Modelling the Components of Metacognitive Awareness

Authors

https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2018.2789

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

Download data is not yet available.

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 Crossref

Amzil, A., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2013). Metacognition: Components and Relation to Academic Achievement in College. Arab World English Journal, 4(4).

Google Scholar Crossref

Balcikanli, C. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness inventory for teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9 (25), 1309–1332.

Google Scholar Crossref

Bentler, P. (1990) Comparative fit index in structural models, Psychological bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Google Scholar Crossref

Brown, 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 Crossref

Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A. & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and

Google Scholar Crossref

understanding. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.) Vol.3 Cognitive development (pp. 77- 166). New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar Crossref

Brown, 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 Crossref

Bryce, 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 Crossref

Bråten,I. (1991a). Vygotsky as a precursor tometacognitive theory: I. The concept of metacognition

Google Scholar Crossref

and 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 Crossref

Byrne, B. (2012) Structural Equation Modeling With Mplus. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (Taylor & Francis, Routledge).

Google Scholar Crossref

Coutinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, Metacognition, and academic success. Educate~, 7(1), 39-47.

Google Scholar Crossref

Cronbach, L. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

Google Scholar Crossref

Dennison, R. S. (1997). Relationships among measures of metacognitive monitoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association, Chicago, IL.

Google Scholar Crossref

Efklides, 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 Crossref

Finland. Ministry of Education and Culture Finland. National Board of Education; Centre for International Mobility (CIMO). (2015). Finnish VET in a nutshell.

Google Scholar Crossref

Flavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Prentice-hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Google Scholar Crossref

Forsthuber, 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 Crossref

Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational psychologist, 24(2), 143-158.

Google Scholar Crossref

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. & Anderson, R. (2010) Multivariate data analysis (6th edition) (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River).

Google Scholar Crossref

Hammann, L. (2005). Self-regulation in academic writing tasks. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 17(1), 15-26.

Google Scholar Crossref

Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (1998). Metacognitive Awareness Assessment in Self-Regulated Learning and Performance Measures in an Introductory Educational Psychology Course.

Google Scholar Crossref

Hartley, K. (2001). Learning strategies and hypermedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(3), 285-305.

Google Scholar Crossref

Hoe, 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 Crossref

Hoyle, 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 Crossref

Hu, 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 Crossref

Kauffman, 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 Crossref

Kline, R. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.) (New York & London: The Guilford Press).

Google Scholar Crossref

Kornell, 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 Crossref

Lee, 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 Crossref

Lee, 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 Crossref

Liebler, 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 Crossref

Little, 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 Crossref

MacCallum, R. & Austin, J. (2000) Applications of Structural Equation Modelling in psychological research, Annual Reviews of Psychology, 51, 201–226.

Google Scholar Crossref

Mair, 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 Crossref

McDonald, R. & Ho, R. (2002) Principles and Practises in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses, Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.

Google Scholar Crossref

Marton F & Booth S. (1997/2009). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Google Scholar Crossref

Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of developmental education, 25(3), 2.

Google Scholar Crossref

Mäkinen, J. (2003). University students’ general study orientations. Theoretical background, measurements and practical implications. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja. Turku. Painosalama Oy.

Google Scholar Crossref

Niemivirta, 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 Crossref

Opetushallitus. (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

Google Scholar Crossref

Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human Learning (pp. 401-424). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Google Scholar Crossref

Panaoura, 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 Crossref

Pang, 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 Crossref

Pereira‐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 Crossref

Pintrich, 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 Crossref

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). 2. Assessing Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning.

Google Scholar Crossref

Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 19-33.

Google Scholar Crossref

Rivers, 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 Crossref

Schellings, 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 Crossref

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.

Google Scholar Crossref

Schraw, 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 Crossref

Scott, B. M., & Levy, M. G. (2013). Metacognition: Examining the components of a fuzzy concept. Educational Research eJournal, 2(2), 120-131.

Google Scholar Crossref

Slaats, A., Lodewijks, H., and Van der Sanden, J. (1999). Learning styles in secondary vocational education: disciplinary differences. Learn. Instr. 9: 475–492.

Google Scholar Crossref

Sperling, 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 Crossref

Sperling, 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 Crossref

Steiger, J. (1990) Structural model assessment and modification: An interval estimation approach, Multivariate Behaviour Research, 25, 173–180.

Google Scholar Crossref

Steiger, 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 Crossref

Tucker, L. & Lewis, C. (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis, Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.

Google Scholar Crossref

Ullman, 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 Crossref

Veenman, 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 Crossref

Veenman, M.V.J., Wilhelm, P. & Beishuizen, J.J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and

Google Scholar Crossref

metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction 14 (2004) 89-109.

Google Scholar Crossref

Veenman, M.V.J., Prins , F.J. & Elshout. J.J. (2002). Initial inductive learning in a complex computer

Google Scholar Crossref

simulated environment: the role of metacognitive skills and intellectual ability. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 327-341.

Google Scholar Crossref

Vermetten, 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 Crossref

Vermunt, J.D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: a phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education 31, 25- 50.

Google Scholar Crossref

Vermunt, 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 Crossref

Vermunt, 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 Crossref

Winne, 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 Crossref

West, 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 Crossref

Young, 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 Crossref

Zhang, L. F. (2010). Do thinking styles contribute to metacognition beyond self‐rated abilities? Educational Psychology, 30(4), 481-494.

Google Scholar Crossref

Downloads

Published

2018-06-24

Almetric

Dimensions

How to Cite

Kallio, H., Virta, K., & Kallio, M. (2018). Modelling the Components of Metacognitive Awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(2), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2018.2789

Issue

Section

Articles