the positive answer in five questions. With this
result, it could be concluded that the MTS is ready for massive
product.
Keywords— metacognitive training system, student impression,
user experience.
I. INTRODUCTION
The term “Metacognitive Training System” (MTS) is
relatively new in the education area. MTS I a kind of
computer-based learning system that can train student’s
metacognitive skill during a learning process. Metacognitive
skill is required to help a student in solving some problems
while learning. The first idea to use computer environment as
metacognitive tools for enhancing learning is come from
Azevedo [1] in 2005. Azevedo stated metacognitive tools must
require a student to analyze the learning situation, set
meaningful learning goals, determine which strategies to use,
assess whether the strategies are effective in meeting learning
goals, and evaluate their undertanding of the topic [1].
Metacognitive also has direct influence in Self-Regulation
Learning (SRL) process, Azevedo et al in 2009 also have
outlined the theoretical and conceptual assumptions of SRL
underlying a hypermedia environment designed and foster
students’ processes [2]. However, the term that been used for
metacognitive tools is hypermedia. In another way, we
propose more general terms called MTS, a hypermedia
Mukhamad Angga Gumilang3, *Indriana Hidayah4
Department of Electrical Engineering and Information
Technology
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
3
angga.gumilang@mail.ugm.ac.id, *Corresponding Author:
4
indriana.h@ugm.ac.id
learning management system that can train both of student’s
metacognitive skill and support SRL process.
The following researches about developing metacognitive
tools are implemented on various topic in several courses, the
first example has come from Azevedo et al at 2010 [3] that
present MetaTutor as hypermedia learning in Biology courses,
they also discuss the challenges for measuring cognitive and
metacognitive processes in the context of MetaTutor. On the
next study Azevedo in 2014 also examined the effectiveness
of self-regulated learning (SRL) training in facilitating
students’ science learning with hypermedia [4]. Other
researchers also follow the development of computer-based
learning environment in history courses for modeling the
development of self-regulated learning skills [5]. Su in 2014
also proposed Self-Regulated Learning System with Rule-
based Learning Diagnostic Scheme (SRLS-RLDS) to support
adaptive scaffoldings for students in the context of software
learning automatically [6]. And the recent research also
proposed the used of context Open Massive Online Course
(MOOC) that train both of student’s metacognitive skill and
self-regulation learning, one of them is called PeerLA -
Assistant for individual learning goals and self-regulation
competency improvement in online learning scenarios [7] and
another is the present architecture of a learning management
system used as a metacognitive tool collaboratively and
supporting [8].
Based on previous research, none of them are considered
UX as a success factor of their metacognitive tools or their
hypermedia learning environment [1-8]. In human-computer
interaction view, as shifting the paradigm for technology-
centered to user-centered we must pay attention carefully to
User-Experience (UX) [9]. Furthermore, user behavioral
analysis or User Experience (UX) is a significant factor to
determine whether the Information System/Information
Technology (IS/IT) has gained sufficient acceptance by its
users [10]. On this research, we change perspective to consider
UX as a success factor in our MTS and also, we use UX
evaluation to capture user impression about a new product.
The result of UX evaluation that can be a decision about
developing MTS to become MOOC.
 Before testing learning media for a massive product, firstly
we test a learning media on the limited scale of the
respondent, as further step, the learning media must be tested
on a larger scale of the respondent with the new user. The
Selection of user is also challenging, in case of revealing new
user impression about a product. In the context of MTS, that
provides a different way of learning, both of improving
cognitive and metacognitive in psychology terminology using
computer-based learning tools. We select undergraduate of
informatics education student as the new user of MTS. As
consideration point, informatics education students will have
the basic knowledge about pedagogy and learning media
design. That will be researching hat new respondent will can
distinguish between MTS and conventional ELearning.
On this paper, we present the capture of new user
impression by UX evaluation as the larger scale of the
respondent with 90 informatics education students in
Universitas Negeri Malang that using MTS on the first time.
Some instruments that we use is User Experience
Questionnaires (UEQ) to capture general impressions of UX
and the short-interview technique to reveal depth analysis of
MTS about their study. We quickly brief about previous
research about developing MTS to support SRL on the second
chapter. In the third section, we describe our proposed
learning framework in our MTS. The fourth section we
present experimental design to capture new user impression
about MTS. And the last chapter we discuss the result of UX
evaluation.
II. PREVIOUS WORKS
There are few researchers that named their products as
Metacognitive Training System (MTS), related researcher
defined that learning media as hypermedia or metacognitive
tools. We use MTS terminology that defined as a learning
management system which can train student both of cognitive
and metacognitive skills. The first researcher currently
develops an Adaptive Hypermedia Learning Environment
(HLE) for Algorithm and Data Structure (ADS) course. The
goal of the first research is to provide adaptive scaffolding as
instructional interventions to facilitate students’ aptitude in
programming [11]. The result from first researcher students
have been categorized into three groups (low, medium, high)
and provided with appropriate scaffolding [11].
Second researcher also followed with proposed UX
measurement that specific for MTS to support SRL in ADS
course that correlated with the first researcher, there are four
proposed instrument: (1) User Experience Questionnaires
(UEQ) to capture general impressions of UX, (2) System
Usability Scale (SUS) to measure usability score, (3)
Interview to reveal depth analysis of MTS about their studies
and (4) Self-Regulation Learning Questionnaires (SRLQ) to
know what if learning style is suitable for user [12]. The MTS
UX evaluation show that UEQ still has the unsatisfying result,
SUS score still categorized in non-acceptable for the user,
SRLQ show that learning design still needs revision, and only
about half of respondent answer the interview questions with
the positive answer [12].
Based on the previous result about UX measurement in
MTS that supporting SRL, another research proposed a
different approach to develop MTS by using User-Centered
Design (UCD) [13]. The purpose of using a UCD approach in
the second phase of development MTS are for improving UX,
and user acceptance score. From their studies by re-designing
MTS with considering user feedback and involving the user in
all development step show the result usability score now can
be acceptable by the user and MTS application in real learning
still get positive affect [13].
In our previous research that already described [11-13], we
already have MTS to support SRL in ADS course. Our
product can give adaptive scaffolding based on a
metacognitive score for each student [11] and also our product
now can have greater usability score [13]. Furthermore,
applying MTS in other universities with the greater number of
the respondent is more challenging. Because in our previous
research we just test MTS just in one university and also have
limited scale of respondent [12]. In the context of
development learning media, the testing scale can be divided
into two steps. The first step is testing a product in limited
scale respondent using SRLQ instrument, and the second step
is testing in the larger scale of the respondent. So in this study,
we focus on applying MTS to support SRL in ADS course in
different university and with the larger number of the
respondent. The purpose of this study is to chapter new user
impressions about using MTS for the first time.
III. PROPOSED LEARNING FRAMEWORK
On the previous design of HLE in ADS course there are
five main processes: (1) Assessment of metacognitive
awareness level, (2) Determining goal and sub-goal, (3)
Choosing strategy-use for learning, (4) Learning with learning
material, and (5) Evaluation [11]. The following research also
presents MTS learning process into a flowchart [12], but it is
still hard to distinguish which one is essentials process of
MTS. So, on next research an also present list of features in
MTS based on literature study that consists of pedagogical
chat, live group chat, learning self-evaluation, learning goal
selection, learning strategy, status bar, and dashboard [13].
The result of concept mapping in [13] is to adapt five
essentials features in MTS [14] and also following six
essentials processes to support SRL [8]. However, the result of
concept mapping also still not clearly describe the learning
process of MTS that support SRL. So, on the recent
development of MTS, we adapt five main processes [11] and
make it more details into the proposed learning framework.
In Figure 1. We can see the proposed learning framework.
Generally, we distribute the overall process into four phases of
learning there is the beginning of using MTS, the beginning of
learning, the learning process, and learning evaluation. In each
phase consist of some learning process in MTS.
1) The beginning of using MTS
In the first time of using MTS after student login into
MTS, the student will take a quick tutorial of using MTS and
also quick describe metacognitive and SRL terminology. And
also, the student can see details about the learning goal. In this
phase can be found Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
(MAI) test process represented an assessment of
metacognitive awareness level, the system will process his/her
adaptive learning material based on the MAI level [11]. As a
result of MAI test, students’ metacognitive level will be
measured in knowledge and regulation (Fig 2). The
Knowledge of metacognitive level is individual knowledge
about their cognitive [16], and regulation of metacognitive is
ability to control their own learning and evaluate their mistake
[16] [17].

Fig. 3. Activating Prior Knowledge Process in MTS

Fig. 4. An example of Strategy Recommendation in MTS

4) Learning evaluation
Learning evaluation can be also different from normal
Fig. 1. Proposed MTS Learning Framework learning. In the context of ADS course, every student must
design and implement an algorithm to a simple problem. So,
in the first process at learning evaluation, we give a practical
strategy for each student to solve simple algorithm problem. In
this step, we can call practical strategy, we can see in Figure 5,
the student will find solution from a simple algorithm
problem. MTS for ADS course also provides the embedded
Integrated Development Environment (IDE) tools that
facilitate student to test their solutions.
After practical strategy, the student can take an objective
test as a common learning evaluation process. At the end of
the learning cycle, a student also must fill learning self-
Fig. 2. Metacognitive Measurement Result on MTS evaluation questionnaires. The result of this step will give the
learner recommendation for the next cycle.
2) The beginning of learning
The second phase, student can set a goal and take
Activating Prior Knowledge (APK) as represent determining
goal and sub-goal. As we can see on Figure 3, in APK process
student can answer a simple essay question from previous
learning material. If a student has not enough score of APK
test, MTS through a pedagogical agent can recommend for
taking another learning material. At the beginning of learning,
there is a set strategy process that represents in choosing
strategy-use for learning [11].
3) Learning process
A student will learn with three option of strategies that most
suitable to learn ADS, there are: draw, summarization, and
control video [12]. For each material, a student can choose
which one strategy that appropriate for him/her. But MTS also
provides a recommendation of strategy-use for students based
on previous result [11]. Figure 4 is an example of a
recommendation. Pedagogical agent will show previous Fig. 5. Practical Strategy in MTS as part of Learning Evaluation
learning analytics and give suggestions to students about the
strategy that may they want to use.
 IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
We conduct an experimental design that follows a practical
guide to control experiment of software engineering tools with
human participant [15]. Although we do not distribute class
into experiment and control class, in our assumptions
respondent have already pass ADS course in one semester
with conventional ELearning. Ko et.al describes that the
execution of experiment is begun with recruitment and ended
debrief as a final step [15]. In our study, 120 undergraduate
students of informatics education are involved as a new user
of using MTS in ADS course. To capture user impressions
will be discussed as follows:
1) Recruiting: In the recruitment phase, we ask 120
undergraduate students to join the experiment at the end of the
meeting ADS course. 120 undergraduate identified a
population of this study.
2) Selection: We filter and determine potential
respondents from the whole population by making a simple
selection. From 120 undergraduate students, we reduce into 90
respondents that fulfill two criteria: pass ADS course for all
learning materials and have experience of using ELearning for
more than one year in other courses.
3) Consent: We give the explanations about the purpose of
this study and ask the selected respondent to participate in
using MTS. We also give an option whether they can join or
not.
4) Demographic: We gather demographic data about their
gender and ADS learning score. The age of respondents are
likely similar between 18 until 20 years old.
5) Grouping: We group 90 undergraduate informatics
students into three classes based on ADS learning score that
we have gathered before. For each class that consists of 30
students, we try to make it normally distributed.
6) Training: Before we start the testing phase, we quickly
brief new user of MTS with metacognitive and SRL
terminology. We try to give short and simple explanations
about MTS as a training process to them.
7) Task: We ask students to learn with MTS just only in
one course, for each session we give one hour for respondent.
Each class will try to learn with our proposed learning
framework in ADS course, it begun from the beginning phase
of using MTS until learning evaluation phase in one cycle of
study.
8) Measurement: We capture new user impression with
two instruments, User Experience Questionnaires (UEQ) is
selected to capture general impressions of UX in MTS [12],
and interview to reveal depth analysis about the effect of MTS
in their study [12]. For each participant that complete UX
measurement steps in 15 minutes.
9) Debrief: At the end of the experiment, we help the The
student to get better understanding of MTS and give thanks to
all participants.
As a result of UX measurement the first result is UEQ data
that we analyze with mean comparisons and benchmarking
between three classes. We conduct Alpha-Coefficient as a
measure for the consistence of a scale. Second result for
capturing user impressions is actually qualitative data, but we
present it into percentage that responded in positive answer.
Both of result will be prsented in Section V.
V. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
User impression can be represented by using two
measurements. UEQ represents the general impression of user
experience. Furthermore, we can compare the measurement
user experience with a dataset, containing the UX of other
products. A benchmark tool is already provided in UEQ
online. On the other hand, short-interview can reveal MTS
effect in fostering students’ learning [12]. The result is
discussed in the following subsections.
A. Correlation and Cronbach’s Alpha-Coefficient
The correlation and Cronbach's Alpha-Coefficient are used
to indicate whether a scale is consistent or not. These tools are
useful to support an interpretation that are gained from the
means scale [10]. Before we discuss about the result of UEQ,
we present the correlation between items and Cronbach's
alpha-coefficient value of each category from the data in three
classes. As shown in Table I Perspicuity and Attractiveness
have a positive and good correlation. These correlations
reflected how the items in each category have a relation. It
shows that most of each item has a consistent scale [10]. In
other categories such as: efficiency, stimulation, and novelty
have values close to 0.7. It indicated that the category little bit
consistent. Dependability has lowest value between 0.2 and
0.6. However, there is no acceptance rule how big the value of
the coefficient should be [10]. Based on Table 1 most of all
categories tend to consistent is scale.
TABLE I. CORRELATION AND CRONBACH ALPHA-COEFFICIENT VALUE
IN THREE CLASSES
- Attractiveness Perspicuity Efficiency Dependability Stimulation Novelty
A 0.72 0,71 0,52 0,28 0,49 0,47
B 0,65 0,80 0,68 0,30 0,56 0,61
C
0,63 0,73 0,56 0,55 0,61 0,39
B. Result of User Experience Questionnaires
Benchmark dataset that we are using is consist the different
product (software business, websites, online shop, social
media, etc.) they are collected from 9905 people at 245
studies. Benchmark can be a good technique to measure user
impressions that comparing with other products. In our study,
we categorized UEQ result in three classes (A, B, and C). The
result of means UEQ can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6 also describes the comparison result of each UEQ
categories with a radar diagram. For the first scale is
attractiveness got the highest mean result in B class, they are
range between 1.50 until 2.00. The second scale is perspicuity
mean's result are between 1.00 to 1.50, but it is more closely
to 1.50 for three classes. For efficiency result of quite similar
in three classes. Dependability got highest means value on C
class and another class get more closely in 1.50. And the last
scale get more variant result with a range between 1.00 until
2.20. The more detailed result in each class with the
 Attractiveness
2.50
benchmark result can be discussed in the following sub-
section. 2.00

1.50

1.00
Stimulation Perspicuity
0.50
A
0.00 B
C
Fig. 9. Benchmark UEQ result from C class

As a summary of UEQ result from three classes, Table II

Dependability
Fig. 6. UEQ means result in three classes
can present comparisons between three classes. As shown in
Efficiency Table II, three classes agree that attractiveness, efficiency, and
stimulation have excellent result. Interpretation of excellent
result is other products in the range of the 10% best results
10% [10]. It can be concluded that MTS is more attractive
rather than conventional learning, more efficient to learn, with
good stimulation of their study. Other categories have mostly
have result with good result.

1) Benchmark result of A class

TABLE II. COMPARISONS OF UEQ BENCHMARK RESULT IN THREE
From six scales of UEQ benchmark, A class got excellent CLASSES
result in four scales (attractiveness, efficiency, stimulation,
- Attractiveness Perspicuity Efficiency Dependability Stimulation Novelty
and novelty). It is indicating that MTS is more attractive A Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Excellent
besides conventional learning, more efficient to learn, with B Excellent Above Excellent Good Excellent Excellent
Average
good stimulation of their study, and also is quietly have C Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Good
something new in MTS. Benchmark UEQ result from A class
can be seen in Figure 7. C. Interview Result
In the interview, the student can respond open-endedly that
following five questions that can reveal MTS effect about their
study [12]. Five interview questions and each purpose can be
seen in Table III. Commonly, each student will complete an
interview session in just 10 minutes.

TABLE III. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS [12]

Fig. 7. Benchmark UEQ result from A class
No Questions Purpose
2) Benchmark result of B class .
1. After using this system do you have new Measure MTS effect
From six scales of UEQ benchmark, B class got excellent
knowledge about metacognitive and self- on student cognition
result in four scales (attractiveness, efficiency, stimulation, regulation learning?
and novelty). It is indicating that MTS is more attractive 2. Do you have freedom to choose which Verification about SRL
besides conventional learning, more efficient to learn, with learning materials and learning strategy? Process
good stimulation of their study, and also is quietly have Does it help you to improve your SRL skill?
3. How about your opinion about some Verification about
something new in MTS. Benchmark UEQ result from B class recommendations that is given from the system
can be seen in Figure 8. system through pedagogical agent? Does it recommendations
helpful?
4. Do you feel some differences between using Distinguish from
this system instead of conventional conventional LMS and
eLearning? MTS
5. Did you get some learning reflection and Verification of
conclusion after using this system? beneficial value of
using MTS

Fig. 8. Benchmark UEQ result from B class

3) Benchmark result of C class
From six scales of UEQ benchmark, C class get excellent
result in three scales (attractiveness, efficiency, and
stimulation). It is indicating that MTS is more attractive rather
than conventional learning, more efficient to learn, with good
stimulation of their study. Benchmark UEQ result from C
class can be seen in Figure 9.
From each answer that given by students, we record and
calculate the number of students who give the positive answer
and correct answer. Interview result is actually qualitative
data, but for measuring impression score we calculate the
number of the respondents that answering with positive (+)
and correct answer and make it into a percentage (%). The
total number for each respondent that involved in interview
sessionare 30 students. The comparison result within three
classes can be presented in Table IV.
TABLE IV. COMPARISON INTERVIEW RESULT WITHIN THREE CLASSES
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1 2 3 4
+ % + % + % + % + %
A 24 80 26 86.7 25 83.3 28 93.3 23
B 25 83.3 28 93.3 24 80 29 96.7 24
C 24 80 27 90 25 83.3 27 90 22
TOTAL 73   81   74   84   69
MEAN   81.1   90   82.2   93.3  
Table IV shows that in the first question, 73 of 90
respondents answer with a positive and correct answer about
MTS, it has had an effect on their cognition. Second questions
90% of the total respondent agree that freedom of selection
goal can support SRL skill. Third question result shows that
74 from 90 respondents think that MTS recommendation in
learning is helpful. Fourth question result is 84 from 90
respondents agree that MTS is different from conventional
MTS. And last questions result that 76.7% of total respondents
get learning reflection after using MTS.
However, the interview result get the various result, we
can assume that more of 75%, from total respondent, answer
each interview questions with correct and positive answer.
According to Table IV, we can also assume that most of the
respondents have a good impression about using MTS for the
first time. This assumption based on knowledge and
experience of informatics education students that already
using other LMS for more than one year in other courses.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The proposed experimental method to capture user
impression about using MTS for the first time is already
presented in this paper. The proposed method uses two
explicit instruments by UEQ and short-interview techniques.
The UEQ benchmark result reveals that from three, they
all agree that in attractive, efficient, and stimulation scales is
excellent. It is being concluded that informatics education
impression about using MTS is more attractive than
conventional learning and more efficient to learn. It also gives
more stimulation for their study. Moreover, the interview
result also indicate that more than 75% from 90 students
answer each interview questions with a positive answer. It
represents that MTS will have depth effect about their study,
especially for their study using metacognitive and SRL skill.
Researcher still continue this study. We will develop the
general MTS that can be used in other courses. Because the
previous researcher has a framework for the research [8].
However, this preliminary study result shows that our simple
proposed learning framework that applicable to ADS has a
good impression on the new user.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Azevedo, “Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing
student learning ? The role of self- regulated learning,” Educ. Psychol.,
vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 199–209, 2005.
[2] R. Azevedo, A. Witherspoon, A. Chauncey, C. Burkett, and A. Fike,
“MetaTutor: A MetaCognitive Tool for Enhancing Self-Regulated
5 Learning,” Annu. Meet. Am. Assoc. Artif. Intell. Symp. Metacognitive
Cogn. Educ. Syst., pp. 14–19, 2009.
76.7 [3] R. Azevedo, D. C. Moos, A. M. Johnson, and A. D. Chauncey,
80 “Measuring Cognitive and Metacognitive Regulatory Processes During
73.3 Hypermedia Learning: Issues and Challenges,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 45,
  no. 4, pp. 210–223, 2010.
76.7 [4] R. Azevedo, “Does Training of Cognitive and Metacognitive Regulatory
Processes Enhance Learning and Deployment of Processes with
Hypermedia ?,” vol. 2, pp. 136–141, 2014.
[5] E. G. Poitras and S. P. Lajoie, Developing an agent-based adaptive
system for scaffolding self-regulated inquiry learning in history
education, vol. 62, no. 3. 2014.
[6] J. M. Su, “A self-regulated learning system to support adaptive
scaffolding in hypermedia-based learning environments,” Proc. - 2014
7th Int. Conf. Ubi-Media Comput. Work. U-MEDIA 2014, pp. 326–331,
2014.
[7] J. Konert, C. Bohr, C. Rensing, and H. Bellhäuser, “PeerLA - Assistant
for Individual Learning Goals and Self-Regulation Competency
Improvement in Online Learning Scenarios,” Proc. 16th IEEE Int. Conf.
Adv. Learn. Technol., pp. 52–56, 2016.
[8] M. Y. Zarouk and M. Khaldi, “Metacognitive learning management
system supporting self-regulated learning,” Colloq. Inf. Sci. Technol.
Cist, pp. 929–934, 2017.
[9] D. Syarif, S. Sahid, P. I. Santosa, R. Ferdiana, and L. E. N, “Evaluation
and Measurement of Learning Management System Based on User
Experience,” 2016.
[10] H. B. Santoso, R. Y. K. Isal, T. Basaruddin, and M. Schrepp, “Research-
in-Progress : User Experience Evaluation of Student Centered e-
Learning Environment for Computer Science Program,” pp. 52–55,
2014.
[11] A. Nurlayli, T. B. Adji, A. E. Permanasari, and I. Hidayah, “Tahani
model of fuzzy database for an adaptive metacognitive scaffolding in
Hypermedia Learning Environment (Case: Algorithm and structure data
course),” Proc. - 2017 Int. Conf. Sustain. Inf. Eng. Technol. SIET 2017,
vol. 2018–January, pp. 358–363, 2018.
[12] M. A. Gumilang, S. Fauziati, R. Hartanto, and I. Hidayah, “Measuring
User Experience on Metacognitive Training System to Support Self-
Regulated Learning in Algorithm and Data Strcuture Course,” in The
12th SEATUC Symposium – Engineering Education and Research for
Sustainable Development, 2018.
[13] I. Hidayah, T.B. Adji, N.A. Setiawan, S. Fauziati, R. Hartanto, and M.
A. Gumilang, “User-Centered Design on Metacognitive Training
System: A Case in Algorithm and Data Structure Course,” in 10th The
International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical
Engineering, 2018 (inPress).
[14] S. N. M. Rum and M. A. Ismail, “Metacognitive Support Accelerates
Computer Assisted Learning for Novice Programmers,” Educational
Technology & Society, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 170–181, 2017
[15] A. J. Ko, T. D. LaToza, and M. M. Burnett, “A practical guide to
controlled experiments of software engineering tools with human
participants,” Empir. Softw. Eng., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 110–141, 2013.
[16] G. Schraw and D. Moshman, “Metacognitive Theories,” vol. 7, no. 4,
pp. 351–371, 2016.
[17] S. Sánchez-Alonso and Y. Vovides, “Integration of metacognitive skills
in the design of learning objects,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 23, no.
6, pp. 2585–2595, 2007.