Assessment of Metacognition in Mathematics: Which One of Two Methods is a Better Predictor of Mathematics Achievement?

Abstract

In recent years metacognition was discussed as a significant concept in mathematics education. However, means of measuring metacognition efficiently is still a problem. This problem has been at the center of a scientific debate about which instruments are more suitable. In this study two off-line methods, student and teacher evaluations were used. The aim of this research is to investigate which one of the evaluation form (teacher form versus student form) is the predictor of mathematic achievement. For this aim two studies were carried out. In the first study mathematics achievements of students were measured by mathematic scores in their reports. In the second study it was measured by more standard test called Placement test (Seviye Belirleme Sınavı -SBS). In the first study 408 primary school students from a state school participated. Only sixth grade students who attended SBS exam of the first study were taken the second study. According to results of this study that aimed to investigate which one of the evaluation forms (teacher form versus student form) is the predictor of mathematics achievement, instead of the results of students evaluation form, the results of teacher evaluation form are the main predictor of the mathematics scores of students. Teacher evaluation form alone explains about 51 % of the variance in mathematics achievement.

Metacognition and motivation as predictors for mathematics performance of Belgian elementary school children

“…However, other calculation procedures and indices are possible as well (Boekaerts and Rozendaal 2010;Desender et al 2017), such as the ones that have been used in calibration accuracy and metacognitive monitoring studies (Chen 2002;García et al 1016;Lin et al 2001;Lin and Zabrucky 1998;Schraw et al 2013;2014) to identify correct and/or incorrect performances. This might have given different study outcomes (Desoete 2008).…”

“…Although the metacognitive concept is over 40 years old, researchers keep using different definitions for this construct (Baten et al 2017;Brown 1987;Gascoine et al 2017;Perfect and Schwartz 2002;Tarricone 2011). In addition, different evaluators (Ozcan 2014) and techniques to assess metacognition (Desoete 2008;Fleming and Lau, 2014;Sperling et al 2002;Veenman 2011) render studies difficult to compare. A methodical review of the assessment of metacognition for children aged 4-16 years over a 20-year period (1992-2012) revealed that self-report measures (including questionnaires, surveys and tests) comprise 61% of the included tools (Gascoine et al 2017).…”

Metacognitive Knowledge and Skills in Students with Deep Approach to Learning. Evidence from Mathematical Problem Solving // Conocimiento y habilidades metacognitivas en estudiantes con un enfoque profundo de aprendizaje. Evidencias en la resolución de problemas matemáticos

“…Another explanation for these results could be related to the distinction between on-line and offline measures, and the low degree of correspondence they show (Özcan, 2014;Veenman, 2011). It is necessary to point out that the use of deep approach to learning and metacognitive knowledge were assessed by means of questionnaires (i.e., offline measures) in the present study, while metacognitive skills were evaluated though the administration of a measure of the process, concurrent to problem-solving performance (i.e., on-line measures).…”

Analysis of metacognition difficulties in problem-solving static fluid material in term of Hippocrates – Galenus personality type

“…Problem-solving steps include Understanding the Problem (Understanding the Problem), Making a problem-solving plan (Devising A Plan), Implementing the plan (Carrying Out The Plan), and checking back the results obtained (Looking Back). The conclusion is that the steps in problem-solving are Understanding the problem, Making a problemsolving plan, Implementing the solving plan that has created, Checking back the results that have been obtained or interpreting the results obtained [7].…”