There were two purposes for this mixed methods study: to investigate (a) the realistic meaning of awareness and understanding as the underlying constructs of general knowledge of the learning process and (b) a procedure for data consolidation. The participants were 11th-grade high school and first-year university students. Integrated data collection and data transformation provided for positive but small correlations between awareness and understanding. A comparison of the created combined and integrated new data sets showed that the integrated data set provided for an expected statistically significant outcome, which was in line with the participants’ developmental difference. This study can contribute to the mixed methods research because it proposes a procedure for data consolidation and a new research design.
AnnevirtaT.VaurasM. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in primary grades: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 257-282.
2.
ArmbrusterB. B.EcholsC. H.BrownA. L. (1982). The role of metacognition in reading to learn: A developmental perspective. Volta Review, 84(5), 45-56.
3.
BazeleyP. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrate qualitative and quantitative data and analysis. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 64-74.
4.
BrownA. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In WeinertF. E.KluweR. H. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
5.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
6.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
7.
ByrneB. M.Worth GavinD. A. (1996). The Shavelson Model revisited: Testing for structure of academic self-concept across pre-, early, and late adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 215-228.
8.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207.
9.
Clark-CarterD. (2010). Quantitative psychological research: The complete student’s companion. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
10.
CollingridgeD. S. (2013). A primer on quantitized data analysis and permutation testing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 81-97.
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 4, pp. 269-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
De BackerL.Van KeerH.ValckeM. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Instructional Science, 40, 559-588.
14.
DinsmoreD. L.AlexanderP. A.LoughlinS. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391-409.
15.
EfklidesA.MisailidiP. (2010). Introduction: The present and the future of metacognition. In EfklidesA.MisailidiP. (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Springer.
16.
EntwistleN.McCuneV.WalkerP. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytic abstractions and everyday experiences. In SternbergR. J.ZhangL. F. (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 103-136). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
17.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
18.
FreshwaterD.CahillJ. (2013). Editorial: Paradigms lost and paradigms regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 3-5.
19.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
21.
GreeneJ. C.HallJ. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
HurmeT. R.JärveläS. (2005). Students’ activity in computer-supported collaborative problem solving in mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10, 49-73.
25.
JangE. E.McDougallD. E.PollonD.HerbertM.RussellP. (2008). Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221-247.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
28.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
29.
KipnisM.HofsteinA. V. I. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a resource for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601-627.
30.
KleitmanS.StankovL. (2007). Self-confidence and metacognitive processes. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 161-173.
31.
KubiszynT.BorichG. (1996). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice (5th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
32.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265-275.
33.
MarshH. W.YeungA. S. (1997). Coursework selection: Relations to academic self-concept and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 691-720.
34.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
McCrindleA. R.ChristensenC. A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167-185.
36.
MertensD. M. (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 255-257.
37.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
39.
National Research Council. (2000). In BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (Eds.), How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
40.
NeuenhausN.ArteltC.LingelK.SchneiderW. (2011). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: General or domain-specific?European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 163-178.
41.
NewmanI.OnwuegbuzieA. J.HitchcockJ. H. (2014, June). Bayes methodology: Mixed methods in drag. Paper presented at the first annual meeting of the Mixed Methods International Research Association, Boston, MA.
42.
NewmanI.OnwuegbuzieA. J.HitchcockJ. H. (2015). Using the general linear model to facilitate the full integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis: The potential to improve prediction and theory building and testing qualitative & quantitative analysis. General Linear Model Journal, 41(1), 12-28.
43.
NiglasK.(2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research (Unpublished dissertation on Social Sciences). Estonia: Tallinn Pedagogical University.
44.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
45.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CollinsK. M. T. (2014). The role of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory in enhancing interpretive consistency in mixed research. International Journal of Research in Education Methodology, 5, 651-661.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.HitchcockJ. H. (2015). Advanced mixed analysis approaches. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 275-295). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
49.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.SlateJ. R.LeechN. L.CollinsK. M. T. (2009). Mixed data analysis: Advanced integration techniques. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 13-33.
PekrunR.GoetzT.TitzW.PerryR. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91-106.
52.
PintrichP. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41, 219-225.
53.
PintrichP. R.SchunkD. H. (2001). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54.
SandelowskiM. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 230-240.
55.
SandelowskiM.VoilsC. I.KnaflG. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-222.
56.
SchneiderW. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 113-121.
57.
SchofieldL. (2012). Why didn’t I think of that? Teachers’ influence on students’ metacognitive knowledge of how to help students acquire metacognitive abilities. Kairaranga, 13(1), 56-62.
58.
SchrawG. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
Seltzer-KellyD.WestwoodS. J.Peňa-GuzmanD. M. (2012). A methodological self-study of quantitizing: Negotiating meaning and revealing multiplicity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 258-274.
62.
SperlingR. A.HowardB. C.StaleyR.DuBoisN. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117-139.
63.
StillmanG. (2004). Strategies employed by upper secondary students for overcoming or exploiting conditions affecting accessibility of applications tasks. Mathematical Education Research Journal, 16(1), 41-70.
64.
SwansonH. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306-314.
65.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207-211.
66.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2010). Putting the human back in “human research methodology”: The researcher in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 271-277.
67.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68.
van VelzenJ. H. (2012). Teaching metacognitive knowledge and developing expertise. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(3), 365-380.
69.
van VelzenJ. H. (2013). Students’ explanations of their knowledge of learning processes. Educational Studies, 39(1), 83-95.
70.
van VelzenJ. (2016). Metacognitive learning: Advancing learning by developing general knowledge of the learning process. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
71.
VeenmanM. V. J.Van Hout-WoltersB. H. A. M.AfflerbachP. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.
72.
WeilL. G.FlemingS. M.DumontheilI.KilfordE. J.WeilR. S.Rees.G.. . .BlakemoreS. J. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Conscious and Cognition, 22, 264-271.
73.
WeinsteinC. E.MayerR. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York, NY: Macmillan.
74.
WoolleyC. M. (2009). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(1), 7-25.
75.
YinR. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
76.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance: Educational psychology handbook series. New York, NY: Routledge.
