2000
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00156
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A New Approach to Evaluating Metacognition in ‘Hearing Average‐achieving’; ‘Hearing Underachieving’; and ‘Deaf/Hard‐of‐hearing’ Elementary School Students

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With this information in mind, results of this study revealed no significant difference between the performances of students with typical hearing and students with hearing loss on the test scores of metacognition, on reaction time to test items, and on the test scores obtained based on the mean reaction time. It seems that students with typical hearing and students with hearing loss are more alike than different with reference to performance on the test of metacognition, a finding supported by previous research (e.g., Al-Hilawani, 2000 using different measures of metacognition, and with reference to the duration of time they needed to respond correctly to the presented test items. This result indicates that young people who are deaf and hard of hearing have the ability to manage and manipulate the physical, animate, and mental worlds and to reason adequately about them in a timely manner, just as students with typical hearing.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…With this information in mind, results of this study revealed no significant difference between the performances of students with typical hearing and students with hearing loss on the test scores of metacognition, on reaction time to test items, and on the test scores obtained based on the mean reaction time. It seems that students with typical hearing and students with hearing loss are more alike than different with reference to performance on the test of metacognition, a finding supported by previous research (e.g., Al-Hilawani, 2000 using different measures of metacognition, and with reference to the duration of time they needed to respond correctly to the presented test items. This result indicates that young people who are deaf and hard of hearing have the ability to manage and manipulate the physical, animate, and mental worlds and to reason adequately about them in a timely manner, just as students with typical hearing.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…We consulted the work of Wellman and Gelman (1992) to obtain information on the three knowledge domains of naïve psychology, naïve physics, and naïve biology, as well as reviewed the work of Al-Hilawani (2000 to find how metacognition is approached in real-life situations to construct an objective measure of metacognition. Examples of naïve psychology include identification and understanding of people as psychological beings whose actions are triggered or could be explained by psychological states.…”
Section: Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations