The Effect of Teaching Activities Organized to Improve Metacognition Upon Teacher Candidates' Metacognitive Awareness

Year 2022, Volume: 23 Issue: 1, 23 - 51, 01.03.2022

Gamze Kaplan , Çığıl Aykut

https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.715775

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of metacognitive learning activities presented in the lesson on the development of metacognitive awareness of teacher candidates. The study was conducted in the course of Integration in Special Education in the second year curriculum of the Department of Special Education.
Method: A quasi-experimental method was conducted in the research. The pre-test post-test control group design was utilized. The students were assigned to two categories: The experimental group (n = 20) and the control group (n = 20). Groups were randomly divided into two categories. Data were collected using Metacognitive Awareness Inventory.
Findings: When the experimental group and the control group were compared, no significant difference was found between metacognitive awareness in terms of total score obtained from the scale. While there was a significant difference in the planning from the sub-dimensions of the scale in favor of the experimental group, there was no significant difference in the other sub-dimensions. When the groups were compared with each other, there was a difference between the total score. There was also a difference between the declarative knowledge and evaluation sub-dimensions in favor of the experimental group.
Discussion: The study revealed that the metacognitive learning activities resulted in a change in metacognitive awareness. It also showed that the teacher candidates’ metacognitive awareness was low. There were limitations in their development and acquisition prior to the implementation.

Keywords

Metacognition, metacognitive awareness, special education, teacher trainig, higher education

Üstbilişi Geliştirmek İçin Düzenlenmiş Olan Öğretim Etkinliklerinin Öğretmen Adaylarının Üstbilişsel Farkındalıklarına Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Giriş: Bu araştırmada öğretim elemanı tarafından dersin sunulmasında kullanılan üstbilişi düzenleyici öğretim etkinliklerinin öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının gelişimi ve akademik başarıları üzerindeki etkisi belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Uygulama özel eğitim öğretmenliği bölümü ikinci sınıf müfredatında yer alan Bütünleştirme dersinde yapılmıştır.
Yöntem: Araştırmada ön-test son-test kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel model kullanılmış, araştırmaya deney (n = 20) ve kontrol (n = 20) olmak üzere toplam 40 öğrenci katılmıştır. Veriler Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Envanteri kullanılarak toplanmış, bağımsız örneklemler t-testi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Araştırma sonunda gruplar kendi içinde ön-test ve son-test puanları açısından karşılaştırıldığında ölçekten alınan toplam puan bakımından anlamlı fark oluşmadığı görülmüştür. Ölçeğin alt boyutları incelendiğinde deney grubunda planlamada alt boyutunda anlamlı fark bulunurken, diğer alt boyutlarda ise her iki grupta da ön-test ve son-test puanları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık oluşmadığı görülmüştür. Gruplar birbiri ile karşılaştırıldığında ise ölçekten alınan toplam puan, açıklayıcı bilgi ve değerlendirme alt boyutları arasında gruplar arasında fark olduğu belirlenmiştir.
Tartışma: Yapılan uygulamanın üstbilişsel farkındalıkta bir değişime neden olduğu, öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının düşük düzeyde olduğu ve müdahale edilmedikçe gelişiminde ve kazanılmasında sınırlılıklar bulunduğu görülmüştür. Lisans düzeyinde Yükseköğretim Kurulunun ve mesleki yeterlilikler konusunda Milli Eğitim Bakanlığının yaptığı düzenlemelerde öz değerlendirme, öz düzenleme gibi beceriler öğretmenlik mesleği için birer gereklilik olarak belirtilmiştir. Bu nedenle tanımlamış olan yeterlilikleri karşılayacak düzenlemelerin işlevsel hale getirilmesine, öğretmen adaylarının seçimi ve atanması sırasında bu yeterliklerin karşılanmasına ilişkin alternatif değerlendirme yolları geliştirmesine ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

Üstbiliş, üstbilişsel farkındalık, özel eğitim, öğretmen yetiştirme, yükseköğretim

References

• Akın, A. & Abacı, R. (2011). Biliş ötesi. Ankara: Nobel.
• Akın, A., Abacı, R. & Çetin, B. (2007). Bilişötesi Farkındalık Envanteri'nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 7 (2), 655-680.
• Artzt, A. F. & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175.
• Baird, J.R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. Yayınlandığı kitap E. Hegarty-Hazel (Editör), The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum (183-200). London: Routledge.
• Baker, L. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive Skills of Reading. Pearson.
• Banas, C., Lopez, A., Mellado, V. & Ruız, C. (2009). Metacognition and professional development of secondary education science teachers: a case study. Journal of Education Research, 3(1/2), 129-148.
• Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221-252.
• Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive Development (263-340). New York: Wiley
• Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12.
• Brown, A.L. (1977). Knowıng when, where, and howto remember: a problem of metacognıtıon. University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois. Erişim tarihi: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED146562 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1996). Psychological learning theory and the design of innovative environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L.
• Shauble & R. Glaser (Eds.). Contributions of instructional innovation to understanding learning. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
• Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence, 12, 231-235.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring-A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
• Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. & Miller, S. (2002). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem based learning: Where did it come from, what does ıt do, and where is it going. Journal of the Educaion of the Gifted, 20 (4), 332–362
• Garner, R. & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and Unanswered Questions. Educational Psychologist, 24(2).
• Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). The educational psychology series. Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hammerness, K. (2006). Seeing through teachers’ eyes: Professional ideas and classroom practices. New York, NY: teachers Collage Press.
• Hartman, H.J. (1998). Metacognition in teaching and learning; an introduction. Instructional Science, 26, 1-3.
• Hollingworth, R. & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Developing Science Students’ Metacognitive Problem Solving Skills Online. Australian Jounral of Educational Technology, 17, 50-63.
• House, A.W., House, B.G., & Campbell, M. B. (1981). Measures of interobserver agreement: Calculation formula and distribution effect. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3, 37-57.
• Jacobs, J. & Paris, S. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading. Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
• Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (24. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
• Kramarski, B., Mavarech, Z. R. & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic Tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225-250.
• Lewis, C.C. (1998). Educating hearts and minds. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lin, X. D., & Lehman, J. (1999). Supporting learning of a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 1-22
• Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An Overview. http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/ shuell/CEP564/Metacog.htm. sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Lucangeli, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1997). Mathematics and metacognition: What is the nature of relationship. Mathematical Cognition, 3, 121–139.
• Marshall, M. (2003). Metacognition thinking about thinking is essential for learning. Teachers.Net Gazzette, 4(3).
• Panaoura, A., & Philippou, G. (2005). The measurement of young pupils’ metacognitive ability in mathematics: The case of self-representation and self-evaluation. Proceedings of CERME, Vol.4.
• Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice. 41(4), 219-225.
• Santrock, J. W. (2001). Educational psychology. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Company.
• Scheidler, K. P. (1994). Changing teacher thinking in school restructuring: A view from the trenches. Journal of Education, 176 (2), 45-56.
• Schnider, W. (1998). Performance prediction in young children: Effects of skills, metacognition an wishful thinking. Developmental Science. 1(2), 291-297.
• Schoenfeld, A.H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A.H. Schoenfeld, ed., Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125.
• Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-371.
• Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994) Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology 19,460–475.
• Sezgin-Memnun, D., & Akkaya, R. (2012). An investigation of pre-service primary school Mathematics, Science and Classroom Teachers’ Metacognitive Awareness in terms of knowledge of and regulation of cognition. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(3), 312-329.
• Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: Ashifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271.
• Simons, P.R.J. (1996). Metacognition. In E. De Corte & F.E. Weinert (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Developmental and Instructional Psychology içinde (pp. 436-444). Oxford, UK. Elsevier Science.
• Spillane, J.S., & Jennings, N.E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449-481.
• Stein, K.F., & Markus, H.R. (1996). The role of the self in behavior change. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 6(4), 349–384.
• Wilson, J. (2001). Methodological difficulties of assessing metacognition: A new approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia, December 2-6.