What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing?: Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming

Metacognition and self-regulation are popular areas of interest in programming education, and they have been extensively researched outside of computing. While computing education researchers should draw upon this prior work, programming education is unique enough that we should explore the extent to which prior work applies to our context. The goal of this systematic review is to support research on metacognition and self-regulation in programming education by synthesizing relevant theories, measurements, and prior work on these topics. By reviewing papers that mention metacognition or self-regulation in the context of programming, we aim to provide a benchmark of our current progress towards understanding these topics and recommendations for future research. In our results, we discuss eight common theories that are widely used outside of computing education research, half of which are commonly used in computing education research. We also highlight 11 theories on related constructs (e.g., self-efficacy) that have been used successfully to understand programming education. Towards measuring metacognition and self-regulation in learners, we discuss seven instruments and protocols that have been used and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. To benchmark the current state of research, we examined papers that primarily studied metacognition and self-regulation in programming education and synthesize the reported interventions used and results from that research. While the primary intended contribution of this paper is to support research, readers will also learn about developing and supporting metacognition and self-regulation of students in programming courses

Metacognition and need for cognition : problem explanation and answer

Includes bibliographical references (pages [61]-64).M.A. (Master of Arts

A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation, learning style, and self-efficacy

Includes bibliographical references (pages [124]-139).Structural equation modeling was used to test a model integrating achievement goal orientation, learning style, self-efficacy, and metacognition into a single framework that could explain and predict variation in performance. Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of performance, followed by metacognition. Achievement goals correlated with each other, suggesting that students may be adopting multiple goals at the same time. Goal orientation was related to two or three learning styles, which may imply that students have a primary learning style and adopt a secondary or tertiary learning style to achieve their goals. Achievement goals, self-efficacy, and learning style had weak, negative relationships with metacognition.Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy

Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination

The theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy predicts sex differences in responses to sexual infidelities and emotional infidelities. Critics have argued that such differences are absent in studies that use continuous measures to assess responses to hypothetical infidelities or in studies that assess responses to real infidelities. These criticisms were tested in two random-effects meta-analyses of 40 published and unpublished papers (providing 209 effect sizes from 47 independent samples) that measured sex differences in jealousy using continuous measures. A significant, theory-supportive sex difference emerged across 45 independent samples using continuous measures of responses to hypothetical infidelities, g*=0.258, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.188, 0.328], p&lt;.00001. Measured emotion significantly moderated effect size. Effects were strongest when measures assessed distress/upset (g*=0.337) and jealousy (g*=0.309). Other commonly measured negative emotions yielded weaker effects, including hurt (g*=0.161), anger (g*=0.074), and disgust (g*=0.012). Across the 45 independent samples, six significant moderators emerged: random sampling, population type (student vs. nonstudent samples), age, inclusion of a forced-choice question, number of points in the response scale, and year of publication. A significant, theory-supportive effect also emerged across seven studies assessing reactions to actual infidelities, g*=0.234, 95% CI [0.020, 0.448], p=03. Results demonstrate that the sex difference in jealousy neither is an artifact of response format nor is limited to responses to hypothetical infidelities.</p