The Effectiveness of Metacognitive Prompts on a Genetics Test among High School Students in Kenya

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 9 , 134 - 142, 18.08.2018

Catherine Aurah

Öz

This study investigated the
effectiveness of using metacognitive prompts in improving scores on a genetics
test among high school students in Western Kenya. The study, a post-test only
control group quasi-experimental design involving 2x2x3 factorial matrix also
investigated the interacting effects of metacognitive prompting and
self-efficacy beliefs while controlling for gender. A total of 2,139 form four
(grade 12)  students from intact classes
participated in the study that was carried out in 17 high schools. Three
validated instruments: Metacognitive Prompting Questionnaire (MPG),
Self-efficacy Questionnaire (SEQ) and Genetics Test (GT) were used for data
collection. Data were analysed both descriptively  (means and standard deviation) and
inferentially through a 2x2x3 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). Findings showed
that testing method(Metacognitive prompting Versus Conventional)  and self-efficacy beliefs had  statistically significant main effects on
students genetics test score (F(1,2132)
= 4.568, p = 0.033) and (F (1,2132) = 963.740, p < 0.001) respectively. This implied
that use of  metacognitive prompts had
superior effects to conventional method of testing. It also implied that
students who are highly efficacious do better on tests than students with low
self-efficacy. There were no
significant 2-way and 3-way interaction effects of variables on genetics test
score. These findings have implications for Biology teachers who are implored
to adopt the use of metacognitive prompts during testing and to promote
self-efficacy beliefs among students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Metacognitive prompts, Self-efficacy, Genetics, Testing

Kaynakça

• Balcikanli, C. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT). Education & Psychology, vol.9(23), pp. 1309-1332. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (eds.).Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 307-337. Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, vol.17(5), pp.564-577. Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of Science Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Middle School Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485. Chiu, M. (2007). A national survey of students' conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, vol.29(4), pp.421–452. Collins, T. (2011). Science Inquiry as Knowledge Transformation: Investigating Metacognitive and Self-regulation Strategies to Assist Students in Writing about Scientific Inquiry Tasks. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting Middle School Science Students for Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142. Donnelly, B. (2010). Digital portfolios and learning: the students’ voices. Ed.D. Thesis. University of California Davis. Du Toit, D.S. (2013). The effect of metacognitive intervention on learner metacognition and achievement in mathematics. Ph.D. Thesis. University of the Free State Bloemfontein. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Fisher, A. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fogarty, E. (2006). Teachers’ use of differentiated reading strategy instruction for talented, average, and struggling readers in regular and SEM-R classrooms. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Connecticut. Haidar, A. & Al Naqabi, A. (2008). Emiratii high school students’ understandings of stoichiometry and the influence of metacognition on their understanding. Research in Science and Technological Education, vol.26(2), pp.215-237. Hoffman, B., & Spatariu, A. (2008). The Influence of Self-efficacy and Metacognitive Prompting on Math Problem solving Efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 875-893. Jacobs, J., Lanza, S., Osgood, D., Eccles, J. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changed in children’s self competence and values: gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, vol.73(2), pp.509-527. Kazdin, A. E. (1999). Overview of research design issues in clinical psychology. In P. C.Kendall, J. N. Butcher, & G. N. Holmbeck (Eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3-30). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kozma, R. (2013). The race to new mathematics of brains and consciousness- A tribute to John G.Taylor. In Neural Networks (IJCNN), The 2013 International Joint Conference on. Dallas, TX: USA, pp.1-3. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How Can Self-Regulated Learning Be Supported In Mathematical E- Learning Environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24-33 Kramarski, B., & Zeichner, O. (2001). Using Technology to Enhance Mathematical Reasoning: Effects of Feedback and Self-Regulation Learning. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 77-82. Ku, K. & Ho, I. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition Learning. vol.5, pp. 251-267. Kuo, E., Hull, M., Gupta, A. & Elby, A. (2013). How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems. Science Education, vol.97(1), pp.32-57. Lai, E.R. (2011). Metacognition: a literature review [online]. UK: Pearson. [Accessed 29 September 2012]. Available at: http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final.pdf Mevarech, Z. & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Metacognition and learning, vol.1(1), pp.85-97. More, T. & Hill, G. (2002). Integrating calculus and general physics using a work-shop and peer leader approach. Pathways To Change: An International Conference on Transforming Math and Science Education in the K16 Continuum [online]. STEMTEC at Arlington, Virginia. [Accessed 2 January 2014]. Available at: http://k12s.phast.umass.edu/stemtec/pathways/Proceedings/Papers/More-p.pdf National Research Council (2013). National Science Education Standards . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Ozsoy, G. & Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, vol.1(2), pp.67-82. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, vol.19(2), pp.139-158. Parsons, M. (2011). Effects of Writing to Learn in Pre-Calculus Mathematics on Achievement and Affective Outcomes for students in a Community College Setting: A Mixed Methods Approach. Ph.D. Thesis. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M. & Stevens, R. (2011). Enhancement of Metacognition Use and Awareness by Means of a Collaborative Intervention, International Journal of Science Education, vol.33(3), pp.323- 340. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2)., 113-125. Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475. 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. Thomas, G.P., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Development of An Instrument Designed to Investigate Elements of Science Students’ Metacognition, Self-Efficacy and Learning Processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education. Veenman, M. (2012). ‘Metacognition in science education: definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition’. In A. Zohar, and Dori, Y. (eds). Metacognition in Science Education: Trends in Current Research. Berkeley, CA: Springer, Ch.2. Veenman, M.V.J., Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and Learning: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14. Watkins, K. (2001). Learning by changing: Action science and virtual organization development. Adult Learning, vol.11(3), pp.20-22. Wiezbicki-Stevens, K. (2009). Metacognition: Developing Self-Knowledge Through Guided Reflection. Ed.D. Thesis. University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183. Zimmerman, B. & Cleary, T. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan (eds). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 45-70. Zimmerman, B. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Students’ Differences in Self-Regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex, and Giftedness to Self-Efficacy and Strategy Use. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol.82(1), pp.51-59. Zohar, A. & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Studies in Science Education. vol.49(2), pp.121-169.