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

  • 1 Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Acar, T. (2006). Sato uyarı indeksleri ile madde ve başarı analizleri. Retrieved from

  • 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.

  • 3. American Psychological Association (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Retrieved from

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 13. Ćukušić, M., Garača, Ž., & Jadrić, M. (2014). Online self-assessment and students’ success in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 72, 100-109.

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

  • 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: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.35

  • 16. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: the emerging alternative. Exceptional children, 52(3), 219-232.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.2011.06.004

  • 22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

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

  • 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.

  • 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

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

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

  • 28. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.

  • 29. Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 696–699.

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

  • 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: 10.1080/02602930600679100

  • 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.

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

  • 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: 10.1080/03098770601167922

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

  • 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: 10.1080/03075070600572090

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

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

  • 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_3

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 44. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795

  • 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.

  • 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.2010.11.017

  • 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.2010.11.007

  • 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: 10.1111/1540-5826.00070

  • 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.x

  • 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.2013.12.002

  • 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.x

  • 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.

  • 53. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.


Journal + Issues