METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS OF SCIENCE ORIENTED STUDENTS IN REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of science oriented students’ metacognitive awareness. Research sample consists of about 200 students of both genders that have enrolled in science oriented department in one of four Grammar schools in Novi Sad. Students enrolling Grammar school in Serbia are mainly 15 years old girls and boys. For the need of this research, the questionnaire (that included Metacognitive Awareness Inventory - MAI) was constructed. According to the first framework given by Flavell (1971), metacognitive awareness can be categorized into awareness of: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation and metacognitive experiences. Knowledge of cognition usually includes three different kinds of metacognitive awareness: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional (strategic) knowledge. Regulation of cognition refers to awareness of the need to use certain strategies, such as planning, information management, monitoring, evaluation and debugging in process of thinking and learning. The students, who conceive the experiments (scientific method) in teaching physics helpful for their understanding of the physics contents, have shown higher level of metacognitive awareness. The same could be concluded for the students who are writing down in a notebook the performed experiments (procedure, explanation, conclusions...) and the students who understand experiments and their explanations. If metacognition is defined as the knowledge and control over children’s own thinking and learning activities, it is very obvious that metacognition have great impact on learning process. 

Keywords

• physics,science,metacognition,metacognitive awareness

References

1. Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation and self-regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.): Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297-323). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3-14. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. Flavell, J. H. & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail & J.W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: a bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43 (4), 268 – 274. Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 696-699. Obadović, D., Rančić, I., Cvjetićanin, S. & Segedinac, M. (2012). The Impact of Implementation of Scientific Method in Teaching Sciences on the Positive Pupils’ Attitude in Learning Physics. Proceedings “Theory and Practice of Connecting and Integrating in Teaching and Learning Process”, Faculty of Education in Sombor, str. 213-227. Obadović D., Rančić I, Cvjetićanin S. & Segedinac M. (2013). The Impact of Implementation of Simple Experiments on the Pupils’ Positive Attitude in Learning Science Contents in Primary School. The New Educational Review, 34, No.4, 138-150. Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475. Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review 7(4), 351–371. Weinert, F. E. & Kluwe R. H. (Eds.). (1987). Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.