EĞİTİMDE ÜSTBİLİŞSEL DÜZENLEME ENVANTERİ: ÖĞRENCİ VERSİYONU’NUN (EÜDE: ÖĞRENCİ-KENDİ FORMU) GELİŞTİRİLME ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Sayısız araştırma, öğrencilerin bir bilgiyi öğrenmeleri kadar bu bilgileri hakkında bilgilere sahip olmalarının ve bunları düzenlemelerinin, diğer bir ifadeyle üstbilişsel performanslarının, akademik başarılarında oldukça kritik bir öneme sahip olduğunu işaret etmektedir. 120K850 No.lu TÜBİTAK projesi kapsamında desteklenen bu çalışmada, standart bir öğretim bağlamındaki iki temel grubun (öğretmen ve öğrencilerin) üstbilişsel “hedef”, “izleme” ve “kontrol” süreçlerini kavramsallaştıran ve “eğitimde çok düzeyli üstbilişsel düzenleme modeli” olarak alan yazına sunulan modele uygun olarak “Eğitimde Üstbilişsel Düzenleme Envanteri (EÜDE): Öğrenci Versiyonu”nun geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla, mevcut ilişkili ölçeklerden yararlanılmış ve buna ek olarak araştırmacılar tarafından eklenmiş ölçek maddeleri, 24 ilden toplam 10190 5, 6 ve 7. sınıf öğrencisine tamamı çevrimiçi olarak üç aşamada uygulanmıştır. Oluşturulan 33 maddelik ölçek, ilk aşamada 6178 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) sonrasında 20 madde içeren ölçek, ikinci aşamada 2845 öğrenciye ve son aşamada AFA, madde ve test parametrelerine göre belirlenerek elde edilen 12 maddelik ölçek 1527 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Son aşamada elde edilen 12 maddelik nihai ölçek için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. AFA ve DFA sonuçlarına göre, öğrencilerin üstbilişsel düzenleme yapısındaki üstbilişsel “hedef”, “izleme” ve “kontrol” alt boyutlarına ait maddeler belirlenebilmiştir. Güvenirlik analizi sonuçları da geliştirilen ölçeğin iç tutarlı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üstbiliş
• Üstbilişsel Düzenleme
• Eğitim
• Öğrenci
• Envanter

THE STUDY OF DEVELOPING THE METACOGNITIVE REGULATION INVENTORY IN EDUCATION: STUDENT’S VERSION (MRIE: STUDENT-SELF)

Öz

Numerous studies have indicated that just like how much they learn knowledge, students' knowledge and regulation of their knowledge, i.e., their metacognitive performance, is quite critical in their academic success. In this study, financed by TUBITAK project No. 120K850, we aimed to develop "Metacognitive Regulation Inventory in Education (MRIE): Student’s Version" by following the model suggested to the literature as "multi-layered metacognitive regulation model in education" that conceptualise metacognitive "goal", "monitoring", and "control" processes of the two main groups in a standard teaching context (i.e., teachers & students). For this purpose, the scale whose items were composed of the ones utilised in the related existing scales and of those added by the researchers were administered to 10190 5th, 6th, and 7th-graders from 24 provinces in three online applications. The 33-item scale was administered to 6178 students in the first stage. The 20-item scale obtained after an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was administered to 2845 students in the second stage, and the 12-item scale obtained by analysing EFA, item and test parameters was administered to 1527 students in the last stage. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in the latest stage for the final 12-item scale. The items of metacognitive "goal", "monitoring", and "control" sub-dimensions in the students’ metacognitive regulation construct could be identified according to EFA and CFA results. Reliability analysis results also showed the developed scale was internally consistent.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Metacognition
• Metacognitive Regulation
• Education
• Student
• Inventory

Kaynakça

1. Başokçu, O. T., & Güzel, M. A. (2020). Üstbilişsel İzleme ve Matematiksel Yeterlilikler: Bilişsel Tanı Modeli ve Sinyal Tespit Kuramı Yaklaşımı. Eğitim ve Bilim, 46 (205). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.7991
2. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Assessing Students’ Motivation and Learning Strategies in the Classroom Context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Içinde M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Ed.), Alternatives in Assessment of Achievements, Learning Processes and Prior Knowledge (ss. 319-339). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0657-3_12
3. Güzel, M. A. (2015). A metacognitive regulation approach for judgment of satiation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27 (8), 929-943. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1057148
4. Güzel, M. A., & Başokçu, T. O. (2023a). Eğitimde Üstbilişsel Düzenleme Envanteri: Öğretmen Versiyonu’nun (EÜDE: Öğretmen-Kendi ve Öğretmen-Sınıf) Geliştirilme Çalışması. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1224757
5. Güzel, M. A., & Başokçu, T. O. (2023b). Knowledge about others’ knowledge: How accurately do teachers estimate their students’ test scores? Metacognition and Learning, 18(1), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09333-2
6. Güzel, M. A., & Güngör, D. (2020). Testing a metacognitive regulation appoach for judgment of satiation: Might hunger and fulless not be the polar opposites of the same dimension? Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi, 8(18). https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-08-18-01
7. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. Routledge.
8. Mazzoni, G., & Cornoldi, C. (1993). Strategies in study time allocation: Why is study time sometimes not effective? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.1.47

9. Mazzoni, G., Cornoldi, C., & Marchitelli, G. (1990). Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation? Memory & Cognition, 18(2), 196-204. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197095
10. Meijer, J., Sleegers, P., Elshout-Mohr, M., Daalen-Kapteijns, M. V., Meeus, W., & Tempelaar, D. (2013). The development of a questionnaire on metacognition for students in higher education. Educational Research, 55(1), 31-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.767024
11. Modell, H., Cliff, W., Michael, J., McFarland, J., Wenderoth, M. P., & Wright, A. (2015). A physiologist’s view of homeostasis. Advances in Physiology Education, 39 (4), 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00107.2015
12. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
13. Moshman, D. (2018). Metacognitive Theories Revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 599-606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9413-7
14. Nelson, T. O. (1990). Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings. İçinde Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory (ss. 125-173). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
15. Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5 (4), 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00502.x
16. Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14 (4), 676-686. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.14.4.676
17. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? İçinde Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. (ss. 1-25). The MIT Press.
18. OECD (2017). Main Survey School Sampling Preparation Manual, Overview. Overview. PISA 2018, Şubat.
19. Pelegrina, S., Bajo, M. T., & Justicia, F. (2000). Differential allocation of study time: Incomplete compensation for the difficulty of the materials. Memory (Hove, England), 8(6), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210050156831
20. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
21. PISA 2009 Technical Report (2012). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2009-technical-report_9789264167872-en.html
22. Rhodes, M. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. İçinde The Oxford handbook of metamemory (ss. 65-80). Oxford University Press.
23. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
24. Sedgwick, P. (2013). Convenience Sampling. British Medical Journal, 2013, 347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6304
25. Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.204
26. Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2005). Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process. Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 1116-1129. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193217
27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1091
28. Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306-314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.306
29. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(4), 1024-1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024
30. Thiede, K. W., Oswalt, S., Brendefur, J. L., Carney, M. B., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2019). Teachers’ Judgments of Student Learning of Mathematics. İçinde J. Dunlosky & K. A. E. Rawson (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (ss. 678-695). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.027
31. Thompson, S. K. (2012). Sampling. Wiley.
32. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. İçinde B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schuck (Ed.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (ss. 1-37). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
33. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2