STUDENTS’ LEVEL OF METACOGNITIVE

AWARENESS AS CORRELATES OF THEIR

MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Volume: 16
Issue 6
Pages: 639-645
Document ID: 2024PEMJ1487
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10523794
Manuscript Accepted: 12-18-2023
Psych Educ, 2024, 16(6): 639-645, Document ID:2024PEMJ1487, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10523794, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Students’ Level of Metacognitive Awareness as correlates of their

Mathematics Achievement
Real A. Baguin*, Fe R. Janiola
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
The objective of the research was to establish the correlation between students’ metacognitive awareness
and mathematics achievement. This study opted for a descriptive-correlational research design for it allows
the identification of potential connections and associations, providing valuable insights into the nature of
the studied relationships. A total of 306 freshman students were selected using Stratified Random Sampling
with proportional allocation. The study utilized the standardized Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
(MAI) developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994). The MAI is a self-report inventory and has two
components, metacognitive knowledge (17 items) and metacognitive regulation (35 items). The results
indicated that students exhibited a high level of both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive
regulation awareness. Moreover, the data demonstrated a significant correlation between metacognitive
awareness and mathematics achievement. Students displaying elevated levels of metacognitive awareness
tend to achieve higher scores in Mathematics compared to their peers. The findings suggest that
metacognition significantly influences success in learning Mathematics, indicating that students with
proficient metacognitive abilities excel academically in this subject. The more adept students are in
identifying effective learning strategies tailored to their needs, the better they can manage their learning
processes. Consequently, it is advisable for educators to employ the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
as a diagnostic tool to discern individual learning strategies among students. Additionally, the researcher
suggests that future studies consider variables such as the General Point Average and learning styles for
further exploration.

Keywords: Metacognitive Knowledge, Metacognitive Regulation, Achievement, Mathematics

Introduction
Metacognition, a higher-order thinking which involves active awareness, is a factor that influences learning.
Integration of various practices to improve one's metacognition has become a matter of highest importance for
everyone involved in education. It helps learners monitor their progress and take control of their learning. Research
has shown that employing metacognitive techniques has enhanced academic performance across various ages,
cognitive capacities, and learning disciplines. These techniques encompass a broad spectrum, including reading
and comprehension, writing, mathematics, reasoning, problem-solving, and memory (Dignath & Büttner, 2008;
Dignath, Buettner & Langfeldt, 2008).

However, educators often encounter challenges related to diverse learning abilities among students in mathematics.
For instance, a teacher might find that some students grasp mathematical concepts quickly and excel, while others
struggle to understand the same material. On this note, the researcher also noticed that classrooms nowadays are
full of students who have different levels of learning. Some of them are active learners who know by what means
they learn; self-regulated who can monitor and assess their learning; and self-directed who can apply effective
strategies to different learning activities and situations. Others may be on the average level and are aware of their
learning strengths and weaknesses but may not efficiently manage their learning process. Unfortunately, other
learners need more adequate awareness of their learning processes and need help to control them effectively. The
varying levels of prior knowledge, skills, and learning styles make it difficult for educators to cater to the diverse
needs of the entire class effectively. This diversity in understanding and learning speeds can lead to a significant
gap in student performance and engagement, posing a challenge for teachers to implement instructional strategies
that address the specific needs of each student.

Metacognition plays a vital role in both teaching and learning processes. Students possessing strong metacognitive
skills tend to achieve higher academic success in contrast to those with weaker metacognitive abilities. They
demonstrate the ability to monitor their learning processes, comprehend information, and effectively employ
learning strategies, making learning tasks more manageable (Tok, H., Özgan, H., & Dos, B., 2010). Consequently,
metacognitive practices assist students in regulating their cognitive strategies and addressing learning deficiencies
by developing new cognitive skills.

Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulus, V., and Gregoriadis, A. (2013) affirmed that metacognition is a teachable

Baguin & Janiola 640/645

Psych Educ, 2024, 16(6): 639-645, Document ID:2024PEMJ1487, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10523794, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

skill. Students who are aware of their metacognitive abilities tend to approach their learning more strategically and
effectively. They create learning plans and exhibit better control and regulation over their learning compared to
peers who lack awareness of their metacognitive skills. Consequently, teachers then are encouraged to integrate
more activities that would enhance their students' capacity to reflect on their learning, the task they are to do, and
the strategies that they can use while learning. Teachers should explicitly guide their students to actively monitor
and subsequently regulate their learning processes, aiming for greater self-direction in their mathematical
performance (Desoete, 2007, 2009; Grizzle-Martin, 2014; Raoofi, Chan, Mukundan, & Rashid, 2013).

Research Questions

The main objective of the research aimed to establish the connection between metacognitive awareness and
mathematics achievement among the freshman students of Bohol Island State University-Bilar Campus, Zamora,
Bilar, Bohol in the Academic Year (A.Y.) 2018 - 2019. Specifically, the study sought to answer to the following
questions:

1. What is the metacognitive awareness of the freshman students in terms of metacognitive knowledge and
regulation?
2. What is the metacognitive awareness of the respondents according to their mathematics achievement level?
3. Is there a significant difference in the metacognitive awareness among respondents according to their
mathematics achievement level?
4. Is there a significant correlation between the:
4.1 metacognitive awareness and the mathematics achievement level of the respondents; and
4.2 respondents’ awareness of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation?

Literature Review

Metacognitive Awareness and Mathematics Achievement

A substantial number of literature has been published about metacognition. Baltaci, Yildiz and Özcakir (2016)
discussed in their literature that studies about metacognition focused on problem-solving and students’ mathematical
achievement (Kramarski, 2008 & Stewart, Cooper, & Moulding, 2007). A study by Young and Fry (2008)
highlighted a positive correlation between the scores on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) and end-of-
course grades as well as the General Point Average (GPA). Thus, it concluded that MAI can be a helpful tool for
professors in screening students needing direct instruction related to metacognition. In larger class settings, it could
be crucial for professors to pinpoint students who received low scores on the MAI. Employing the MAI could aid in
assessing the specific cognitive and regulatory strategies individual students use during their learning process. This,
in turn, would enable professors to offer targeted interventions for students exhibiting lower levels of metacognitive
awareness.

Additionally, Sperling et al. (2004), as cited by Young et al. (2008), employed the MAI to evaluate the metacognitive
awareness of college students and found a significant correlation between the cognition and regulatory factors of
metacognition. However, they found no relation between scores on the MAI and academic achievement. This stands
in contrast to the findings of Young et al. (2008), who noted a substantial correlation between MAI scores and
academic achievement.

Since, metacognition plays a central role in the learning process, which eventually affects the student’s academic
achievement at school, it is reasonable that emphasizing metacognition in the classroom is a feasible and effective
solution to enhancing academic achievement. Thus, in light of the aforementioned observations, the researcher is
prompted to study metacognitive awareness and confirm its connection to mathematics achievement. Due to this
reason, it hoped to enhance the body of knowledge linking students’ metacognitive awareness to proficient ways of
doing mathematics and to enhance academic achievement among students.

Methodology
Research Design

This study explored the connection between metacognitive awareness and mathematics achievement of freshman
students. To achieve its objective, the descriptive-correlational research design was used.

Baguin & Janiola 641/645

Psych Educ, 2024, 16(6): 639-645, Document ID:2024PEMJ1487, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10523794, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Participants/Respondents

The participants of the study were the freshman students of Bohol Island State University- Bilar Campus in the
academic year 2018 - 2019. Stratified Random Sampling with proportional allocation was employed to get the total
number of 306 respondents.

Instrument of the Study

This research utilized the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) developed and standardized by Schraw, G. &
Dennison, R.S. (1994). The MAI is a self-report questionnaire consisting of two parts: metacognitive knowledge (17
items) and metacognitive regulation (35 items). Responses on the inventory are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale,
ranging from one (1) representing "never" to five (5) indicating "always." A higher weighted mean suggests a strong
or high level of metacognitive awareness, while a lower weighted mean suggests a weak or low level of metacognitive
awareness. The internal consistency of the MAI was α= .926 and was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient.

Procedure

The MAI was administered through a survey where the respondents checked the scale indicating their judgment on
each item. Meanwhile, the mathematics grades of the respondents were secured from the registrar’s office. The data
collected was tallied, collated, and tabulated.

Ethical Considerations

Respondents were provided voluntary and informed consent to participate in the study. They were provided with all
relevant information about the study, including its purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time. Their
personal information and data collected during the study should be kept confidential and stored securely. Researchers
should ensure that respondents' privacy is protected, and data should be anonymized.

Results and Discussion

Metacognitive awareness of the freshman students in terms of metacognitive knowledge and regulation

Based on the result presented in Table 1, students’ metacognitive awareness (x =3.62) was seen as high. The
descriptive statistical analysis indicated that students with high levels of metacognitive awareness outperformed
those with lower levels of metacognitive awareness. (Very Good, x=4.08; Good, x=3.63; Fair, x=3.38). Hence, this
finding aligns with Young and Fry (2008), who suggest that students who possess well-honed cognitive and
regulatory abilities and actively employ metacognitive strategies will achieve success in their academics.

Metacognitive knowledge awareness was also seen as high (x=3.61). It implies that the students have a high
awareness of factual knowledge, and they tend to absorb the body of knowledge when they show interest in the
subject matter (Declarative Knowledge, x=3.57). It also inferred that the students were highly aware of what specific
strategy works best for them while studying (Procedural Knowledge, x=3.55). In addition, the students know how to
apply their declarative and procedural knowledge under specific learning conditions, and they perceive that they can
learn the lesson better (Conditional Knowledge, x=3.71).

Moreover, the regulation factor of metacognition was also seen as high (x=3.63). Based on the result, it was inferred
that students are highly aware of what should be learned how, and what goals should be set and have allotted enough
time to pace while learning (Planning, x=3.73). It also implies that they used strategies to correct comprehension and
performance errors (Debugging Strategies, x=3.73). It is supported by Alexander, (2008), who claimed that students
with strong regulatory skills are capable of discerning when their learning isn't effective. They can then choose an
appropriate learning strategy from various options to enhance their learning processes and results.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of students’ metacognitive awareness according to mathematics achievement

Metacognitive Knowledge Very Good Good Fair Overall Qi

Declarative Knowledge 3.93 3.57 3.39 3.57 High
Procedural Knowledge 4.14 3.55 3.34 3.55 High
Conditional Knowledge 4.17 3.72 3.43 3.71 High
Overall 4.08 3.61 3.39
3.61 High
Qualitative Interpretation High High Average

Baguin & Janiola 642/645

Psych Educ, 2024, 16(6): 639-645, Document ID:2024PEMJ1487, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10523794, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Metacognitive Regulation
Planning 4.10 3.73 3.51 3.73 High
Information Management
4.05 3.53 3.27 3.52 High
Strategy
Comprehension Monitoring 4.04 3.49 3.25 3.48 High
Debugging Strategies 4.20 3.94 3.46 3.90 High
Evaluation 3.99 3.57 3.33 3.52 High
Overall 4.08 3.64 3.36
3.63 High
Qualitative Interpretation High High Average
Metacognitive Awareness
Overall 4.08 3.63 3.38
3.62 High
Qualitative Interpretation High High Average

Metacognitive awareness of the respondents according to their mathematics achievement level

Table 2 presents the frequency distribution of students’ metacognitive awareness levels. The data showed that in
terms of metacognitive knowledge, 69% of the respondents exhibited a high level of awareness, 25% reported an
average level, and only 1% displayed low awareness, with 5% having a very high level of metacognitive knowledge
awareness. Similarly, 64% of the respondents demonstrated a high level of metacognitive awareness on regulation,
28% reported an average level, 7% showed a very high level, and only 1% indicated a low level of metacognitive
awareness on regulation. None of the respondents reported a very low level of metacognitive awareness, whether for
metacognitive knowledge or metacognitive regulation.

Table 2. Frequency distribution of students’ metacognitive awareness according to their mathematics achievement
level

Total Metacognitive
Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive Regulation
Awareness
F G VG Total % F G VG Total % F G VG Total %
VH 0 11 4 15 5 1 15 6 22 7 0 12 6 18 5.88
H 22 179 11 212 69 19 169 9 197 64 19 175 9 203 66.34
A 13 64 0 77 25 14 71 0 85 28 16 68 0 84 27.45
L 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0.33
VL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 36 255 15 306 100 36 255 15 306 100 36 255 15 306 100
Legend: V – Very High; F – Fair ; H – High; G – Good; A – Average; VG – Very Good;
L – Low; VL – Very Low

Difference in the metacognitive awareness among respondents according to their mathematics achievement
level
One-way - Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences among students’ total metacognitive
awareness as being grouped according to their mathematics achievement. As presented in Table 3, the data reveals
that students’ total metacognitive awareness as being grouped according to their mathematics achievement is
statistically significant (F=22.428, p<.05). The highest overall mean is attributed to students with ‘very good’
mathematics achievement (x=4.08) while the lowest overall mean to the students with ‘fair’ mathematics
achievement (x=3.38).
Table 3. One Way ANOVA results on the differences in students’ metacognitive awareness according to their
mathematics achievement level

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 5.252 2 2.628
22.428 .00*
Within Groups 35.462 303 0.117
Total 40.714 305
*Significant at p< .05

Correlation between the metacognitive awareness and the mathematics achievement level of the respondents;
and correlation of their metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation awareness

Table 4 shows the correlation results using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) between
metacognitive awareness and its dimensions and mathematics achievement. The data reveals that there exists a
significant correlation between metacognitive awareness and mathematics achievement (r =.353, p<.05). It means

Baguin & Janiola 643/645

 Psych Educ, 2024, 16(6): 639-645, Document ID:2024PEMJ1487, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10523794, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

that the higher the metacognitive awareness, the higher the mathematics achievement. Students who score better
metacognitively perform better mathematically. It appears that metacognition may help empower students to better
navigate and make the best of their daily academic experiences.

This result is consistent with the studies of Maghsudi and Talebi (2009); and Martini & Shore (2008), as cited by
Baltaci, Yildiz, and Özcakir, (2016), which mentioned that students’ metacognitive awareness and mathematics
grades were statistically correlated. Moreover, Jain, D., Tiwari, G.K., and Awasthi, I. D. (2017) evinced in their study
that there was a significant correlation between metacognition and academic achievement. The results of the present
study provided a means of support to previous research on the relationship between metacognition and academic
achievement.

Additionally, the data analysis indicates a substantial association between metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive regulation (r =.806, p<.05). This result is parallel with the study of Sperling, et al. (2004) as cited by
Young et al. (2008) who found out a statistically significant correlation between metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive regulation. This suggests that the better students understand which strategies and learning
environments are most effective for them, the more capable they become in monitoring the efficacy of these strategies
and regulating their own progress. Consequently, students can identify how they learn and manage and track their
learning progress.

Table 4. Correlation results between metacognitive awareness and its dimensions and mathematics achievement

Source of Correlation n r p-value

Metacognitive Awareness
306 .353 .00*
Mathematics Achievement
Metacognitive Knowledge
306 .806 .00*
Metacognitive Regulation
*Significant at p< .05

Conclusion

The role of metacognition in shaping success in learning mathematics is evident, with a discernible connection
between strong metacognitive abilities and higher mathematical performance. It aligns with the studies of Maghsudi
and Talebi (2009); and Martini & Shore (2008) as cited by Baltaci, Yildiz, and Özcakir, (2016) which mentioned that
students’ metacognitive awareness and mathematics grades were statistically correlated. Moreover, Jain, D., Tiwari,
G.K., and Awasthi, I. D. (2017) evinced in their study that there was a significant correlation between metacognition
and academic achievement. The results of the present study lend further support to previous research on the
relationship between metacognition and academic achievement.

On the other hand, the correlation observed between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation
underscores the interconnectedness of these factors. Notably, a heightened awareness of cognitive processes
corresponds with an increased understanding of regulatory mechanisms. As students develop a clearer understanding
of the learning strategies that suit them best, they concurrently enhance their ability to regulate and optimize their
learning experiences. This emphasizes the integral link between metacognitive awareness and effective self-regulation
in the pursuit of mathematical proficiency. With this, educators may use Schraw’s Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
(MAI) as a screening tool to assess students' learning strategies. This approach allows instructors to identify the
specific metacognitive knowledge and regulatory skills that each student requires for optimal learning. Moreover, the
researcher recommends that future studies may explore additional variables, such as General Point Average (GPA)
and learning styles, to further enhance the depth of the study.

References

Akın, A., Abacı, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive
awareness inventory. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 655-680.

Aktağ, I, Şemşek, O., & Tuzcuoğlu, S. (2017). Determination Metacognitive Awareness of Physical Education
Teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies Vol. 5, No. 9; September 2017 ISSN 2324-805X E-ISSN 2324-
8068: Redfame Publishing

Baguin & Janiola 644/645

 Psych Educ, 2024, 16(6): 639-645, Document ID:2024PEMJ1487, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10523794, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Almeqdad, Q. I. (2008). Self-explanation and explanation in children with learning difficulties. University of
Cambridge.

Anderson, D., Nielsen, W. S., & Nashon, S. (2009). Metacognitive engagement during field-trip experiences: A case
study of students in an amusement park physics program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 265-288.

Arslan, Ç. & Yazgan, Y. (2016). Matematiksel sıradışı problem cözme stratejileri ve ornekleri. Pegem Akademi,
Ankara.

Ayazgök, B & Aslan, H. (2014). The Review Of Academic Perception, Level Of Metacognitive Awareness and
Reflective Thinking Skills Of Science And Mathematics University Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 141 (2014) 781 – 790

Aydogdu, M. (2014). A research on geometry problem solving strategies used by elementary teacher candidates.
Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 4(1), 53-62.

Baltaci, S., Yildiz, A. & Özcakir, B. (2016). The Relationship between Metacognitive Awareness Levels, Learning
Styles, Genders and Mathematics Grades of Fifth Graders. Canadian Center of Science and Education.Journal of
Education and Learning.

Bilbao, P., Corpuz, B., & Salandanan, G. (2012). The teaching profession. Lorimar Publishing Inc., Quezon City,
Philippines

Boesen, J., Lithner, J. & Palm, T. (2010). The relation between types of assessment tasks and the mathematical
reasoning students use. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 89– 105.

Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulus, V., & Gregoriadis, A. (2013). Development and evaluation of metacognition
in early childhood education. Early Childhood Development and Care.

Cihanoglu, M. O. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of teacher candidates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
46 (2012) 4529 – 4533

Coutinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success. Educate, 7(1), 39-47.

Desoete, A. (2009). Metacognitive prediction and evaluation skills and mathematical learning in third-grade students.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 15 (5), 435-446.

Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning
strategies most effectively? Educational Research Review, 3, 101–129.

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why do people fail to recognize their incompetence?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01235

Experiential Learning Resources Association for Experiential Education http://www.aee.org/. Date Retrieved: January
21, 2019

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.

Glickman, C. D. Ed. (2007). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

http://eric.ed.gov/id=ED344277. Date Retrieved: January 22, 2019

Grizzle-Martin, T. (2014). The Effect of Cognitive-and Metacognitive-Based Instruction on Problem Solving by

Elementary Students with Mathematical Learning Difficulties. (Ph.D.), Walden University

Huitt, W. (1997). Metacognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
Retrieved July 2018, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/metacogn.html

Inoue, N. (2005). The realistic reasons behind unrealistic solutions: The role of interpretive activity in word problem-
solving. Learning and Instruction.

Baguin & Janiola 645/645

 Psych Educ, 2024, 16(6): 639-645, Document ID:2024PEMJ1487, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10523794, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Işık, C., & Kar, T. (2011). İlköğretim 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin sayi algilama ve rutin olmayan problem çözme
becerilerinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 57-72.

Jain, D., Tiwari, G.K., & Awasthi, I. D. (2017). Impact of Metacognitive Awareness on Academic Adjustment and
Academic Outcome of the Students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology. ISSN 2348-5396|ISSN: 2349-
3429 (p). Volume 5, Issue 1, DIP: 18.01.034/20170501.

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 8, No. 2, May 2008, pp. 1-10. Metacognitive awareness
and academic achievement in college students. Andria Young and Jane D. Fry1

Nancarrow, M. (2004) Exploration of metacognition and non-routine problem-based mathematics instruction on

undergraduate student problem-solving success. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, the Florida State University, Florida.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). Making it happen: Interpreting and implementing the common
core standards for mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Panaoura, A., & Philippou, G. (2005). The measurement of young pupils’ metacognitive ability in mathematics: The
case of self-representation and self-evaluation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of CERME.

Polya, G. (1981). Mathematics discovery: An understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving (combined
edition). New York: John Willey & son
Raoofi, S., Chan, S. H., Mukundan, J., & Rashid, S. M. (2013). Metacognition and Second/Foreign Language
Learning. English Language Teaching.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
19, 460-475.

Smith, A., Black, S., and Hooper, L. (2017). Metacognitive Knowledge, Skills, and Awareness: A Possible Solution
to Enhancing Academic Achievement in African American Adolescents. Urban Education:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI:10.1177/0042085917714511.

Tok, H., Özgan, H., & Dos, B., (2010). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness and Learning Strategies As Positive
Predictors For Success In A Distance Learning Class. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute
Volume: 7. Issue: 14, s. 123 - 134

Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills
from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89–109.

Yeo, K. (2009). Secondary 2 students’ difficulties in solving non-routine problems. International Journal for
Mathematics Teaching and …, 1-30.

Young, A. and Fry, J. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 8, No. 2, May 2008, pp. 1-10.

Affiliations and Corresponding Information

Real A. Baguin
Bohol Island State University, Bilar Campus – Philippines
Fe R. Janiola
Holy Name University – Philippines

Baguin & Janiola 646/645