Metacognitive thinking skills among talented science education students

Year 2020, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 897 - 904, 15.06.2020

Mohammad Al-gaseem Bakkar Bakkar Suhail Al-zoubı

https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.707205

Cited By: 8

Abstract

Metacognitive thinking skills in teacher education is very important. Therefore, it is important to focus on understanding education instead of memorization, using knowledge, solving problems related to new situations, being able to explain, synthesize and generalize and develop hypotheses. The purpose of this research was to examine the level of metacognitive thinking skills (MTSs) among talented science education students (TSESs) at Sultan Qaboos University (SQU), Oman. A purposeful sample of 77 TSESs was used to achieve this goal. The TSESs are registered in the Bachelor of Science Education program, and they have a high academic achievement. The TSESs responded to Omani Metacognitive Thinking Scale. This scale consists of 42 items distributed into three domains: Knowledge of cognition, regulation of cognition, and cognitive processing. The results indicated that TSESs possessed a high level of MTSs.

Keywords

Metacognitive thinking skills, cognitive processing, talented students, teacher education

References

• Abdellah, R. (2015). Metacognitive awareness and its relation to academic achievement and teaching performance of pre-service female teachers in Ajman University in UAE, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 560-567.
• Al-Hamouri, F., & Abu Mokh, A. (2011). Level of the need for cognitive and metacognitive thinking among Yarmouk University students. An-Najah University Journal for Research, 25(6), 1463-1488.
• Aljaberi, N., & Gheith, E. (2015). University students’ level of metacognitive thinking and their ability to solve problems. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 5(3), 121-134.
• Al-Jarrah, N., & Obeidat A. (2011). Metacognitive thinking level among a sample of Yarmouk University Students. Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 145-162.
• Al-Shawashreh, O., Al-Zoubi, A., Al-Rabee, F., & Tashtoush, Rami (2017). The relationship between metacognition and goal orientations among Yarmouk University students. Dirasat: Educational Sciences, 44 (4), 345-361.
• Al-Zoubi, S. (2013). The level of metacognitive thinking among special education students. Prime Research on Education, 3(2), 437-441.
• Carr, M., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2008). Metacognition in the gifted: Connections to expertise. In M. F. Shaughnessy, M. V. J. Veenman & C. Kleyn Kennedy (Eds.), Meta cognition: A recent review of research, theory and perspectives (pp. 109-125). Hauppauge: Nova Science.
• Carr, M., Alexander, J., and Schwanenflugel, P. (1996). Where gifted children do and do not excel on metacognitive tasks. Roeper Review, 18(3), 212–217.
• Celebi, E., & Gundogdu, C. (2017). A study of the metacognitive awareness levels of students in Firat University's Faculty of Sports Sciences. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 364-369.
• Coşkun, Y. (2018). A study on metacognitive thinking skills of University students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3), 38-46.
• Coutinho, S. (2006). The relationship between the need for cognition. Metacognition, and intellectual task performance. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(5), 162-164.
• Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3–14.
• Efklides, A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema, 21(1), 76-82.
• Everson, H., & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 65-79.
• Fares, E. (2018). The degree of possession of metacognitive thinking skills of students in undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Damascus. Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 19(3), 2019-257.
• Fauzi, A., & Sa’diyah, W. (2019). Students’ metacognitive skills from the viewpoint of answering biological questions: Is it already good? Indonesian Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 317-327.
• Heilat, M. (2017). The relationship between creative self-efficacy and metacognitive thinking among female students in the professional post graduate diploma teaching program at Abu Dhabi University. International Journal for Research in Education, 41(3), 245-279.
• Idawati., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2020). The effects of problem-solving method and cognitive flexibility in improving university students’ metacognitive. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(2), 657-680.
• Jia X, Li, W., & Cao L. (2019). The role of metacognitive components in creative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-11.
• Karaduman, G., & Erbaş, A. (2017). Investigation of primary school teacher candidates' metacognitive awareness level. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(4), 31-48.
• Knox, H.(2017). Using writing strategies in math to increase metacognitive skills for the gifted learner. Gifted Child Today, 40(1), 43-47.
• Lestari, P., Ristanto, R., & Miarsyah, M. (2019). Analysis of conceptual understanding of botany and metacognitive skill in pre-service biology teacher in Indonesia. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(2), 199-214.
• Louca, E. (2003). The concept and instruction of metacognition. Teacher Development, 7(1), 9-30.
• Ma, A., & Baranovich, P. (2015). Promoting self-regulation in vocabulary learning among Chinese EFL learners. A needs analysis, 24(1), 137–146.
• Pramusinta, Y., Setyosari, P., Widiati, U., & Kuswandi, D. (2019). Exploring metacognitive and critical thinking skills of pre-service elementary school teachers through discovery learning method by integrating various cognitive styles. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 999-1017.
• Pramusinta, Y., Setyosari, P., Widiati, U., & Kuswandi, D. (2019). Exploring metacognitive and critical thinking skills of pre-service elementary school teachers through discovery learning method by integrating various cognitive styles. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 999-1017.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113–125.
• Schraw, G., Crippen, K., & 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.
• Schwartz, B., & Perfect, T. (2002). Introduction: Toward an applied metacognition. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Selçuk, G., Sahin, M., & Açikgöz, K. (2011). The effects of learning strategy instruction on achievement, attitude, and achievement motivation in a physics course. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 39-62.
• Stott, A., & Hobden, P. (2016). Effective learning: A case study of the learning strategies used by a gifted high achiever in learning science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1), 63–74.
• Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. NY: Psychology Press.
• Tortop, H. S. (2015). A comparison of gifted and non-gifted students’ self-regulation skills for science learning. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 3(1), 42-57. Ucar, F. (2018). Investigation of gifted students' epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs and use of metacognition. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 1-10.
• Van der Stel, M. & Veenman, M. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 220-224.
• Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. (2008). Relation between intellectual ability and metacognitive skillfulness as predictors of learning performance of young students performing tasks in different domains. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 128-134.
• Young, A., & Worrell, F. (2018). Comparing metacognition assessments of mathematics in academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(3), 259–275.