Modelling the Components of Metacognitive Awareness
Keywords:
Downloads
Abstract
Metacognitive awareness consists of two components, i.e. regulation of cognition and knowledge of cognition. In earlier studies self-evaluation is aligned as a sub-component of regulation of cognition. However, in this study we point out that self-evaluation does not actually regulate the ongoing or forthcoming process but it is a tool used to reflect both knowledge and regulation. This alignment is modelled to assess to what extend self-evaluation can be predicted by the other components of the metacognitive awareness. The model is tested empirically among vocational education students (N= 578) using the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). The results of SEM concludes that the conditions and goals appointed by the learner predict the selection of contents and strategies towards self-evaluation of one’s own learning. In other words, by measuring planning or conditional knowledge we could predict other components of knowledge or regulation and, especially, self-evaluation. The findings of this study extensively confirm that planning and knowledge of conditions predict success through the learning process. The results encourage teachers to support students in improving their metacognitive awareness, i.e. expect them to set goals for their own learning.Downloads
References
Akin, A., Abaci, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 671-678.
Google Scholar CrossrefAmzil, A., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2013). Metacognition: Components and Relation to Academic Achievement in College. Arab World English Journal, 4(4).
Google Scholar CrossrefBalcikanli, C. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness inventory for teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9 (25), 1309–1332.
Google Scholar CrossrefBentler, P. (1990) Comparative fit index in structural models, Psychological bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Google Scholar CrossrefBrown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, Self-Regulation , and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Publishers.
Google Scholar CrossrefBrown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A. & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and
Google Scholar Crossrefunderstanding. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.) Vol.3 Cognitive development (pp. 77- 166). New York: Wiley.
Google Scholar CrossrefBrown, A.L. & DeLoache, J.S. (1983). Metacognitive skills. In M. Donaldson, R. Grieve & C. Pratt (edit.) Early childhood development and education. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar CrossrefBryce, D., Whitebread, D. & Szűcs, D. (2015).The relationships among executive functions, metacognitive skills and educational achievement in 5 and 7 year-old children. Metacognition Learning (2015) 10:181–198. DOI 10.1007/s11409-014-9120-4
Google Scholar CrossrefBråten,I. (1991a). Vygotsky as a precursor tometacognitive theory: I. The concept of metacognition
Google Scholar Crossrefand its roots. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 35 (3), 179-192. Livingston, J.A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Available:http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/ Metacog.htm
Google Scholar CrossrefByrne, B. (2012) Structural Equation Modeling With Mplus. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (Taylor & Francis, Routledge).
Google Scholar CrossrefCoutinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, Metacognition, and academic success. Educate~, 7(1), 39-47.
Google Scholar CrossrefCronbach, L. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Google Scholar CrossrefDennison, R. S. (1997). Relationships among measures of metacognitive monitoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association, Chicago, IL.
Google Scholar CrossrefEfklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287.
Google Scholar CrossrefFinland. Ministry of Education and Culture Finland. National Board of Education; Centre for International Mobility (CIMO). (2015). Finnish VET in a nutshell.
Google Scholar CrossrefFlavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Prentice-hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Google Scholar CrossrefForsthuber, B., Horvath, A. & Motiejunaite, A. (2009). Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes: Study on the Measures Taken and the Current Situation in Europe. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice).
Google Scholar CrossrefGarner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational psychologist, 24(2), 143-158.
Google Scholar CrossrefHair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. & Anderson, R. (2010) Multivariate data analysis (6th edition) (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River).
Google Scholar CrossrefHammann, L. (2005). Self-regulation in academic writing tasks. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 17(1), 15-26.
Google Scholar CrossrefHammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (1998). Metacognitive Awareness Assessment in Self-Regulated Learning and Performance Measures in an Introductory Educational Psychology Course.
Google Scholar CrossrefHartley, K. (2001). Learning strategies and hypermedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(3), 285-305.
Google Scholar CrossrefHoe, S. (2008) Issues and Procedures in Adapting Structural Equation Modeling Technique. Quantitative Methods Inquires, Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods 3 (1), 76–83.
Google Scholar CrossrefHoyle, R. (1995) The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues, in R. Hoyle (Ed) Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (pp. 1–15) (Thousand Oaks, Sage).
Google Scholar CrossrefHu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1–55.
Google Scholar CrossrefKauffman, D. F., Ge, X., Xie, K., & Chen, C. H. (2008). Prompting in web-based environments: Supporting self-monitoring and problem solving skills in college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 115-137.
Google Scholar CrossrefKline, R. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.) (New York & London: The Guilford Press).
Google Scholar CrossrefKornell, N. (2014). If it is stored in my memory I will surely retrieve it: anatomy of a metacognitive belief. Metacognition Learning (2015) 10:279–292. DOI 10.1007/s11409-014-9125-z
Google Scholar CrossrefLee, C. B. (2013). Examining intentional knowing among secondary school students: Through the lens of Metacognition. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 79-90.
Google Scholar CrossrefLee, C. B., Teo, T., & Bergin, D. (2009). Children’s use of Metacognition in solving everyday problems: An initial study from an Asian context. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(3), 89-102.
Google Scholar CrossrefLiebler, R. A. (2000). Assessing for Metacognition Competencies in an Adult Degree Completion Program. Access to Quality and Success: Applying Principles of Good Practice. AHEA 2000 Conference Proceedings, Chicago, Illinois, edited by K. Lee. Adult Higher Education Alliance, 2000. (ED 46 214) http://www.ahea.org/ Assessing.htm
Google Scholar CrossrefLittle, T. D., Lindenberger, U. & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999) On Selecting Indicators for Multivariate Measurement and Modeling With Latent Variables: When “Good” Indicators Are Bad and “Bad” Indicators Are Good, Psychological Methods, 4 (2), 192–211.
Google Scholar CrossrefMacCallum, R. & Austin, J. (2000) Applications of Structural Equation Modelling in psychological research, Annual Reviews of Psychology, 51, 201–226.
Google Scholar CrossrefMair, C. (2012). Helping Students Succeed through Using Reflective Practice to Enhance Metacognition and Create Realistic Predictions. Psychology Teaching Review, 18(2), 42-46.
Google Scholar CrossrefMcDonald, R. & Ho, R. (2002) Principles and Practises in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses, Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.
Google Scholar CrossrefMarton F & Booth S. (1997/2009). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Google Scholar CrossrefMokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of developmental education, 25(3), 2.
Google Scholar CrossrefMäkinen, J. (2003). University students’ general study orientations. Theoretical background, measurements and practical implications. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja. Turku. Painosalama Oy.
Google Scholar CrossrefNiemivirta, M.(2004). Tyttöjen ja poikien väliset erot oppimismotivaatiossa. Teoksessa: Gordon, T., Lahelma, E., Lyytinen, H., Niemivirta, M., Scheinin, P., Siimes, M.A. Koulu – sukupuoli – oppimistulokset. Opetushallitus.
Google Scholar CrossrefOpetushallitus. (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Google Scholar CrossrefOrmrod, J. E. (2004). Human Learning (pp. 401-424). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Google Scholar CrossrefPanaoura, A., & Philippou, G. (2003). The Construct Validity of an Inventory for the Measurement of Young Pupils' Metacognitive Abilities in Mathematics. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 437-444.
Google Scholar CrossrefPang, K. (2010). Creating stimulating learning and thinking using new models of activity-based learning and metacognitive-based activities. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(4), 29.
Google Scholar CrossrefPereira‐Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and Validation of a Self‐Report Measure of Reading Strategy Use. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 18(3), 185-235.
Google Scholar CrossrefPintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational psychology review, 16(4), 385-407.
Google Scholar CrossrefPintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). 2. Assessing Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning.
Google Scholar CrossrefPressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 19-33.
Google Scholar CrossrefRivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at All Costs: An Ethnography of Metacognitive Self‐Assessment and Self‐Management among Experienced Language Learners. The modern language journal, 85(2), 279-290.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchellings, G. L., van Hout-Wolters, B. H., Veenman, M. V., & Meijer, J. (2013). Assessing metacognitive activities: the in-depth comparison of a task-specific questionnaire with think-aloud protocols. European journal of psychology of education, 28(3), 963-990.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in science education, 36(1-2), 111-139.
Google Scholar CrossrefScott, B. M., & Levy, M. G. (2013). Metacognition: Examining the components of a fuzzy concept. Educational Research eJournal, 2(2), 120-131.
Google Scholar CrossrefSlaats, A., Lodewijks, H., and Van der Sanden, J. (1999). Learning styles in secondary vocational education: disciplinary differences. Learn. Instr. 9: 475–492.
Google Scholar CrossrefSperling, R.A., Howard, B.C., Miller, L.A. & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of Children’s Knowledge and Regulation of Cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology 27, 51–79 (2002).
Google Scholar CrossrefSperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117-139.
Google Scholar CrossrefSteiger, J. (1990) Structural model assessment and modification: An interval estimation approach, Multivariate Behaviour Research, 25, 173–180.
Google Scholar CrossrefSteiger, J. (2000) Point estimation, hypothesis Testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser, Structural Equation Modeling, 7 (2), 149–162.
Google Scholar CrossrefTucker, L. & Lewis, C. (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis, Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
Google Scholar CrossrefUllman, J. (2001) Structural Equation Modelling , in: B. Tabachnik & L. Fidell (eds) Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.) (pp. 653–771) (Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights).
Google Scholar CrossrefVeenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1(1), 3-14.
Google Scholar CrossrefVeenman, M.V.J., Wilhelm, P. & Beishuizen, J.J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and
Google Scholar Crossrefmetacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction 14 (2004) 89-109.
Google Scholar CrossrefVeenman, M.V.J., Prins , F.J. & Elshout. J.J. (2002). Initial inductive learning in a complex computer
Google Scholar Crossrefsimulated environment: the role of metacognitive skills and intellectual ability. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 327-341.
Google Scholar CrossrefVermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in higher education‐different view‐points towards development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 221-242.
Google Scholar CrossrefVermunt, J.D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: a phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education 31, 25- 50.
Google Scholar CrossrefVermunt, J.D., Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction 9, 257-264. von Wright, J. (1996a). Oppimisen tutkimuksen opetukselle asettamia haasteita. Kasvatus 27 (1), 9-21. von Wright, J. (1996b). Oppiminen selviytymiskeinona. Psykologia 31 (5), 351-358. von Wright, J. (1992). Reflections on reflection. Learning and Instruction 2, 59-68.
Google Scholar CrossrefVermunt, J. D., & Vermetten, Y. J. (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between earning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational psychology review, 16(4), 359-384.
Google Scholar CrossrefWinne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 551-572.
Google Scholar CrossrefWest, S., Taylor, A. & Wu, W. (2012) Model Fit and Model Selection in Structural Equation Modeling, in: R. Hoyle (ed) Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 209–231) (The Guilford Press).
Google Scholar CrossrefYoung, A., & Fry, J. (2012). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.
Google Scholar CrossrefZhang, L. F. (2010). Do thinking styles contribute to metacognition beyond self‐rated abilities? Educational Psychology, 30(4), 481-494.
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.
