THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE AND METACOGNITIVE COMPETENCIES ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT VARIABLES

Avni Yildiz, Serdal Baltaci, Okan Kuzu

Abstract


The purpose of this study is to examine six sub-dimensions towards motivational, cognitive and metacognitive competencies of middle school students according to the gender and class level variables. As the data collection tool, “Motivational, Cognitive and Metacognitive Competencies Scale” was used. The sample of the research is composed of 366 middle school students and the data were analyzed using SPSS 23. There was a significant relationship between competencies levels and gender in favor of male for the general of scale. Moreover, for the sub-dimensions of the scale according to the gender, a significant relationship in favor of male for organizing the learning process and evaluating the learning process was found. When the motivational, cognitive and metacognitive competencies levels of middle school students were examined separately for each of sub-dimensions, a significant relationship was found according to the grade levels. It was generally observed that students’ motivational, cognitive and metacognitive competencies levels increase as their grade levels increase. However, 5th grade students’ scores were higher than the other grade students’ scores for the learning process sub-dimension.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


metacognitive competence, cognitive competence, self-sufficiency, middle school students

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adibnia A, Putt I J, 1998. Teaching Problem Solving to Year 6 Students, a New Approach. Metamatics Education Research Journal, 10(3): 42-58.

Akın A, 2006. Başarı amaç oryantasyonları ile biliş ötesi farkındalık, ebeveyn tutumları ve akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkiler [The relationships between achievement goal orientations and metacognitive awareness, parenting styles and academic achievement]. Unpublished Master Thesis. Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.

Akpunar B, 2011. Biliş ve Üstbiliş Kavramlarının Zihin Felsefesi Açısından Analizi [The Analysis of the Concepts of Cognition and Metacognition in Terms of the Philosophy of Mind]. Turkish Studies, 6(4): 335-365.

Aktamış H, Uça S, 2010. Motivasyonel, Bilişsel ve Bilişüstü Yeterlilikler Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması [Adaptation of Motivational, Cognitive and Metacognitive Competencies İnvertory/Scale to Turkish]. İlköğretim Online, 9 (3): 980-989.

Alcı B, Altun S, 2007. Lise Öğrencilerinin Matematik Dersine Yönelik Özdüzenleme ve Bilişüstü Becerileri, Cinsiyete, Sınıfa ve Alanlara Göre Farklılaşmakta mıdır? [Is There a Difference in High School Students’ Self-Regulatory and Metacognitive Skills Towards Mathematics with Respect to Gender, Level, and Field?]. Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 16(1): 33-34.

Andrée M, 2003. Everyday-Life in The Science Classroom: A Study on Ways of Using and Referring to Everyday-Life. Paper presented at the ESERA Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

Aunıo P, Hautamäkı J, Heıskarı P, Luit E. H, 2006. The Early Numeracy Test in Finnish: Children’s Norms. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47: 369–378.

Bağçeci B, Döş B, Sarıca R, 2011. İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Düzeyleri ile Akademik Başarısı Arasındaki Ilişkinin Incelenmesi [An analysis of metacognitive awareness levels and academic achievement of primary school students], Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(16): 551-556.

Baker L, 1989. Metacognition, Comprehension Monitoring and The Adult Reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1: 3-38.

Baki A, 2008. Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi [Mathematics education from theory to practice]. Harf Publication, Trabzon, Turkey.

Baltaci S, Yildiz A, Özcakir B, 2016. The Relationship Between Metacognitive Awareness Levels, Learning Styles, Genders and Mathematics Grades of Fifth Graders. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(4): 78-89.

Başboğaoğlu U, Demir M, 2011. İlköğretimde Uygulanan Performans Görevlerinin Etkililiğine Ilişkin Geliştirilen Tutum Ölçeğinin Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması [The Validity and Reliability Study of the Attitude Scale for the Efficacy of Performance Tasks Used for Primary School Students]. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 1(2): 23-30.

Baykara K, 2011. Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilişötesi Öğrenme Stratejileri ile Öğretmen Yeterlik Algıları Üzerine Bir Çalışma [A Study on “Teacher Efficacy Perceptions” and “Metacognitive Learning Strategies” of Prospective Teachers]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40: 80-92.

Blank L. M, 2000. A Metacognitive Learning Cycle: A Better Warranty For Student Understanding?. Science Education, 84: 486–506.

Bollen K. A, 1989. A New Incremental Fit Index for General Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methods and Research, 173: 303-316.

Browne M, Cudeck R, 1993. Alternative ways of testing structural equation models. Testing Structural Equation Models, London: Sage.

Bucko R. L, 1997. Brain Basic: Cognitive Psychology and its Implication for Education. ERS Spectrum, 15(3): 20-25.

Case L. P, Harris K. R, Graham S, 1992. Improving the Mathematical Problem Solving of Students with Learning Disabilities: Self-Regulated Strategy Development. The Journal of Special Education, 26: 1–19.

Cautinho S. A, 2007. The Relationship between Goals, Metacognition and Academic Success. Educate, 7(1): 39–47.

Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison, K, 2000. Research methods in education. 5th ed. London New York: Routledge Falmer.

Costa A. L, 1984. Mediating the Metacognitive. Educational Leadership, 11: 57-62.

Crick F, 2000. Şaşırtan varsayım [Surprising assumption]. Sabit Say Publication. TUBİTAK, Ankara. Turkey.

Demir Ö, Özmen S, 2011. Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Üst Biliş Düzeylerinin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından Incelenmesi [An İnvestigation of University Students’ Metacognition Levels in Terms of Various Variables]. Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 20 (3): 145- 160.

Culaste I. C, 2011. Cognitive Skills of Mathematical Problem Solving of Grade 6 Children. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, 1: 120-125.

Darling-Hammond L, Austin K, Cheung M, Martin D, 2003. Thinking About Thinking: Metacognition. Stanford University School of Education. (2017, September 10). Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/courses/learningclassroom/support/09_metacog.pdf

Demirel Ö, 2011. Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde program geliştirme [Curriculum development from theory to practice]. Ankara: Pegem Publication. Turkey.

Desoete A, 2001. Off-line metacognition in children with mathematics learning disabilities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universiteit Gent.

Desoete A, Roeyers H, Buysse A, 2001. Metacognition and Mathematical Problem Solving in Grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5): 435-449.

Desoete A, Roeyers H, 2002. Off-line Metacognition – A Domain-Specific Retardation in Young Children with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25: 123-139.

Dilci T, Kaya S, 2012. 4. ve 5. Sınıflarda Görev Yapan Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Düzeylerinin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi [Examination of Meta-Cognitive Awareness Levels of Class Teachers Teaching 4th and 5th Grades in Terms of Various Variables]. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 27: 247-267.

Doğan N, Beyaztaş İ. B, Koçak Z, 2012. Sosyal Bilgiler Dersine Ilişkin Özyeterlik Düzeyinin Başarıya Etkisinin Sınıf ve Cinsiyete Göre Incelenmesi: Erzurum ili örneği [The Effect of Self-Efficacy Level of Students on Their Achievement in Terms of Their Grade Levels and Gender in a Social Studies Class: The Case of Erzurum], Education and Science, 37: 165, 224-236.

Doğanay A, 1997) Ders Dinleme Sırasında Bilişsel Farkındalık ile Ilgili Bilgilerin Kullanımı [Use of Information About Cognitive Awareness During Listening]. Cukurova University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(11): 34-42.

Duman B, 2008. Eğitim ve öğretim ile ilgili temel kavramlar Bilal Duman (Ed.) Üstbiliş- Bilişsel Farkındalık [Basic concepts related to education and training. Metacognition - Cognitive Awareness] (pp.420-449). Ankara: Anı Publication. Turkey.

Everson H. T, Tobias S, 1998. The Ability to Estimate Knowledge and Performance in College: A Metacognitive Analysis. Instructional Science, 26: 65-79.

Evran S, Yurdabakan İ, 2013, İlköğretim 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Bilişüstü Farkındalık Düzeylerinin Incelenmesi [Investigating the Metacognition Awareness of 6, 7 and 8 grade Primary Students]. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 2(1): 213-220.

Fidan N, 1996, Okulda öğrenme ve öğretme [Learning and teaching in school]. İstanbul: Alkım Publication. Turkey.

Flavell J. H, 1979. Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34: 906-911.

Gama C, 2001. Investigating the effects of training in metacognition in an interactive learning environment: Design of an Empirical Study. In B. Zayas and C. Gama (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Human Centred Technology Postgraduate Workshop, Brighton, UK. University of Sussex - Cognitive Science Research Paper 538.

Goodwin K. S, Ostrom L, Scott, K. W. 2009. Gender Differences in Mathematics Selfefficacy and Back Substitution in Multiple-Choice Assessment. Journal of Adult Education, 38(1): 22-42.

Gourgey A. F, 1998. Metacognition in Basic Skills Instruction. Instructional Science, 26: 81-96.

Gürbüz R, Birgin O, 2008. Farklı Öğrenim Seviyesindeki Öğrencilerin Rasyonel Sayıların Farklı Gösterim Şekilleriyle Işlem Yapma Performanslarının Karşılaştırılması [The Comparison of Students’ Performance at Different Grades Regarding to Making Operation with Different Types of Representation of the Rational Numbers]. Pamukkale Journal of Education Faculty, 23(1): 85-94.

Hacker D. J, Dunlosky J, Graesser A. C, 2009. Handbook of metacognition in education. A. Desoete (Eds.), The enigma of mathematical learning disabilities (pp. 206-218). UK: Routledge.

Hanten G, Dennis M, Zhang L, Barnes M, Roberson G, Archibald J, Levin H. S, (2004). Childhood Head Injury and Metacognitive Processes in Language and Memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 25(1-2): 85-106.

Hu L. T, Bentler P. M, 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1-55.

Kana F, 2015. Türkçe Öğretmeni Adaylarının Motivasyonel, Bilişsel ve Bilişüstü Yeterlikleri [Motivational, Cognitive and Metacognitive Competences of Preservice Turkish language teachers], The Journal of International Education Science, 2(4): 395-407.

Karasar N, 2006. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Nobel Publication. Turkey.

Koç C, Karadağ S, 2013. İlköğretim İkinci Kademe ( 6-8. Sınıf) Öğrencilerinin Biliş Üstü Yetileri İle Başarı Yönelimlerinin İncelenmesi (Bingöl İli Örneği) [An Investigation Into Metacognitive Awareness and Achievement Goal Orientations of Secondary School Students (6th-8th graders) (The case of Bingöl province)]. NWSA-Education Sciences, 8(2): 308-322.

Kramarski B, 2008. Promoting Teachers’ Algebraic Reasoning and Self-Regulation with Metacognitive Guidence. Metacognition Learning, 3: 83-99.

Kramarski B, Zemira R. M, Arami M, 2002. The Effects of Metacognitive Instruction on Solving Mathematical Authentic Tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 49: 225-250.

Küçük-Özcan Z. Ç, 2000. Teaching metacognitive strategies to 6th grade students. Unpublished Master Thesis. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.

Lee E, Browman J, 2001. A study on the relationship between self-regulated learning strategy and collaborative learning and its intervening factors in asynchronous learning network curriculum. (2017, February 10). Retrieved from www.edtech.connect.msu.edu/searcharea2002/viewproposaltext.asp.

Leader W. S, 2008. Metacognition among students identified as gifted or nongifted using the discover assessment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Tucson, AZ: Graduate College of the University of Arizona.

Lucangeli D, Cornoldi C, 1997. Mathematics and Metacognition: What is The Nature of Relationship? Mathematical Cognition, 3(2): 121- 139.

Mevarech Z. R, Kramarski B, 2003.The Effects of Metacognitive Training Versus Worked-Out Examples on Students’ Mathematical Reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,73: 449-471.

Miller J. W, 2000. Exploring the Source of Self-Regulated Learning: The Influence of Internal and External Comparisons. Journal of Instructional Pyschology, 27: 47-52.

MEB, 2005. Talim Terbiye Kurulu program geliştirme çalışmaları [The Board of Education curriculum development studies]. (2017, October 18) Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/programlar/prog_giris/prg_giris.pdf

Mertler C. A, Vannatta R. A, 2005. Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Pyrczak.

Moseley 2005. Frameworks for Thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University press.

Özsoy G, Çakıroğlu A, Kuruyer G. H, 2010, May. Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerinin bazı değişkenler bakımından incelenmesi [Examination of metacognitive awareness levels of classroom teacher candidates in terms of some variables]. 9th Class Teacher Training Symposium, 489-492.

Özsoy G, Günindi Y, 2011. Okul Öncesi Öğretmen Adaylarının Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Düzeyleri [Prospective preschool teachers’ metacognitive awareness]. Elemantary Education Online, 10(2): 430-440.

Özsüer S, İnal G, Uyanık Ö, Ergün M, 2011. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesinde Öğrenim Gören Öğrencilerin Akademik Özyeterlik Inanç Düzeylerinin Incelenmesi [Investigation academic self-efficacy belief levels of students being taught at Afyon Kocatepe University]. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(2): 113-125.

Pajares F, Miller M. D, 1994. The Role of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept Beliefs in Mathematical Problem Solving: A Path Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86: 193-203.

Peklaj C, Pecjak S. 2002. Differences in Students’ Self-Regulated Learning According to Their Achievement and Sex. Studia Psychology, 44: 29-43.

Schoenfeld A, 1987. What’s All the Fuss about Metacognition? In: A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive Scienceand Mathematics Education, 189-215. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schraw G, 2009. A Conceptual Analysis of Five Measures of Metacognitive Monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4: 33-45.

Schnulz W, 2005, April. Mathematics self-efficacy and student expectations. Result from PISA 2003. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Montreal. Retrieved 15 May 2017 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/

Schneider W, 2008. The Development of Metacognitive Knowledge in Children and Adolescents: Major Trends and Implications for Education. Mind, Brain and Education, 2(3): 114–121.

Stewart P. W, Cooper S. S, Moulding L. R, 2007. Metacognitive Development in Professional Educators. The Researcher, 21(1): 32-40.

Senemoğlu N, 1997. Gelisim, ögrenme ve ögretim [Development, learning and teaching]. Ankara: Özsen Publication. Turkey.

Schurter W. A, 2001. Comprehension monitoring and Polya’s heuristics as tools for problem solving by developmental mathematics students. Texas: The University of the Incarnate Word. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.UM_: 3027443.

Stevens M. L, 1996. Transitioning from content centered instruction to student centered learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Oregon State University, Oregon.

Schraw G, Moshman D, 1995. Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7: 351–371.

Schraw G, 2001. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning & instruction Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: (s. 3-16).

Thornburg D, 1995. Student-centered learning. Electronic Learning, 14(7): 18–19.

Thompson R, 2007. Metacogniton: An intervention for academically unprepared college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Capella University.

Umay A, 2003. Matematiksel Muhakeme Yeteneği [Mathematical Reasoning Ability]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education Faculty, 24: 234-243.

Victor A. M, 2004. The effects of metacognitive instruction on the planning and academic achievement of first grade and second grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Illinois Institute of Technology. II Graduate College of the Illinois Istitute of Technology, Chicago

Volet S. E, 1991. Modeling and Coaching of Relevant Metacognitive Strategies for Enhancing University Students’ Learning. Learning and Instruction, 1(4): 319-336.

Yıldız F. E, Ergin Ö, 2012. 5E Öğrenme Modelinin Kullanıldığı Öğretimin Yedinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Üst Bilişlerine Etkisi [The effect of 5E Learning Model Instruction on Seventh Grade Students’ Metacognitive Process]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9 (3): 55-77.

Zimmerman B. J, Martinez-Pons M, 1988. Construct Validation of a Strategy Model of Student Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3): 284-290.

Weinstein C. E, Mayer R. E, 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, (315-327) New York NY: Macmilian Publishing Company.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1790

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Avni Yildiz, Serdal Baltaci, Okan Kuzu

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).