The aim of this study is to furnish a reliable theoretical overview on metacognitive awareness. This research is carried out to (1) familiarize the researchers with the definition, components and sub-components of metacognitive awareness (2) discuss a brief outline of metacognitive awareness along with its origin and essence from the point of view of its historical development (3) link metacognitive awareness to a number of other constructs, including motivation (4) illustrate the features of self-regulated students and their recruited metacognitive strategies and (5) briefly examine the major challenges in the implementation of metacognitive awareness.
In conclusion, this research reveals that the analysis of metacognitive awareness and its components gives rise to a new notion of auto-noetic (self) knowledge of learners through planning, monitoring and reflectively evaluating task performance, and creates higher levels of self-efficacy which provides students with different educational contexts in which they are able to have more self-confidence, get more positive feedback both from an instructor and classmates and cultivate in learners more self-regulatory characteristics that enable them to learn autonomously, be completely equipped with motivation and be welcoming to challenges.
The study provides benefits to both learners and educators. Learners can receive guidance on how to foster metacognitive awareness for being more competent learners. Furthermore, it provides meaningful insights for curriculum developers to provide metacognitive awareness-based curricula.
The purpose of this article is to compare two qualitative approaches that can be used in different researches: phenomenology and grounded theory. This overview is done to (1) summarize similarities and differences between these two approaches, with attention to their historical development, goals, methods, audience, and products (2) familiarize the researchers with the origins and details of these approaches in the way that they can make better matches between their research question(s) and the goals and products of the study (3) discuss a brief outline of each methodology along with their origin, essence and procedural steps undertaken (4) illustrate how the procedures of data analysis (coding), theoretical memoing and sampling are applied to systematically generate a grounded theory (5) briefly examine the major challenges for utilizing two approaches in grounded theory, the Glaserian and Straussian. As a conclusion, this overview reveals that it is essential to ensure that the method matches the research question being asked, helps the researchers determine the suitability of their applied approach and provides a continues training for the novice researchers, especially PhD or research students who lack solid knowledge and background experience in multiple research methods.