PRESERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS LEVELS

Authors

  • Isil Koc PhD, Assistant Professor, Science Education, Hasan Ali Yucel College of Education, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Meltem Kuvac Ph.D. Student, Science Education, Hasan Ali Yucel College of Education, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.212

Keywords:

metacognition, metacognitive awareness, preservice science teachers, science teaching, teacher training

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine preservice science teachers’ metacognitive awareness levels and to investigate whether their metacognitive awareness levels differ in terms of gender and grade level. A total of 188 preservice science teachers participated in the study. Personal Information Form and the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994) were utilized as data collection tools in the study. The data obtained were analyzed using the PASW Statistics 18 (SPSS Inc.). According to the results, preservice science teachers’ metacognitive awareness levels were determined generally high. However, a significant gender difference favoring female preservice science teachers was found in terms of debugging sub-component. When the total and sub-component scores of MAI were examined by grade level, a significant difference was found in the sub-components apart from conditional knowledge and debugging. Suggestions were made based on the findings obtained from the study.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

References

Akin, A., Abaci, R., & Cetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 671-678.

Alci, B., & Karatas, H. (2011). Teacher candidates’ metacognitive awareness according to their domains and sex. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Thought, 1(6), 255-263.

Alkan, F., & Erdem, E. (2014). The relationship between metacognitive awareness, teacher self-efficacy and chemistry competency perceptions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 778-783.

Bakioglu, B., Kucukaydin, M. A., Karamustafaoglu, O., Ulucinar Sagir, S., Akman, E., Ersanli, E., & Cakir, R. (2015). Ogretmen adaylarinin bilisotesi farkindalik duzeyi, problem cozme becerileri ve teknoloji tutumlarinin incelenmesi. Trakya Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 1(1), 22-33.

Bedel, E. F. (2012). An examination of locus of control, epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness in preservice early childhood teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12, 3051-3060.

Bogdanovic, I., Obadovic, D. Z., Cvjeticanin, S., Segedinac, M., & Budic, S. (2015). Students’ metacognitive awareness and physics learning efficiency and correlation between them. European Journal of Physics Education, 6(2), 18-30.

Brown, A. L. (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 Associates.

Cikrikci, O., & Odaci, H. (2015). The determinants of life satisfaction among adolescents: the role of metacognitive awareness and self-efficacy. Social Indi, 1-14.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th Ed.). London: Routledge.

Deniz, D., Kucuk, B., Cansiz, S., Akgun, L. ve Isleyen, T. (2014). Ortaogretim matematik ogretmeni adaylarinin ustbilis farkindaliklarinin bazi degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi, Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 22(1), 305-320.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glaser, R., Chudowsky, N., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational assessment. National Academies Press.

Gul, S., Ozay-Kose, E., & Sadi-Yilmaz, S. (2015). Biyoloji ogretmeni adaylarinin ustbilis farkindaliklarinin farkli degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi. Hasan Ali Yucel Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 12(1), 83-91.

Hamurcu, H. (2002). Okuloncesi ogretmen adaylarinin kullandiklari ogrenme stratejileri. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 23, 127-134.

Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). The relationship between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (pp. 165-195). Springer Netherlands.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

Kállay, É. (2012). Learning strategies and metacognitive awareness as predictors of academic achievement in a sample of Romanian second-year students. Cognitie, Creier, Comportament, 16(3), 369.

Kilinc, F. E. (2013). Investigation of the relationship between self-esteem and metacognitive awareness level of 9th grade students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1622-1628.

Mai, M. Y. (2015). Science teacher’s self-perception about metacognition. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1 S1), 77.

Memnun, D. S., & Akkaya, R. (2012). Matematik, fen ve sinif ogretmenligi ogrencilerinin bilisotesi farkindaliklarinin bilisin bilgisi ve duzenlenmesi boyutlari acisindan incelenmesi. Kuramsal Egitimbilim Dergisi, 5(3), 312-329.

Ozsoy, G., & Gunindi, Y. (2011). Prospective preschool teachers’ metacognitive awareness. Elementary Education Online, 10(2), 430-440.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 7-15.

Sapanci, A. (2012). Ogretmen adaylarinin epistemolojik inanclari ile bilisustu duzeylerinin akademik basariyla iliskisi. Celal Bayar Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 311-331.

Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(2), 143-154.

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

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.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.

Scraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.

Schraw, G., Olafson, L., Weibel, M., & Sewing, D. (2012). Metacognitive knowledge and field-based science learning in an outdoor environmental education program. In A. Zohar & Y.J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (pp. 57-77). Springer Netherlands.

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(1), 51-79.

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.

Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students’ metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 45-62.

Yesilyurt, E. (2013). An analysis of teacher candidate’s usage level of metacognitive learning strategies: sample of a university in Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(6), 218-225.

Young, A., & Fry, J. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.

Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Alternative conceptions of intelligence and their implications for education. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 179-223.

Downloads

Published

2016-08-24

Issue

Vol 2, No 3 (2016)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).