1. bookVolume 21 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)
Journal Details
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
access type Open Access

Regulation of Cognition as a Mediator in the Relationship Between Knowledge of Cognition and Perceived Self-Intervention

Published Online: 02 Mar 2019
Volume & Issue: Volume 21 (2018) - Issue 2 (December 2018)
Page range: 1 - 13
Journal Details
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year

Self-assessment is an important tool enabling learners at the level of higher education to control and construct their learning processes. To allow for further study, we modified a web-based self-assessment system to provide individuals with the opportunity to test and retest their own learning and receive feedback. This study included 59 students. Following completion of the test, feedback was structured based on a comparison of the student’s performance to the standard performance, their position in the group and their previous performances. Each test deadline had to be waited for determining the positions in the group of students and the delayed feedback were sent to the learners by e-mail. Through this external feedback, learners were able to intervene in their own learning process, thus achieving better future learning prospects and to observe the effectiveness of these intervention though feedback from the next assessment. We defined this process as the self-intervention perception process due to the active participation of the learner. The determination of the structures that affect the meaning and using of the feedback received by the learners were at the forefront. This study aimed to examine the relation between learners’ metacognitive awareness and their self-intervention perceptions and create a learner profile based on this information. Participants also completed Perceived Self-Intervention Scale and the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. Learners with high levels of metacognitive skills awareness were found to have high levels of perceived self-intervention. Furthermore, knowledge of cognition had indirect effects on the perception of self-intervention, and that the regulation of cognition was the mediator variable.


1. Acar, T. (2006). Sato uyarı indeksleri ile madde ve başarı analizleri. Retrieved from http://www.parantezegitim.net/hakkimizda/Sato-TulinACAR.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

2. Akın, A., Abacı, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. Educational Science: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 671-678.Search in Google Scholar

3. American Psychological Association (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learner-centered.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

4. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12-19. doi: 10.1080/0040584080257754410.1080/00405840802577544Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173Search in Google Scholar

6. Bayazıt, A. (2007). Çevrim içi sınavlar ve kağıt-kalem sınavları arasındaki sınav süresi ve öğrenci başarım farklılıkları. PhD diss., University of Hacettepe.Search in Google Scholar

7. Bayrak, F. (2014). The effectiveness of perceived self intervention in web based self-assessment system. PhD diss. University of Hacettepe.Search in Google Scholar

8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. doi: 10.1080/096959598005010210.1080/0969595980050102Search in Google Scholar

9. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. doi: 10.1080/71369572810.1080/713695728Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

10. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

11. Chen, D., Lai, A., & Liu, I. (2005). The design and implementation of a diagnostic test system based on the enhanced S-P model. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 21, 1007-1030.Search in Google Scholar

12. Conejo, R., Guzmán, E., Millán, E., Trella, M., Pérez-De-La-Cruz, J. L., & Ríos, A. (2004). SIETTE: A web–based tool for adaptive testing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(1), 1-33.Search in Google Scholar

13. Ćukušić, M., Garača, Ž., & Jadrić, M. (2014). Online self-assessment and students’ success in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 72, 100-109.10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.018Search in Google Scholar

14. Davies, S. (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. Bristol: JISC Innovation Group.Search in Google Scholar

15. Delclos, V. R., & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 35-42. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.3510.1037/0022-0663.83.1.35Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: the emerging alternative. Exceptional children, 52(3), 219-232.10.1177/001440298505200303Search in Google Scholar

17. Deno, S. L. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.1-17). Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar

18. Doğan, N., & İnal, H. (2012, September). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin öğrenme stilleri ve ölçme ve değerlendirme dersi başarısı arasındaki ilişki. Paper presented at Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme III. Ulusal Kongresi, Bolu, September, 19-21.Search in Google Scholar

19. Eva, K. W., & Regher, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80(10), S46–S54. doi:10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015.10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015Search in Google Scholar

20. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906Search in Google Scholar

21. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.00410.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. doi: 10.3102/00346543029848710.3102/003465430298487Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

23. Ibabe, I., & Jauregizar, J. (2010). Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge. Higher Education, 59(2), 243-258. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9245-610.1007/s10734-009-9245-6Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

24. Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2010). Üst biliş hakkında bir gözden geçirme: üst biliş çalışmaları mı yoksa üst bilişsel yaklaşım mı? Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 13(26), 45-63.Search in Google Scholar

25. Karran, T. (2005). On-line assessment for E-Learning: options and opportunities. In T. Latomaa, J. Pohjonen, J. Pulkkinen, & M. Ruotsalainen (Eds.), eReflections: Ten years of educational technology studies at the University of Oulu (pp. 109-125). Oulu, Finland: Oulun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan. Retrieved from http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1610/1/OuluAssessmentChapterforRepository.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

26. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Publication, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

27. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Publication, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

28. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.10.1007/BF01320096Search in Google Scholar

29. Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 696–699.10.1177/003172170608700916Search in Google Scholar

30. McMillan, J. H. (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Research, theory and practice. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Search in Google Scholar

31. Mok, M. M. C., Lung, C. L., Cheng, D. P. W., Cheung, R. H. P., & Ng, M. L. (2006). Self-assessment in higher education: experience in using a metacognitive approach in five case studies. Assessment in Education, 3(4), 415-433. doi: 10.1080/0260293060067910010.1080/02602930600679100Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

32. Molloy, E.K., Borrell-Carrio, F., & Epstein, R. (2013). The impact of emotions in feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molly (Eds.), Feedback in Higher and Professional Education – Understanding It and Doing It Well (pp-50-71). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

33. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2, 745-783.Search in Google Scholar

34. Nicol, D. (2007). E-assessment by design: using multiple choice tests to good effect. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(1), 53-64. doi: 10.1080/0309877060116792210.1080/03098770601167922Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

35. Nicol, D. (2009). Transforming assessment and feedback: enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year. Mansfield: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.Search in Google Scholar

36. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. doi: 10.1080/0307507060057209010.1080/03075070600572090Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

37. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.Search in Google Scholar

38. Orsmond, P. (2011). Self-and peer-assessment: guidance on practice in the biosciences. Centre for Bioscience, The Higher Education Academy.Search in Google Scholar

39. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_310.1207/s15430421tip4104_3Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

40. Roberts, T. S. (Ed.). (2006). Self, peer and group assessment in e-learning. IGI Global.Search in Google Scholar

41. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84. doi: 10.1080/096959598005010410.1080/0969595980050104Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

42. Sargeant, J. M., Mann, K. V., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Metsemakers, J. F. (2009). Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(3), 399-410.10.1007/s10459-008-9124-4Search in Google Scholar

43. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.10.1006/ceps.1994.1033Search in Google Scholar

44. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi: 10.3102/003465430731379510.3102/0034654307313795Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

45. Tan, K. (2007). Conceptions of self-assessment: What is needed for long term learning? In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 114-127). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

46. Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032-1044. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.01710.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.017Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

47. Timmers, C., & Veldkamp, B. (2011). Attention paid to feedback provided by a computer-based assessment for learning on information literacy. Computers & Education, 56(3), 923-930. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.00710.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.007Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

48. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137-146. doi: 10.1111/1540-5826.0007010.1111/1540-5826.00070Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

49. Wang, T. H. (2007). What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an e-learning environment? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 171–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00211.x10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00211.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

50. Wang, T. H. (2014). Developing an assessment-centered e-Learning system for improving student learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 7, 189-203. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.00210.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

51. Wang, T. H., Wang, K. H., Wang, W. L., Huang, S. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2004). Web-based Assessment and Test Analyses (WATA) system: development and evaluation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(1), 59-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00066.x10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00066.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

52. Wilson, K., Boyd, C., Chen, L., & Jamal, S. (2011). Improving student performance in a first-year geography course: Examining the importance of computer-assisted formative assessment. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1493-1500.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.011Search in Google Scholar

53. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.10.1023/A:1023967026413Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo