[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-592079-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-592079-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","asian-journal-of-contemporary-education-vol-9-no-2-research-article-summary","Asian Journal of Contemporary Education - Vol. 9 No. 2 - Research Article Summary","","This study investigates how high school students’ epistemic curiosity and metacognitive awareness influence their learning approaches, with a focus on addressing achievement gaps. The study surveyed 756 students across Grades 9 and 12 using the Approaches to Learning Scale, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, and Epistemic Curiosity Scale. Ex post facto analyses with ordinal logistic regression show that interest-type and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity significantly predict deep learning and that deprivation-type epistemic curiosity and cognitive control predict strategic learning. Surface learning is not significantly predicted by either construct.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/asian-journal-of-contemporary-education-vol-9-no-2-research-article-summary/592079/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/asian-journal-of-contemporary-education-vol-9-no-2-research-article-summary/592079.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Mabel","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the main purpose of the study?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To examine how high school students’ epistemic curiosity and metacognitive awareness affect their learning approaches, and how this relates to achievement gaps.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How were the variables measured?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The study used the Approaches to Learning Scale, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, and Epistemic Curiosity Scale, administered to 756 students in Grades 9 and 12.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Which learning approaches were significantly predicted?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Deep learning was significantly predicted by both interest-type and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity, and metacognitive awareness also predicted deep learning. Strategic learning was predicted by deprivation-type epistemic curiosity and cognitive control processes, while surface learning was not significantly predicted.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},592079,1792192792,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},7971474920318,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/74000ee537e6b0ca360?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1788430171632181674","Asian Journal of Contemporary Education  \nISSN(e): 2617-1252  \nDOI: 10. 55493/5052 . v9i2 .5795 Vol. 9, No. 2, 241-257.  \n© 2025 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.  \nAnalyzing approaches to learning through the lens of metacognitive awareness and epistemic curiosity  \nTugce Yazici1+  \n Osman Yilmaz Kartal2  \n1Department of Educational Sciences and Institution of Graduate Education, Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.  \n[1](1Email: yazicituce@windowslive.com)[Email:](1Email: yazicituce@windowslive.com)[ ](1Email: yazicituce@windowslive.com)[yazicituce@windowslive.com](1Email: yazicituce@windowslive.com)  \n2Department of Educational Sciences and Education Faculty, Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.  \n2Email: [osmanykartal@comu.edu.tr](osmanykartal@comu.edu.tr) (+ Corresponding author)  \nABSTRACT  \nArticle History  \nReceived: 24 September 2025  \nRevised: 21 November 2025  \nAccepted: 18 December 2025  \nPublished: 31 December 2025  \nKeywords  \nAchievement gap Approaches to learning Curiosity  \nEpistemic curiosity Metacognition  \nMetacognitive awareness.  \nThis study investigates the impact of high school students' levels of epistemic curiosity (EC) and metacognitive awareness (MCA) on their learning approaches, aiming to address the achievement gap. The Approaches to Learning Scale, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, and Epistemic Curiosity Scale were administered to 756 students in the 9th and 12th grades. Using an ex post facto research design, ordinal logistic regression analysis revealed that both interest-type and deprivation-type EC significantly predicted the deep learning approach at both grade levels. While MCA significantly predicted deep learning, the regulation of cognition was not a significant predictor at the 12th-grade level. At both grade levels, deprivation-type EC and cognitive control processes were significant predictors of the strategic learning approach. However, the analyses on the surface learning approach showed that neither EC nor MCA was a significant predictor at either grade level. These findings demonstrate that EC and MCA are critical variables in understanding high school students' learning approaches. The findings indicate that the cultivation of these competencies can facilitate deep and strategic learning while concomitantly reducing achievement gaps. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the necessity for additional research to be conducted on the interaction of these variables across various educational contexts.  \nContribution/ Originality: This study compares students in Grades 9 and 12 and presents the changes in their preferences regarding learning approaches, metacognitive awareness, and epistemic curiosity. It also provides a detailed perspective on how to address the achievement gap by explaining the details of the quality learning environment.  \n1. INTRODUCTION  \nThe efficiency of initiatives undertaken by governments to develop high-quality human capital is reflected in national and international assessment tests. The results from these assessment tests not only indicate the proficiency of countries in education but also demonstrate the quality of learners' learning performance. Differences in quality are examined as achievement gaps within the framework of structural, social, economic, and other sociological parameters of countries (Cabral-Gouveia, Menezes, & Neves, 2023; Hung et al., 2019; Reardon, 2013) . Achievement gaps are influenced by factors such as in-school and out-of-school environments, learning styles, gender, race, stress, etc (Banks & Banks, 1995; Heissel, Levy, & Adam, 2017; Jeynes, 2014; Miller & Olson, 1988) . These factors impact learners' academic success (Coleman, 1966; Ladson-Billings, 2006) and support the development of skills such as  \ninnovation and creativity from a societal perspective (Ornstein, 2010) . Therefore, to minimize achievement gaps, it is essential to consider learner-related factors.  \nThe quality of the learner is crucial as ","cbCaiukYegGBQPjr","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiukYegGBQPjr","pdf",430238,17,"English","# Abstract\n# Article History\n# Keywords\n# 1. INTRODUCTION","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of the study?\",\"answer\":\"To examine how high school students’ epistemic curiosity and metacognitive awareness affect their learning approaches, and how this relates to achievement gaps.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the variables measured?\",\"answer\":\"The study used the Approaches to Learning Scale, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, and Epistemic Curiosity Scale, administered to 756 students in Grades 9 and 12.\"},{\"question\":\"Which learning approaches were significantly predicted?\",\"answer\":\"Deep learning was significantly predicted by both interest-type and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity, and metacognitive awareness also predicted deep learning. Strategic learning was predicted by deprivation-type epistemic curiosity and cognitive control processes, while surface learning was not significantly predicted.\"}]","Asian Journal of Contemporary Education - Vol. 9 No. 2 - Research Article Summary | PDF",1792073814,43]