Öğretmen Adaylarının Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Düzeylerinin Belirli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Yıl 2019, , 1035 - 1054, 15.10.2019

Funda Ekici , Burcu Ulutaş , Basri Atasoy

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.566640

Cited By: 3

Öz

Üstbilişi konu alan bu
çalışmanın 2 amacı vardır: öğretmen adaylarının (1) üstbilişsel farkındalık
düzeylerinin belirlenmesi ve (2) üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının akademik
başarı, cinsiyet, sınıf düzeyleri ve öğrenim görülen bölüm değişkenleri
açısından incelenmesidir. Çalışma grubunu biyoloji, fizik ve kimya öğretmen
adayları (N=367) oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel
farkındalıklarının tespit edilmesi için Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Envanteri (ÜFE)
veri toplama aracı olarak kullanıldı. Bu çalışmanın modeli ilişkisel tarama
modelidir. Elde edilen verilerin analizi için Pearson korelasyon analizi,
ilişkisiz örneklemler t-testi ve tek faktörlü ANOVA testi yapıldı. Analiz
sonuçlarına göre öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalıkları ile akademik
başarıları ile arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu belirlendi. Ayrıca öğretmen adaylarının
üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının sınıf düzeylerine göre de farklılık gösterdiği
tespit edildi. Ancak öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalıkları ile
cinsiyet ve öğrenim görülen bölüm değişkenleri arasında bir fark olmadığı
belirlendi. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üstbilişsel Farkındalık, Akademik başarı, Cinsiyet, Sınıf Düzeyi, Bölüm

An Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Levels of Metacognitive Awareness in Terms of Certain Variables

Öz

This
study focuses on metacognition and has two main purposes: (1) to determine
preservice teachers’ levels of metacognitive awareness and (2) to determine how
they relate to the variables of academic achievement, gender, grade level and
department. The participants were biology, physics and chemistry preservice
teachers (N=367). The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) was used as a
data collection tool for determining the preservice teachers’ metacognitive
awareness. This is an associational survey study. Pearson’s correlation
analysis, the independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze
the data. The results indicated a significant relationship between preservice
teachers’ metacognitive awareness and academic achievement. Their metacognitive
awareness also significantly varied by their grade level. However, no
significant relationships were found between the preservice teachers’
metacognitive awareness and gender or department.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Metacognitive Awareness, Academic Achievement, Gender, Grade Level, Department

Kaynakça

• 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.
• Akin, A., Abaci, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 7(2), 671.
• Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental review, 15(1), 1-37.
• Al-Jarrah, A., & Obeidat, A. A. (2011). Metacognitive Thinking Level Amongst a Sample of Yarmouk University Students in the Light of Some Variables.
• Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298-320.
• Bağçeci, B., Döş, B., & Sarıca, R. (2011). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri ile akademik başarısı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [An analysis of metacognitive awareness levels and academic achievement of primary school students]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16).
• Bidjerano, T. (2005). Gender Differences in Self-Regulated Learning. Online Submission.
• Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, Elective control-self regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms, In F. E Weinert &R.H Kluwe. (Ed.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp.65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (18. bs.) [Scientific research methods (18th ed.)]. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
• Cubukcu, F. (2009). Metacognition in the classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 559-563.
• Deniz, D., Kucuk, B., Cansiz, S., Akgun, L. ve Isleyen, T. (2014). Ortaöğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının üstbiliş farkındalıklarının bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(1), 305-320.
• Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J. and kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 33-87.
• Emrahoğlu, N., & Öztürk, A. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının akademik başarılarına bilişsel farkındalığın etkisi: bir nedensel karşılaştırma araştırması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 18-30.
• Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A New area of cognitive – development inquiry. American psychologist, 34, 906-911.
• Fraenkel J. R. and Wallen N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education, 6th edn, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Glaser, R., Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., & Zeitz, C. (1992). Scientific reasoning across different domains. In Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 345-371). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Hart, L. C., & Memnun, D. S. (2015). The relationship between preservice elementary mathematics teachers' beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 70-77.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jegede, O., Taplin, M., Fan, R. Y., Chan, M. S., & Yum, J. (1999). Differences between low and high achieving distance learners in locus of control and metacognition. Distance Education, 20(2), 255-273.
• Jou, Y. J. (2015). Investigation of technological university students' use of metacognitive reading strategies in first and second languages. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 180-188.
• Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult education quarterly, 51(3), 236-249.
• Kacar, M., & Sarıçam, H. (2015). Sınıf öğretmen adaylarının üstbiliş farkındalıkları ile matematik kaygı düzeyleri üzerine bir çalışma. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 137-152.
• Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 92-107.
• Koc, I., & Kuvac, M. (2016). Preservice science teachers’ metacognitive awareness levels. European Journal of Education Studies.
• Kocak, R. Boyacı, M. (2010).The predictive role of basic ability levels and metacognitive strategies of students on their academic success. Procedia Social and B ehavioral Sciences, 2(2), 767-772.
• Kramarski, B., & Kohen, Z. (2017). Promoting preservice teachers’ dual self-regulation roles as learners and as teachers: Effects of generic vs. specific prompts. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 157-191.
• Kuzucu, G., Aydoğan, M. N., & Pekdağ, B. (2018). Kimya öğrencilerinin başarı ve bilişötesi farkındalık düzeyleri. In Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences Research Congress 26-28 October 2018 (pp 278). Balıkesir, Turkey.
• Mai, M. Y. (2015). Science teachers self perception about metacognition. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1 S1), 77.
• Memnun, D. S., & Akkaya, R. (2012). Matematik, fen ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin bilişötesi farkındalıklarının bilişin bilgisi ve düzenlenmesi boyutları açısından incelenmesi. Kuramsal Eğitim Bilim Dergisi, 5(3), 312-329.
• Niemivirta, M. (1997). Gender differences in motivational-cognitive patterns of self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
• Özkaya, Ö. M. (2017). The role of metacognitive skills in predicting achievement motivation. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(3), 1040-1055.
• Özsoy, G., & Günindi, Y. (2011). Okulöncesi öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri. İlköğretim Online, 10(2), 430-440.
• Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 19-33.
• Rozendaal, J. S., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Boekaerts, M. (2003). Motivation and self-regulated learning in secondary vocational education: Information-processing type and gender differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(4), 273-289.
• Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Rewiew, 7, 351-373.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.
• 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., Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
• Scott, B. M., & Berman, A. F. (2013). Examining the domain-specificity of metacognition using academic domains and task-specific ındividual differences. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 13, 28-43.
• Siswati, B. H., & Corebima, A. D. (2017). The effect of education level and gender on students’ metacognitive skills in malang, Indonesia. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(4).
• 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.
• Şen, Ş., & Yılmaz, A. (2017). Fen bilgisi ve kimya öğretmen adaylarının metabilişsel öğrenme stratejilerinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(2).
• Şendurur, E., Şendurur, P., Mutlu, N., & Baser, V. G. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of pre-service teachers. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(4), 102-107.
• Tok, H., Özgan, H., & Döş, B. (2010). Uzaktan eğitim sınıfında başarının pozitif yordayıcısı olarak bilişötesi farkındalık stratejisi ve öğrenme stratejilerinin değerlendirilmesi [Assessing metacognitive awareness and learning strategies as positive predictors for success in a distance learning class]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(14).
• ur Rahman, F., Jumani, N. B., Chaudry, M. A., & Abbasi, F. (2010). Impact of metacognitive awareness on performance of students in chemistry. Contemporary Issues in Educational Research, 39-44.
• Uwazurike, N. R. (2010). Metacognition and achievement goals as correlates of academic success. Continental Journal of Education Research, 3, 1-6.
• van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. (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.
• Veenman, M. V., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89-109.
• Ward, R. T., & Butler, D. L. (2019). An Investigation of Metacognitive Awareness and Academic Performance in College Freshmen. Education, 139(3), 120-126.
• Yesilyurt, E. (2013). An analysis of teacher candidates’ usage level of metacognitive learning strategies: sample of a university in Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(6), 218-225.
• Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.
• Zhu, Z. (2007). Gender differences in mathematical problem solving patterns: A review of literature. International Education Journal, 8(2), 187-203.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.
• Zimermann, B. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59.
• Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169.