An Empirical Investigation of Mathematics Learning Approaches and Metacognitive Awareness of Students

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 4, 84 - 102, 01.12.2021

Ahsen Seda Bulut

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.80.8.4

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The goal of this study is to examine the mathematics learning approaches and metacognitive awareness of 6th, 7th and 8th grade students with regard to some variables. This is a quantitative study conducted in a survey model. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the working group was secondary school students in the public schools in Central Anatolia region 6.7.8. It consists of 330 (166 girls, 164 boys) students studying at the grade level. As the data collection tools, Göktepe-Yıldız and Özdemir’s (2018) “Mathematics Learning Approach Scale”, which was originally developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994); The Metacognitional Awareness Inventory developed by Akın, Abacı and Çetin (2007) was utilized. According to the empirical findings, for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students, scores for deep and strategic learning approaches are above the medium level, whereas scores for surface approach is below the medium level. In addition, it has been determined that mathematics learning approaches differ significantly according to gender, grade level and mathematics achievement. As a consequence of the analysis, it was seen that students' levels of metacognitive awareness were high. The levels of metacognitive awareness did not differ by gender, but differed significantly by grade level and mathematics achievement. In addition, while there exists a positive and statistically significant relationship between deep learning and strategic learning approaches and metacognitive awareness no statistically significant relationship was found between the surface learning approach and the metacognitive awareness.

Keywords

mathematics learning approach, metacognitive awareness, metacognition

References

• Akın, A. (2006). Başarı amaç oryantasyonları ile bilişötesi farkındalık, ebeveyn tutumları ve akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkiler. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya.
• Akın, A., Abacı, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 671-678.
• Altindag, M., & Senemoğlu, N. (2013). Yürütücü biliş becerileri ölçeği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(1), 15-26.
• Altıok, S., Başer, Z., & Yükseltürk, E. (2019). Enhancing metacognitive awareness of undergraduates through using an e-educational video environment. Computers & Education,139, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.010.
• Aral, N., Gürsoy, F. & Can-Yaşar, M. (2012). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf çocuklarının öğrenmelerinde yapboz eğitim materyalleri ile yapılan uygulamanın etkisinin incelenmesi. Ankara Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 157-170. doi: 10.1501/Asbd_0000000012.
• Baba-Öztürk, M., & Güral, M. (2016). Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının bilişötesi farkındalık düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi: OMÜ örneği. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(19), 107-132.
• Bağçeci, B., Döş, B., & Sarıca, R. (2011). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin üst bilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri ile akademik başarısı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16), 551-566.
• Baltacı, S., Yıldız, A. & Özcakir, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive awareness levels, learning styles, genders and mathematics grades of fifth graders. Journal of Education Learning, 5(4), 78-89.
• Baysal, N.Z., Ayvaz, A., Çekirdekçi, S., & Malbeleği, F. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 37, 68-81.
• Bernardo. A. B. I. (2003). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101-114.
• Beydoğan, Ö. (2007). Derinliğine ve yüzeysel öğrenmede kavram haritaları ve şemaların işlevi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 173, 258-270.
• Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J. (1988). Assessing student approaches to learning. Australian Psychologist, 23(2), 197–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00050068808255604.
• Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.
• Biggs, J. (1994). Approaches to learning: Nature and measurement of. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 319– 322). Oxford: Pergamon.
• Biggs, J.B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R.J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
• Biggs, J., & Tang. C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill: Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press.
• Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1990). Thinking for the future. Emergency Librarian, 5(17), 11-13.
• Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R.J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. (pp. 453-481) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
• Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). The relationship between learning approaches and learning outcomes: A study of Irish accounting students. Accounting Education, 11(1), 27-42.
• Cuthbert, P.F. (2005). The student learning process: learning styles or learning approaches. Teaching in Higher education, 10(2), 235-249.
• Çakıroğlu, A. (2007). Üstbilişsel strateji kullanımının okuduğunu anlama başarı düzeyi düşük öğrencilerde erişi artırımına etkisi. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Darlington, E. (2011). Approaches to learning of undergraduate mathematicians. The Day Conference of British Society of Research on Learning of Mathematics (BSRLM) Conference. Oxford, England.
• Deniz, D., Küçük, B., Cansız, Ş., Akgün, L., & İşleyen, T. (2014). Ortaöğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının üstbiliş farkındalıklarının bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(1), 305-320.
• Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 435-447.
• Dilci, T., & Kaya, S. (2012). 4. ve 5. sınıflarda görev yapan sınıf öğretmenlerinin üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27, 247-267.
• Diseth, A. (2001). Validation of a Norwegian version of the approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST): Application of structural equation modelling. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 381-394.
• Diseth, A. (2002). The relationship between intelligence, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 219-230.
• Diseth, A., & Martinsen, O. (2002). Approaches to learning, cognitive style and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207.
• Dunslosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56.
• Ekinci, N. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(151), 74-88.
• Ellez, M., & Sezgin, G. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitapçığı. Ankara.
• Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Entwistle, N. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22, 201-204.
• Entwistle, N.J. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to webb. Higher Education, 33, 213-218.
• Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everyday experience. In R.J. Sternberg, & L.-F Zhang (Eds.), Perspective of think, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 103-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
• Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
• Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Waller, T. G. (1984). Cognition, metacognition and reading. New York : Springer-Verlag.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
• Garner, R., & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143-158.
• Gürefe, N. (2015). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(5), 237-246.
• Gürleyük, G.C., & Sucu, H.Ö. (2014). Üniversite öğrencilerinin bilişüstü farkındalık düzeylerinin incelenmesi (Erciyes Üniversitesi örneği). Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 44(201), 109-124.
• Hacker, D.J. (1998). Metacognition: definitions and empirical foundations. In: D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.). Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2013). Multivariate Data Analysis. London: Pearson Education Limited.
• Harlen, W., & James, M., (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-380.
• Hashempour, M., Ghoonsoly, B., Ghanizadeh, A. (2015). A study of translation of students’ self- regulation and metacognitive awareness in association with their gender and educational level. International Journal of Comparative Literature&Translation Studies, 3(3), 60-69.
• Heikkilla, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99–117.
• İlhan, M., Çetin, B., & Kılıç, M.A. (2013). Matematik öğrenme yaklaşımları ölçeğinin (MÖYÖ) geliştirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 113 -145. http://dx,doi.org/10.14686/201321984.
• Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Koç, I., & Kuvaç, M. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ metacognitive awareness levels. European Journal of Education Studies, 2(3), 43-63.
• Köse, E. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma modelleri. R.Y. Kıncal (Ed.). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (s. 99-123). Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
• Larkin, S. (2010). Metacognition in young children. New York: Routledge.
• Lee C.B., Teo, T., & Bergin, D. (2009). Children’s use of metacognition in solving everyday problem: an initial study from an Asian context. The Australian Educational Researcher Journal, 36(3), 89-104.
• Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within ıntroductory accounting: A phenomenographic study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 10(2), 161-184.
• Makinen, J. (2003). University students' general study orientations: theoretical background, measurements and practical implications. University of Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis.
• Martini, R., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Pointing to parallels in ability related differences in the use of metacognition in academic and psychomotor tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 237-247.
• Marton, F. (1983). Beyond individual differences. Educational Psychology, 3, 289-303.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning I: -Outcome & process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning -II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.) The experience of learning (pp. 39-58). Edinburgh Scoottish Academic Press.
• Matic, L.J., Matic, I., & Katalenic, A. (2013). Approaches to learning mathematics in engineering study program. In M. Pavlekovic, Z. Kolar-Begovic, & R. Kolar-Super (Eds.) Mathematics teaching for the future (pp. 186-195). Element.
• Mayya, S.S., Rao, A.R., & Ramnarayan, K. (2004). Learning approaches, learning difficulties and academic performance of undergraduate students of physiotherapy. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Science and Practice, 2(4), 1-6.
• Meichenbaum, D., Burland, S., Gruson, L., & Cameron, R. (1985). Metacognitive assessment. In S. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children (pp.3-30), Toronto: Academic Press.
• Newble, D. I., & Entwistle, N. J. (1986). Learning styles and approaches: Implications for medical education. Medical Education, 20, 162–175.
• Özsoy, G., & Günindi, Y. (2011). Okulöncesi öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri. Elementary Education Online, 10(2), 430-440.
• Özsoy, G., Çakıroğlu, A., Kuruyer, H.G., & Özsoy, S. (2010). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerinin bazı değişkenler bakımından incelenmesi. 9. Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Elazığ.
• Özgür, H., & Tosun, N. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının derin ve yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(24), 113-125.
• Pressley, M., & Ghalata, E.S. (1989). Metacognitive benefits of taking a test for children and young adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 430-450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(89)90023-4.
• Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8, 411-27.
• Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: New York Routhladge Falmer.
• Reid, W.A., Duvall, E., & Evans, P. (2007). Relationship between assessment results and approaches to learning and studying in year two medical students. Medical Education, 41(8), 754-762.
• Scherer, R. F., Luther, D. C., Wiebe, F. A., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763-770.
• Schmeck, R. R. (1988). An introduction to strategies and styles of learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 53-81). New York: Plenum Press.
• Selçuk, G. S., Çalışkan, S., & Erol, M. (2007). Evaluation of learning approaches for prospective physics teachers. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 25-41. Senemoğlu, N. (2005). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim kuramdan uygulamaya. 12. Basım, Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara.
• Senemoğlu, N. (2011). College of education students’ approaches to learning and study skills. Education and Science, 36(160), 65-80.
• Stewart, P. W., Cooper. S. S., & Moulding, L. R. (2007). Metacognitive development in professional educators. The Researcher, 21(1), 32-40.
• Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251–266.
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70.
• Uckun, C.G., Demir, B., & Yuksel, A. (2012). Examining metacognitive awareness of academic directors working in vocational high schools: The case of Kocaeli University. Kocaeli University Journal of Social Sciences, 24, 51–74.
• Vadhan, V., & Stander, P. (1994), Metacognitive ability and test performance among college students. The Journal of Psychology, 128(3), 307-309.
• Volet, S. E. (1991). Modeling and coaching of relevant metacognitive strategies for enhancing university students’ learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 319-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(91)90012-W.
• Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmilian Publishing Company.
• Yıldız, S. G., & Özdemir, A. Ş. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin matematik öğrenme yaklaşımları. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1378-1401.
• Yıldız, A., Baltacı, S., & Kuzu, O. (2018). The investigation of students' cognitive and metacognitive competencies according to different variables. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(10), 81-98.
• 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.