Metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of university students Essay

In general, metacognition is thought process well-nigh thinking. More specifically, Taylor (1999) defines metacognition as an appreciation of what unrivaled already knows, together with a squ ar up apprehension of the learning working class and what acquaintance and skills it requires, combined with the agility to make crystalize inferences some how to apply ones strategic familiarity to a special(prenominal) situation, and to do so efficiently and reliably. The much students argon aw be of their thinking processes as they learn, the more they enkindle control such(prenominal) matters as goals, longings, and attention. Self- sentiency promotes self-regulation.If students are aware of how perpetrate (or uncommitted) they are to reaching goals, of how strong (or weak) is their disposition to persist, and of how foc employ (or wandering) is their attention to a thinking or writing task, they can gravel their commitment, disposition, and attention. To increase their met acognitive abilities, students need to possess terce kinds of content familiarity indicative, procedural, and conditional. asserting(prenominal) familiarity is the factual information that one knows it can be declaredspoken or written. Procedural companionship is knowledge of how to do something, of how to make the steps in a process.Conditional knowledge is knowledge about when to use a procedure, skill, or system and when non to use it why a procedure works and under what conditions and why one procedure is better than a nonher. Metacognition affects pauperism because it affects attri exception and self-efficacy. When students get issuings on establishs and grades on assignments (especially unexpected results such as trials), they accomplish a mental causal chase to explain to themselves why the results happened. When they achieve veracious results, students tend to attribute the result to ii inwrought factors their own baron and effort.When they fail, they pow erfulness attribute the cause to these said(prenominal) internal factors or they might, in a self-protective rationalization, remoteness themselves from a sense of personal failure by blaming outside(a) causes, such as an overly difficult task, an instructors perverse testing habits, or seriously luck. This tendency to attribute success to superpower and effort promotes future success because it develops arrogance in ones ability to solve future unfamiliar and challenge tasks. The converse is also true. Attributing failure to a lack of ability reducesself-confidence and reduces the students summoning of intellectual and horny abilities to the next challenging tasks attribution supposition also explains why such students entrust be unwilling to seek champion from tutors and other support services they desire it would not be worth their effort. In addition to blaming failure on external causes, underachievers often self-handicap themselves by deliberately place little eff ort into an schoolman 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 impressive schema for preparing for a multiple choice test in biology is diametrical from what is required to prepare for a history trial run with an essay that asks students to synthesize information from several(prenominal) chapters. Yet students often employ the same strategyand sometimes the least effective strategyfor studying for very dissimilar kinds of tests. Furthermore, many students who perform badly rede the tasks.Students need to understand the task accurately in order to use the to the highest degree effective strategies. Research Question The basal aim of the study was to identify the kin between meta-cognitive knowledge and donnish performance of university students. Metho ds To summary and interpretation of data and keep an eye on was planned to collect data from University of reproduction (UE) and Govt. College University Lahore (GCU). 20 five (25) students were self-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 regions i. e. Planning, monitoring, evaluation, declaratory knowledge, conditional knowledge and procedural knowledge but researcher selected three contributions 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 fortunes were used to canvass Metacognitive knowledge of UE and GCU students. Analysis of data was presented in the form of turn offs.Null hypothesis in that respect is no difference b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic attainment of students. preference hy pothesis There is difference b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic performance of students. Ho ? 1 = ? 2 Ha ? 1 ? ?2 control panel 1. 1 resemblance of misbegot hit of UE students and misbegot commemorate of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative friendship) by self-governing ideals t-test. University of tuition (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t- shelter toy with SD Mean SD 6. 21 1. 63 6. 52 1. 23 .749The result of sovereign samples t-test was conducted to equate basal rafts of UE students and ungenerous order of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). The jimmy of t (48) = . 749 is not crucial at ? =0. 05. This stand fors that take to be heaps of UE students and agency pass water of GCU students are not different on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). Fig 1. 1 obstruct graph exhibitions comparison of stiff readys of UE students and inculpates sco re of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). control board 1.2 Comparison of soaked scores of UE students and specify score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Conditional Knowledge) by strong-minded samples t-test. University of learning (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 cerebrate 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 pregnant at ? =0. 05.This way of life 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 knowledg e (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 teaching method (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 mea n 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 students by Independent samples t-test UE & GCU Low Achiever (n=25) mettl esome Achiever (n=25) t-value Mean SD Mean SD Declarative knowledge5. 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 students by Independent samples t-test. These results show that mean scores of Metacognitive knowledge and academic achievement of both universities students are different.Procedure To fulfill the to a higher place mentioned purpose instrumentation, data collection methods and procedures for analysis of data were used. The study was descriptive in nature as it addressed the customary situation of using meta-cognitive knowledge in daily life by students. The put population for this study was the students of UE and GCU Lahore. The researc her selected sample by using convenient sample technique from the students of UE and GCU Lahore. Fifteen items wee include in the questionnaire taken from meta-cognitive awareness inventory. afterward the selection of sample and development of the questionnaire, the questionnaires were distributed. The questionnaire was administered in person by the respondent and filled questionnaire collected back. The return rate of the questionnaire was 100% collectable 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.