Analysis and pattern on metacognitive among academician

Abstract

This paper presents the analysis and pattern on metacognitive among academician. The study

was focused on 33 academicians from difference background and experience. The reliability

coefficient with Cronbach’s alpha (α) of 0.745. The survey of analysis and pattern was the

application of the Inventory of Metacognitive Awareness (IMA), developed by Schraw and

Dennison (1994), and adopted into Turkish by Akın, Abacı and Çetin (2007). The finding was

concluded that the 27 academician was high level of metacognitive and only 6 of them are low

level. The metacognitive awareness will improve cognitive load with problem solving skills and

high order thinking skills (HOT). The study on metacognitive is beneficial to all educator,

faculty and stakeholders. The development of training to improve their metacognitive is

beneficial for future.

Keywords: Metacognitive, MAI, Problem solving, lifelong skills.

1.0 Introduction

In current educational studies, metacognition is generally divided into two categories:

metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge extends to

awareness of thought in broader terms, being aware that we have thought (Coutinho, 2007;

Girash, 2014; Stanton, Neider, Gallegos and Clark, 2015). In the educational context,

metacognitive knowledge involves awareness of our concept and awareness of our programs and

our learning and teaching skills. Intellectual knowledge also refers to what students know about

themselves, their intellectual capacities, their capacities and their limits. This knowledge can be
of three types: declaration, procedure and conditional. Declarative knowledge is a high level of

knowledge of general thinking and processing skills, as well as learning methods (for example,

knowledge that he / she is better at multiple choice questions than at resolution issues which it

works best in a quiet environment or where basic knowledge makes it easier to learn new

information). Abdullah and Khayruddin (2012) argue that the main objective of the study is to

increase the ability to think in high order thinking. These skills are used in teaching a question

and training based on intelligence. In a study by Abdullah, Malago, Bundu and Talal (2013),

Arends (2008) stated that meta-knowledge uses procedural skills to solve real-life problems or

cognitive conflicts. HOTS requires logical, critical and reflective knowledge.

1.1 Objective of the research

1. To identify the level of metacognition among academician

2. To investigate the lowest and highest categories in metacognition

3. To identify the profile of metacognitive among academician

2.0 Literature Review

Metacognitive knowledge is what people perceive as themselves and others as cognitive

processors;

Declarative knowledge: Knowledge of content (declarative knowledge), which includes their

own abilities, as a student assessing their knowledge of the subject in class. It should be noted

that not all metacognitions are accurate. Studies have shown that students often confuse lack of

effort and understanding when they assess themselves and their general knowledge of the

concept. Lai, Emily (April 2011). In addition, better self-esteem is associated with good
performance and less accurate metacognitive judgment of performance. (Molenbergs, Pascal;

Troutwein, Finn-Mathis; Beckler, Anna; Singer, Tanya; Maybe, Philippe, 2016)

Procedural knowledge: Task knowledge (procedural knowledge), this is how we perceive the

complexity of the task, which consists of the content, duration and type of mission. The study

mentioned in the content of knowledge also relates to the ability of a person to assess the

complexity of a task associated with its overall effectiveness. Again, the accuracy of this

knowledge was distorted because students who believed their path was better / easier also

seemed to make grades worse, while students said strictly and continuously that he was not so

sure of himself but he did better in the initial rankings.

Conditional knowledge: Strategic knowledge (conditional knowledge), that is, the ability to use

strategies to study information. Young children are not particularly good in this regard; only

when students are in high school do they begin to understand effective strategies.

Regulation of cognition

Metacognitive regulation is the regulation of the learning process through a set of actions that

help people control their learning.

Planning: Choice of strategies, the right strategies and the correct distribution of resources that

affect productivity.

Information management strategies: A sequence of skills and strategies used to process

information more effectively, for example, organization, development, synthesis and selective

development.

Comprehension monitoring: Assessment of learning strategies or strategies used.

Debugging strategies: Strategies to correct comprehension and performance error

Evaluation: Evaluate the end result of the task and the efficiency with which the task was

accomplished. This may include reassessment strategies.

3.0 Methodology

The main objective of this study is to identify the level of metacognitive and to analyze the

pattern of metacognitive among academician. The study involved academician from difference

background and experience have been chosen with 33 academicians as respondents. The

questionnaires revised from Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. The inventory developed by

Schraw and Dennison (1994) was adapted to Turkish by Akin, Abaci, and Cetin (2007) who also

performed its validity and reliability studies. The true-false inventory with 52 items consists of

two main sub-factors and their components. These factors are knowledge of cognition and

regulation of cognition. The knowledge of cognition sub-factor consists of declarative

knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge components while the regulation

of cognition sub-factor includes planning, monitoring, evaluation, debugging and information

management.
4.0 Data Analysis and Findings

Table 1 : Level of Metacognitive

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid LOW 6 18.2 18.2 18.2
HIGH 27 81.8 81.8 100.0
Total 33 100.0 100.0

Based on the table above is the level of metacognition, the total respondents for this study is 33
(N=33) the low level of metacognition is 6 respondents and 27 of respondent consider as high
level of metacognitive.

Table 2 : Categories of Metacognition

N Mean Std. Deviation Weightage %
Declarativeknowledge 33 4.33 1.85 54.13
Proceduralknowledge 33 1.94 1.03 48.5
Conditionalknowledge 33 3.55 1.03 71
Planning 33 4.79 1.41 68.42
IMS 33 5.70 1.74 57
Comprehensionmonitoring 33 3.97 1.79 56.71
Debuggingstrategies 33 4.06 .93 81.2
Evaluation 33 3.21 1.36 53.5
Valid N (listwise) 33

Based on the table above, there are categories of metacognitive for both component which is
knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. Every dimension shown has difference
score. For this data, the column weightage show the percentage of every dimension to make the
value fair. For declarative knowledge, the weightage is 54.13%, next is procedural knowledge
which is 48.5%. For conditional knowledge get 71% also consider high percentage. Move to
planning get 68.42%, information management strategies get 57%, comprehension strategies get
56.71. The next is debugging strategies get 81.2% and the last one is evaluation which is only
53.5%. The highest score for the dimension is debugging strategies which are 81.2% and the
lowest score is procedural knowledge which is 48.5%.

Figure 1: The individual profile of metacognition

50

45

40

35

30

25
SCORE

20

15

10

0
15

17

25

27
1

11

13

19

21

23

29

31

33
ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE
ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE

ILE
OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF
OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF
PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR
PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR
INDIVIDUAL PROFILE

Based on the table above, there are 33 profile of each respondent. The score is based on

the two component of metacognitive which are knowledge about cognition and regulation

of cognition included of eight dimension (declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge,

conditional knowledge, planning, information management strategies, comprehension

monitoring, debugging strategies and the last dimension is evaluation). Every profile got

difference score which is the highest score for metacognitive among academician is

profile 19 (46/52) and consider high level of metacognitive. The lowest score is 15/52
which profiles no 1 and considers as low level of metacognitive. Based on the finding, 6

respondents have low level of metacognitive and 27 respondents have high level of

metacognitive.

5.0 Conclusion

The result showed that there is a high level of metacognitive among academician. The

importance of the field of metacognition has a major impact on the conduct of this study.

The key elements of critical thinking, such as a greater range of cognitive skills by up

skilled and reskilled their previous knowledge or experience. The two component of

metacognitive which are knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition have

their own sub topic that every dimension have the own meaning and can help any

individual to determined their level of metacognitive to do an improvement. This study

also determined the individual profile on metacognitive. The purpose of the individual

profile is to see which dimension needs to be improved and also to analyze the weakness

and strength of every respondent. Therefore, this study aims to provide academician with

the opportunity to change or improve their skill based on the individual profile of

metacognitive. The results also indicate a professional academician should have ability to

make decisions and think. Educator should not just focus on content. Everything need to

linked actively make decisions during teaching and ensure that the objectives of the

lesson to the students will be matched. It’s necessary to improve the educator's career by

upgrading their skills. The use of metacognitive in every dimension can improve and

develop their skills in future for better education.

6.0 Limitation and future research

In future study, researcher may need to consider studying with a population and a larger

sample. For this study, only focus on 33 academicians with difference age, background

and experience. Therefore, the instruments should be modify to ensure the finding and

data is easy to access, it is because for this study only use true and false. This study also

has some limitations in the sampling technique used. Therefore, in future studies it is

important to identify the best sampling methods, as this will facilitate research and may

represent the required participants for future research.

References

Abdullah, H., Malago,J. D., Bundu,P.,& Thalib,S.B. (2013). The use of Metacognitive

Knowledge Patterns to Compose Physics Higher Order Thinking Problems: Asia Paci

c Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 14(2), 1.

Abdullah, H. & Khaeruddin (2012). Study on Metacognitive Knowledge in Student Physics

Education Program, State University of Makassar. Makassar: Lembaga Penelitian UNM

Arends, R.I. (2008). Learning To Teach. (7th ed.). NewYork: Mc.Graw Hill Companies, Inc

Coutinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success.

Educate~, 7(1), 39-47. Retrieved from http://educatejournal.org/index.php/educat

e/article/view/116

Girash, J. (2014). Metacognition and instruction. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M.

Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the

curriculum (pp. 152-168). Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved from

http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/inde x.php

Stanton, J. D., Neider, X. N., Gallegos, I. J., & Clark, N. C. (2015). Differences in metacognitive

regulation in introductory biology students: When prompts are not enough. CBE-Life

Sciences Education, 14(2), ar15. https://doi. org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135

Lai, Emily (April 2011). "Metacognition: A Literature Review" (PDF). Metacognition: A

Literature Review PDF. Retrieved 23 April 2016.

Molenberghs, Pascal; Trautwein, Fynn-Mathis; Böckler, Anne; Singer, Tania; Kanske, Philipp (1

December 2016). "Neural correlates of metacognitive ability and of feeling confident: a

 large-scale fMRI study". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 11 (12): 1942–

1951. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw093. ISSN 1749-5024. PMC 5141950. PMID 27445213