Metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of university students

In general, metacognition is thinking about thinking. More specifically, Taylor (1999) defines metacognition as “an appreciation of what one already knows, together with a correct apprehension of the learning task and what knowledge and skills it requires, combined with the agility to make correct inferences about how to apply one’s strategic knowledge to a particular situation, and to do so efficiently and reliably. ” The more students are aware of their thinking processes as they learn, the more they can control such matters as goals, dispositions, and attention. Self-awareness promotes self-regulation.

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!


order now

If students are aware of how committed (or uncommitted) they are to reaching goals, of how strong (or weak) is their disposition to persist, and of how focused (or wandering) is their attention to a thinking or writing task, they can regulate their commitment, disposition, and attention. To increase their metacognitive abilities, students need to possess three kinds of content knowledge: declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative knowledge is the factual information that one knows; it can be declared—spoken or written. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to do something, of how to perform the steps in a process.

Conditional knowledge is knowledge about when to use a procedure, skill, or strategy and when not to use it; why a procedure works and under what conditions; and why one procedure is better than another. Metacognition affects motivation because it affects attribution and self-efficacy. When students get results on tests and grades on assignments (especially unexpected results such as failures), they perform a mental causal search to explain to themselves why the results happened. When they achieve good results, students tend to attribute the result to two internal factors: their own ability and effort.

When they fail, they might attribute the cause to these same internal factors or they might, in a self-protective rationalization, distance themselves from a sense of personal failure by blaming external causes, such as an overly difficult task, an instructor’s perverse testing habits, or bad luck. This tendency to attribute success to ability and effort promotes future success because it develops confidence in one’s ability to solve future unfamiliar and challenging tasks. The converse is also true. Attributing failure to a lack of ability reduces

self-confidence and reduces the student’s summoning of intellectual and emotional abilities to the next challenging tasks; attribution theory also explains why such students will be unwilling to seek help from tutors and other support services: they believe it would not be worth their effort. In addition to blaming failure on external causes, underachievers often “self-handicap” themselves by deliberately putting little effort into an academic task; they thereby protect themselves from attributing their failure to a painful lack of ability by attributing their failure to lack of effort.

The tasks that students need to perform vary not only among disciplines but among instructors in the same discipline. An effective strategy for preparing for a multiple choice test in biology is different from what is needed to prepare for a history exam with an essay that asks students to synthesize information from several chapters. Yet students often employ the same strategy—and sometimes the least effective strategy—for studying for very different kinds of tests. Furthermore, many students who perform badly misinterpret the tasks.

Students need to understand the task accurately in order to use the most effective strategies. Research Question: The basic aim of the study was to identify the relationship between meta-cognitive knowledge and academic achievement of university students. Methods: To analysis and interpretation of data and Survey was planned to collect data from University of education (UE) and Govt. College University Lahore (GCU). Twenty five (25) students were collected of UE and Twenty five (25) students from GCU randomly.

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) was used to measure meta-cognitive knowledge. This inventory consisted of six components i. e. Planning, monitoring, evaluation, declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge and procedural knowledge but researcher selected three components i. e. declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge, and procedural knowledge. Responses were collected on three point scale i. e. Yes, no and to some extent. Scores of these components were used to compare Metacognitive knowledge of UE and GCU students. Analysis of data was presented in the form of Tables.

Null hypothesis: There is no difference b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of students. Alternative hypothesis: There is difference b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of students. Ho: ? 1 = ? 2 Ha: ? 1 ? ?2 Table 1. 1 Comparison of mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative Knowledge) by Independent samples t-test. University of Education (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t-value Mean SD Mean SD 6. 21 1. 63 6. 52 1. 23 .749

The result of independent samples t-test was conducted to compare mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). The value of t (48) = . 749 is not significant at ? =0. 05. This means that mean scores of UE students and means score of GCU students are not different on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). Fig 1. 1 Bar chart shows comparison of mean scores of UE students and means score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). Table 1.

2 Comparison of mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Conditional Knowledge) by Independent samples t-test. University of Education (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t-value Mean SD Mean SD 2. 98 .87 3. 10 1. 08 .430 Table 1. 2 shows the result of independent samples t-test. Independent samples t-test was conducted to compare mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Conditional Knowledge). The value of t (48) = . 430 is not significant at ? =0. 05.

This means that mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students are not different on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Conditional Knowledge). Fig 1. 2 Bar chart shows comparison of mean scores of UE students and means score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). Table 1. 3 Comparison of mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive awareness (Procedural Knowledge) by Independent samples t-test. University of Education (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t-value Mean SD Mean SD 4. 16 1. 01 3. 76 1. 109 1.

328 Table 1. 3 shows the result of independent samples t-test. Independent samples t-test was conducted to compare mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Procedural Knowledge). The value of t (48) = 1. 328 is not significant at ? =0. 05. This means that means scores of UE students and means score of GCU students are same on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Procedural Knowledge). Fig 1. 3 Bar chart shows comparison of mean scores of UE students and means score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative Knowledge).

Table 1. 4 Comparison of mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge by Independent samples t-test University of Education (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t-value Mean SD Mean SD 13. 38 2. 83 13. 30 2. 60 .104 Table 1. 4 shows the result of independent samples t-test. Independent samples t-test was conducted to compare mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive by Independent samples t-test. The value of t (48) = . 104 is not significant at ? =0.

05. This means that mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students are same on component of Meta cognitive by Independent samples t-test. Fig 1. 4 Bar chart shows comparison of mean scores of UE students and means score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). Table 1. 5 Comparison of mean scores of academic achievement and Meta cognitive knowledge of both universities student’s by Independent samples t-test UE & GCU Low Achiever (n=25) High Achiever (n=25) t-value Mean SD Mean SD Declarative knowledge

5. 08 1. 49 7. 33 0. 78 4. 64 Procedural Knowledge 2. 46 0. 72 3. 46 0. 72 3. 48 Conditional Knowledge 3. 50 1. 07 4. 77 0. 44 4. 0 Meta-cognitive knowledge 11. 04 2. 18 15. 54 1. 09 6. 6 Table 1. 5 shows the result of independent samples t-test. Independent samples t-test was conducted to compare mean scores of academic achievement and Meta cognitive knowledge of both universities student’s by Independent samples t-test. These results show that mean scores of Metacognitive knowledge and academic achievement of both universities student’s are different.

Procedure: To fulfill the above mentioned purpose instrumentation, data collection methods and procedures for analysis of data were used. The study was descriptive in nature as it addressed the prevailing situation of using meta-cognitive knowledge in daily life by students. The target population for this study was the students of UE and GCU Lahore. The researcher selected sample by using convenient sampling technique from the students of UE and GCU Lahore. Fifteen items wee included in the questionnaire taken from meta-cognitive awareness inventory.

After the selection of sample and development of the questionnaire, the questionnaires were distributed. The questionnaire was administered personally by the respondent and filled questionnaire collected back. The return rate of the questionnaire was 100% due to personal administration. To analyze the data means standard deviations, independent sample t. test, was calculated. Results: 1. The mean score of Meta-cognitive knowledge (declarative knowledge) of University of Education are same from mean score of Govt. College University. Because the value of t is not significant at ?

=0. 05. 2. The mean score of Meta-cognitive knowledge (conditional knowledge) of University of Education are same from mean score of Govt. College University. Because the value of t is not significant at ? =0. 05. 3. The mean score of Meta-cognitive knowledge (procedural knowledge) of (UE) are same from mean score of (GCU) because the value of t is not significant at ? =0. 05. 4. The mean score of Meta cognitive Knowledge and mean score of academic achievement are different among both universities. Because the value of t is significant at ? =0. 05.