Examining the relationship between metacognition and cognitive attentional syndrome with the learning styles of higher education students

Introduction: Metacognitive processes are defined as an individual's awareness of their own cognitive processes and their ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate these processes. Learning styles refer to the preferred ways individuals perceive, process, and acquire information. Therefore, a strong relationship between metacognitive processes and learning styles is likely, as metacognition enables individuals to effectively utilize and enhance their learning styles. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between metacognition and Cognitive Attentional Syndrome (CAS) with the learning styles of higher education students. Method: This prospective and cross-sectional study was conducted online in April 2024 with a total of 515 volunteer higher education students. The study employed a quantitative methodology, utilizing the Student Learning Style Scale (SLSS), the Metacognition Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30), and the Cognitive Attentional Syndrome Scale (CAS-1) as data collection tools. After being scored in accordance with the standard procedures, the data were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Among the participants included in the study, 50.3% (n=259) were male; 30.5% (n=157) were under the age of 20, 35.1% (n=181) were between the ages of 21–25, and 34.4% (n=177) were over the age of 25. A statistically significant relationship was found between the total scores of MCQ-30 and CAS-1 and the sub-dimensions of SLSS (p<0.05). Furthermore, according to multiple linear regression analysis models, the total scores of MCQ-30 and CAS-1 were found to be significant predictors of all SLSS sub-dimension scores (Independent, Dependent, Collaborative, Competitive, Participant, and Avoidant) (p<0.001). Conclusion: The study demonstrated that metacognitive characteristics and cognitive attentional syndrome are significant predictors of variation in student learning styles. The findings are considered to provide guiding principles for practitioners aiming to manage individual differences and implement differentiated instruction in educational settings. Further research is warranted to investigate the applicability of these results.