 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 19, Issue 1, Article 4 (Jun., 2018) |
General background to the research
This research took place in the third semester of 2015 in the Biology Education Department, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. It took the form of an explorative survey that sought to provide a true description of the participants’ thinking in light of selected variables, in this case, aspects of metacognitive knowledge. Without intervention, participants’ metacognitive knowledge was measured using the MAI. The results for the three metacognitive knowledge types were then compared, analyzed statistically, and reviewed in light of a review of relevant literature. The description of students’ metacognitive knowledge is useful for lecturers in assisting them to optimally implement the learning process to maximize achievement of learning objectives.
The participants involved in this research were pre-service biology teachers in the third semester of their training. The participants were divided between four classes, and numbered 122 students in total. The students were divided between classes by the Biology Education Study Programme based on administrative considerations, not on considerations of academic achievement. All the participants completed the metacognition measurement instruments. The research and sampling was granted permission by the Post Graduate Programme of the State University of Malang to the Biology Education Department of the Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Metacognition was measured using the MAI, which is a tool developed some time ago (Schraw & Dennison, 1994a) that has since been used extensively worldwide (Corebima, 2009; Jacobse & Harskamp, 2012). The reliability of this instrument has also been extensively tested, such as in the study carried out by Sperling et al. (2002), and this suggests that it is appropriate for collecting data regarding metacognition.
The MAI consists of 52 question items, 17 addressing knowledge of cognition and 35 addressing the regulation of cognition. The knowledge of cognition questions address eight declarative knowledge items, four procedural knowledge items, and five conditional knowledge items. The regulation of cognition questions address seven planning items, 10 items relating to information management strategies, seven comprehension monitoring items, five items relating to debugging strategy, and six evaluation items (Schraw & Dennison, 1994a).
The MAI used was modified by applying a Likert scale, The use of which is intended to determine the level or gradation of participants’ responses. Furthermore, the scores collected for each type of knowledge were converted into a scale of 100, using the formula
The scores obtained for each type of knowledge were then analyzed by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). As assumption tests, a normality test and a homogeneity test were performed before hypothesis testing. The normality test used was the Shapiro-Wilk test and the homogeneity test used was Levene’s test (Hidayat, 2014). The results of the ANOVA test were followed up by a post hoc LSDtest if needed. All the statistical tests were performed using SPSS 22 for Windows.
