Assessing Metacognition: Theory and Practices

Yıl 2017, , 134 - 148, 01.07.2017

Nesrin Ozturk

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.298299

Cited By: 23

Öz

Many researchers in education emphasized students’ metacognition should be fostered for academic development and achievement. However, to support students’ metacognitive development and adequacy appropriately, their metacognition is to be assessed first. For this purpose, this theoretical study conducted a short review of metacognition, its assessment, and limitations of assessment measures and procedures. By focusing on ten current studies, a pattern of metacognition assessment was portrayed. It was concluded that knowledge about and regulation of cognition was assessed simultaneously as metacognition theory proposes. To assess especially knowledge about cognition, exclusively off-line measures were used. For regulation of cognition, both off-line and on-line measures were used. Chronological analysis of these studies revealed that latest metacognition assessment studies tended to utilize domain-specific or real-life tasks. Based on the findings, research implications for assessment and instruction were laid down.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Metacognition, Assessing metacognition, Off-line measures, On-line procedures

Assessing Metacognition: Theory and Practices

Öz

Many researchers in education emphasized students’
metacognition should be fostered for academic development and achievement.
However, to support students’ metacognitive development and adequacy
appropriately, their metacognition is to be assessed first. For this purpose,
this theoretical study conducted a short review of metacognition, its
assessment, and limitations of assessment measures and procedures. By focusing
on ten current studies, a pattern of metacognition assessment was portrayed. It
was concluded that knowledge about and regulation of cognition was assessed
simultaneously as metacognition theory proposes. To assess especially knowledge
about cognition, exclusively off-line measures were used. For regulation of
cognition, both off-line and on-line measures were used. Chronological analysis
of these studies revealed that latest metacognition assessment studies tended
to utilize domain-specific or real-life tasks. Based on the findings, research
implications for assessment and instruction were laid down.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Metacognition, Assessing metacognition, Off-line measures, On-line procedures

Kaynakça

• Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
• Baker, L., & Cerro, L. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–145). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
• Block, C. C. (2006). What are metacognitive assessments? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsh (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment instruction, and professional development (pp. 83–100). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131
• Desoete, A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: How you test is what you get. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9026-0
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
• Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004517
• Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1983), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173513
• Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition : A Literature review research report. Research Reports. New York, NY:Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.datec.org.uk/CHAT/chatmeta1.htm
• Lee, C. B., Teo, T., & Bergin, D. (2009). Children’s use of metacognition in solving everyday problems: An initial study from an Asian context. Australian Educational Researcher, 36(3), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216907
• Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. R., & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children reading scientific texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.5.363-376
• Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
• Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102
• Onovughe, G., & Hannah, A. (2011). Assessing ESL students’ awareness and application of metacognitive strategies in comprehending academic materials. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 2(5), 343–346.
• Ozturk, N. (2016). An analysis of pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding of metacognition and pedagogies of metacognition. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 5(1), 47–68.
• Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. NJ: Routledge.
• Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals of Child Development, Vol. 5 (pp. 89–129). Greenwich: JAI Press.
• Saraç, S., & Karakelle, S. (2012). On-line and off-line assessment of metacognition. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(2), 301–315.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125.
• Schraw, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition: Implications of the Buros symposium. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 297–321). Lincoln, Nebraska: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
• Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
• Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
• Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
• Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students’ metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(March 2015), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802591667
• Turan, S., Demirel, O., & Sayek, I. (2009). Metacognitive awareness and self-regulated learning skills of medical students in different medical curricula. Medical Teacher, 31(10), e477–e483. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590903193521
• Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills. In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationenfür Forschung und Praxis (pp. 75–97). Berlin: Waxmann.
• Veenman, M. V. J., Bavelaar, L., De Wolf, L., & Van Haaren, M. G. P. (2014). The on-line assessment of metacognitive skills in a computerized learning environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.003
• Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
• Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30–43.
• Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9033-1
• Zhang, L. J. (2009). Title Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Source Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37-59. Retrieved from https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/16307/1/RFL-21-1-37_a.pdf