The Study of Developing the Metacognitive Regulation Inventory in Education: Teacher’s Version (MREI: Teacher-Self & Teacher-Class)

Öz

Numerous studies have shown the cognitive and metacognitive processes of teachers and students play a critical role in students’ academic achievement. The study initially aimed to propose a “multi-layered metacognitive regulation model in education” including metacognitive goal, monitoring, and control processes of teachers’ regulation of their own, students’ regulation of their own, and teachers’ regulation of their students’ cognition. Secondly, the study aimed to develop “teacher-self” and “teacher-class” forms of a “metacognitive regulation inventory in education (MEI)” belonging to the dimensions of teachers’ metacognitive regulation of their own and their classes’ cognition. The items created by utilising related inventories and scales in the literature and added by the project team were applied in three online applications to 2055 teachers in total who teach 5th, 6th, and 7th-graders in various branches. In the first application, 483 teachers assessed 169 items of “teacher-self” and “teacher-class” dimensions on a 5-point Likert-type scale. In the second application, 25 items of “teacher-self” and 32 items of “teacher-class” levels selected after the first application were rated by 790 teachers. Eighteen items each belonging to “teacher-self” and “teacher-class” levels and determined with exploratory factor analysis were graded by 782 teachers in the third stage and confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the obtained data. Items of metacognitive “goal”, “monitoring”, and “control” sub-dimensions in two forms were determined based on the factor analyses. Reliability and factor analyses’ results showed the developed inventory measures the latent structure it intended to measure reliably and validly.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• metacognition
• metacognitive regulation
• teacher
• education
• inventory

Proje Numarası

120K850

Eğitimde Üstbilişsel Düzenleme Envanteri: Öğretmen Versiyonu’nun (EÜDE: Öğretmen-Kendi ve Öğretmen-Sınıf) Geliştirilme Çalışması

Öz

Sayısız araştırma, öğretmen ve öğrencilere ait bilişsel ve üstbilişsel süreçlerin öğrencilerin akademik başarısında kritik bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Çalışma öncelikle öğretmenlerin kendi, öğrencilerin kendi ve öğretmenlerin öğrencilerinin bilişine dair üstbilişsel hedef, izleme ve kontrol süreçlerini içeren “eğitimde çok düzeyli bir üstbilişsel düzenleme modeli” önermeyi amaçlamıştır. İkinci olarak, önerilen model çerçevesinde “eğitimde üstbilişsel düzenleme envanteri (EÜDE)”nin öğretmenin kendi bilişini ve öğretmenin sınıfının bilişini üstbilişsel olarak düzenlediği boyutlara ait sırasıyla, “öğretmen-kendi” ve “öğretmen-sınıf” formlarının oluşturulması amaçlanmıştır. Alan yazındaki ilgili envanter ve ölçeklerden yararlanarak ve projedeki araştırmacılar tarafından eklenerek oluşturulan anket maddeleri, 5., 6. ve 7. sınıf öğrencilerine çeşitli branşlarda eğitim veren toplam 2055 öğretmene çevrimiçi olarak üç aşamada uygulanmıştır. İlk uygulamada, 483 öğretmen “öğretmen-kendi” ve “öğretmen-sınıf” boyutlarına ait toplam 169 maddeyi 5’li Likert ölçeği üzerinden değerlendirmiştir. İlk uygulama sonunda seçilen 25 “öğretmen-kendi” ve 32 “öğretmen-sınıf” düzeylerine ait madde, ikinci uygulamadaki 790 öğretmen tarafından derecelendirilmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre belirlenen 18’er “öğretmen-kendi” ve “öğretmen-sınıf” düzeylerine ait madde ise, üçüncü aşamadaki 782 öğretmen tarafından derecelendirilmiş ve elde edilen verilere doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulamıştır. Her iki faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre iki formda yer alan üstbilişsel “hedef”, “izleme” ve “kontrol” alt boyutlarına ait maddeler belirlenmiştir. Güvenirlik ve faktör analizleri sonuçları geliştirilen envanterin ölçmek istediği örtük yapıyı güvenilir ve geçerli şekilde ölçtüğünü göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• üstbiliş
• üstbilişsel düzenleme
• eğitim
• öğretmen
• envanter

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK SOBAG

Proje Numarası

120K850

Teşekkür

Bu çalışmayı destekleyen Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumuna (TÜBİTAK'a) çok teşekkür ederiz.

Kaynakça

1. Balçıkanlı, C. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1309–1332.
2. Birch, S. A. J. (2005). When Knowledge Is a Curse: Children’s and Adults’ Reasoning About Mental States. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00328.x
3. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
4. Dimmitt, C., & McCormick, C. B. (2012). Metacognition in education. In APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. (pp. 157–187). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-007
5. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition (pp. ix, 334). Sage Publications, Inc.
6. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
7. Güzel, M. A., & Başokçu, T. O. (2023). Knowledge about others’ knowledge: how accurately do teachers estimate their students’ test scores?. Metacognition & Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09333-2
8. Hacker, D. J. (2009). Handbook of Metacognition in Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876428

9. Jiang, Y. (2016). Assessing teachers’ metacognition in teaching: The Teacher Metacognition Inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11.
10. Kallio, H., Virta, K., Kallio, M., Virta, A., Hjardemaal, F., & Sandven, J. (2017). The Utility of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers among In-Service Teachers. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p78
11. Kutlu, M. (2012). Developing a scale on the usage of learner control strategy. Educational Research and Reviews, 7. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.302
12. Machts, N., Kaiser, J., Schmidt, F. T. C., & Möller, J. (2016). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003
13. 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
14. 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
15. Nelson, T. O. (1990). Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory (pp. 125–173). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
16. Nelson, T. O., Kruglanski, A. W., & Jost, J. T. (1998). Knowing thyself and others: Progress in metacognitive social psychology. In Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions (pp. 69–89). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279212.n5
17. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. (pp. 1–25). The MIT Press.
18. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How Large Are Teacher Effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026003237
19. Rhodes, M. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). Oxford University Press.
20. 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
21. 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
22. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627
23. Thiede, K. W., Brendefur, J. L., Osguthorpe, R. D., Carney, M. B., Bremner, A., Strother, S., Oswalt, S., Snow, J. L., Sutton, J., & Jesse, D. (2015). Can teachers accurately predict student performance? Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.012
24. 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
25. Thiede, K. W., Oswalt, S., Brendefur, J. L., Carney, M. B., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2019). Teachers’ Judgments of Student Learning of Mathematics. In J. Dunlosky & K. A. E. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (pp. 678–695). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.027
26. Tullis, J. G. (2018). Predicting others’ knowledge: Knowledge estimation as cue utilization. Memory & Cognition, 46(8), 1360–1375. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0842-4
27. Urhahne, D., & Wijnia, L. (2021). A review on the accuracy of teacher judgments. Educational Research Review, 32, 100374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100374
28. Wauters, K., Desmet, P., & Van Den Noortgate, W. (2012). Item difficulty estimation: An auspicious collaboration between data and judgment. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.020