Adaptation of Physics Metacognition Inventory to Turkish

Abstract

This study aimed to adapt the Physical Metacognition Inventory (PMI) developed by Taasoobshirazi and Farley (2013) to Turkish. PMI consists of 24 items and six factors. The scale items were translated into Turkish by the researchers, and a Turkish-English comprehensibility form was prepared to elicit the opinions of Turkish-English language experts. After making the necessary revision according to the feedback of the experts, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken. A total of 554 students participated in the research, selected from prospective teachers enrolled in the science teaching and classroom teaching programs offered by education faculties or prospective engineers studying in engineering faculties. The results of CFA revealed that the factors and related items of the adapted scale were the same as in the original version. The reliability of measurement was calculated as 0.93 for the whole scale. The adapted PMI presented in this research can be applied to evaluate the level of metacognition used by high school and university students in solving physics problems.

Keywords

• physics education
• metacognition
• scale adaptation

Adaptation of Physics Metacognition Inventory to Turkish

Abstract

This study aimed to adapt the Physical Metacognition Inventory (PMI) developed by Taasoobshirazi and Farley (2013) to Turkish. PMI consists of 24 items and six factors. The scale items were translated into Turkish by the researchers, and a Turkish-English comprehensibility form was prepared to elicit the opinions of Turkish-English language experts. After making the necessary revision according to the feedback of the experts, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken. A total of 554 students participated in the research, selected from prospective teachers enrolled in the science teaching and classroom teaching programs offered by education faculties or prospective engineers studying in engineering faculties. The results of CFA revealed that the factors and related items of the adapted scale were the same as in the original version. The reliability of measurement was calculated as 0.93 for the whole scale. The adapted PMI presented in this research can be applied to evaluate the level of metacognition used by high school and university students in solving physics problems.

Keywords

• Physics education
• Metacognition
• Scale adaptation

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2161-2184.
2. Akben, N. (2018). Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Research in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9726-7.
3. Anzai, Y., & Yokoyama, T. (1984). Internal models in physics problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 1(4), 397-450.
4. Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. Syracuse, NY: Clearinghouse on Information Resources (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 218). http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=205 Date of access: 11.01.2018
5. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, 7, 55-111. New York: Academic Press.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
7. Chi, M.T.H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, R.R. Hoffman, & K.A. Ericsson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8. Colthorpe, K., Sharifirad, T., Ainscough, L., Anderson, S., & Zimbardi, K. (2018). Prompting undergraduate students’ metacognition of learning: implementing ‘meta-learning’ assessment tasks in the biomedical sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 272–285.

9. Dianovsky, M. T., & Wink, D. J. (2012). Student learning through journal writing in a general education chemistry course for pre-elementary education majors. Science Education, 96, 543-565.
10. Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I: temel kavramlar ve işlemler [Measurement and scale development in psychology-I: basic concepts and procedures]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
11. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
12. Georghiades, P. (2004). Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. Research report. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 85-99.
13. Ghanizadeh, A. (2018). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74, 101-114.
14. Güss, C. D., & Wiley, B. (2007). Metacognition of problem-solving strategies. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 7, 1-25.
15. Hutner, T. L., & Markman, A. B. (2016). Department‐level representations: a new approach to the study of science teacher cognition. Science Education, 100(1), 30-56.
16. Kurnaz, M. A., & Yiğit, N. (2010). Physics attitude scale: development, validity and reliability. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 29-49.
17. Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: a literature eeview. Research Reports. http://www.datec.org.uk/CHAT/chatmeta1.htm. Date of access: 24.12.2017
18. Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları [Structural equation modeling AMOS applications]. Ankara: Detay yayıncılık.
19. Neto, A., & Valente, M. O. (1997). Problem solving in physics: towards a metacognitively developed approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Oak Brook.
20. Nuhoğlu, H., & Yalçın, N. (2004). The development of attitude scale for laboratory and the assessment of preservice teachers’ attitudes towards physiscs laboratory. Journal of Gazi University Faculty of Education Kırsehir, 5(2), 317-327.
21. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248-292.
23. Özturk, N. (2017). Assessing metacognition: theory and practices. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 4(2), 134-148.
24. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Inc.
25. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 4, 218-225.
26. Rozencwajg, P. (2003). Metacognitive factors in scientific problem-solving strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(3), 281-294.
27. 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, 111-139.
28. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.
29. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
30. Selcuk, G. S., Calıskan, S., & Erol, M. (2007). The effects of gender and grade levels on Turkish physics teacher candidates’ problem solving strategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 92-100.
31. Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Psychological test development and adaptation process SPSS and LISREL applications]. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
32. Şahin, N. (1994). Psikoloji araştırmalarında ölçek kullanımı [Using scale in psychology research]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 9(33), 19-26.
33. Stewart, J., & Rudolph, J. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curriculum. Science Education, 85, 207-222.
34. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Farley, J. (2013). Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 447-459.
35. Taasoobshirazi, G., Bailey, M., & Farley, J. (2015). Physics metacognition inventory part II: confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2769-2786.
36. Tekbıyık, A., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2010). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerine yönelik güncel fizik tutum ölçeği: geliştirilmesi, geçerlik ve güvenirliği [Physical attitude scale for secondary school students: development, validity and reliability]. The Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(4), 134-144.
37. Tezbaşaran, A. (1996). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme klavuzu [Likert type scale development guide]. Ankara: Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
38. Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (vol. 24, pp. 131–144). Dordrecht: Springer.
39. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. Mayer, & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197-218). New York: Routledge.
40. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: age and task differences. Learning & Individual Differences, 15(2), 159-176.
41. Zohara A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49, 121-169.