Introduction: The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of teaching cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive learning strategies on the academic motivation of Tehran students in the academic year 2020-2021.
Method: This research was conducted semi-experimental with pre-test-post-test, control, and follow-up group. The research population included students studying in Tehran in 2020-2021. The available sampling method was used to select the sample. Because of the researcher's teaching in Khabar Faculty, Khabar Faculty of Applied Science University was selected. Then 3 general classrooms were selected and 30 students were randomly selected from among them and were replaced in the experimental groups 1 and 2 and the control group. An experimental group was taught cognitive learning strategies and another was taught metacognitive learning strategies, but no intervention was done in the control group. Vallerend et al's Academic Motivation Scale (AMS, 1992) was used to collect data. The mixed variance analysis method was used to analyze the data.
Findings: The results showed that the level of academic motivation of the students increased and also the post-test changes remained stable and stable during the follow-up period. Also, the data showed that metacognitive learning strategies were more effective than cognitive learning strategies, but this difference is not significant
Conclusion: These results can help university administrators and professors provide appropriate educational programs to improve students' academic motivation and help improve the quality of their educational experience.
 
Comparing the effectiveness of teaching cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive learning strategies on academic motivation
Introduction: One of the concepts raised in contemporary education is cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive learning strategies (Wolters 2003). Cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive learning strategies have valuable consequences in the process of learning, education, and even life success. Adaptation and success in school require that students expand and strengthen their cognition, emotions, or behaviors by developing learning strategies or similar processes so that they can achieve their goals (Wolters 2003). Among them, motivation is the most important condition for learning. Interest in learning is the product of factors related to the learner's personality and ability, task characteristics, incentives, and other environmental factors. Motivated students are easily recognized. They are eager to learn, interested, curious, hardworking, and serious. These students easily overcome obstacles and problems, spend more time studying and doing school assignments, learn more, and continue their studies after the end of the university course (Skinner and Belmont 1993; quoted by Memarian et al 2015). Academic motivation is defined as internal processes that stimulate activities and continue with the aim of achieving specific academic achievements (Pinreich & Zusho 2002, quoted by Areepattamannil 2011). In general, research results (Alexiou & Paraskeva 2013; Weisani, Lavasani & Ejei 2012; Salimi et al 2014) show that teaching cognitive learning strategies increases students' self-efficacy beliefs and motivation. According to the theoretical foundations and research, cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies have beneficial effects on the education and social life of students. So, the present research was designed and implemented to compare the effectiveness of teaching cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive learning strategies on the academic motivation of Tehran students in the academic year 2020-2021.
Materials and methods: The current research was conducted as a semi-experimental pre-test and post-test with a control and follow-up group. The research population is students studying in Tehran in 2020-2021. An available sampling method was used to select the sample. First, because of the researcher's teaching in Khabar Faculty, Khabar Faculty of Applied Science University was selected. Then 3 general classrooms were selected and 30 students were randomly selected from among them and were replaced in the experimental groups 1 and 2 and the control group. There are three groups of 10 people, which include experimental group 1, experimental group 2, and control group, experimental group 1 was trained in cognitive learning strategies and experimental group 2 was trained in metacognitive learning strategies for 8 sessions in an online class through Skype software. However, there was no intervention in the control group. The inclusion criteria include a declaration of consent of all students to conduct the research, an age range between 20 and 24 years, not receiving any other treatment during the research period, undergraduate journalism students of Khabar Faculty in the 4th and 5th semesters, and gender of both male and female. Screening for lack of familiarity with strategies (getting a low score in the questionnaire on cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive learning strategies). Exclusion criteria include severe physical disability that prevents a person from participating in treatment sessions. Vallerend et al's Academic Motivation Scale (AMS, 1992) was used to collect data. The mixed variance analysis method was used to analyze the data.
Results and discussion: In the groups of cognitive learning strategies training and metacognitive learning strategy training, the difference between the average scores of the pre-test stage and the post-test and follow-up stages is significant (p<0.01). The post-test and follow-up compared to the pre-test stage have increased significantly and the average scores of lack of motivation have decreased. The difference between the scores of the post-test phase and the scores of the follow-up phase is not significant (p<0.05), which indicates the stability of the treatment effects over time. In the control group, the difference between the scores of the pre-test stage and the post-test and follow-up stages, as well as the difference between the scores of the post-test stage and the follow-up scores, is not significant (p<0.05). In general, the results showed that the level of academic motivation of the students increased and also the post-test changes remained stable and constant during the follow-up period. In addition, this study revealed the difference between the two methods of cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive learning strategies, and the data showed that metacognitive learning strategies were more effective than cognitive learning strategies, but this difference is not significant.
Conclusion: Finally, this research also shows agreement with the previous research and points to the importance of teaching cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies in educational environments. These results can help university managers and professors to provide appropriate educational programs to improve students' academic motivation and help improve the quality of their academic experience. Also, this research is in line with the background of past research, and finally, in all variables, the research results showed that education Metacognitive strategies show a greater increase in the trend of variables than cognitive strategies.