Kesadaran Metakognitif Mahasiswa Melalui Pembelajaran Mandiri

https://doi.org/10.25273/florea.v9i2.14435

Authors

Keywords:

Metacognitive, Awareness, Knowledge, Regulation

Abstract

Metacognitive awareness is essential in learning, which includes knowledge about cognition and regulation about cognition. This study aims to 1) To know the average value of metacognitive awareness of biology education students which includes knowledge about cognition and regulation about cognition. 2) To know the percentage of student knowledge about cognition. 3) To know the percentage of student regulation about cognition. 4) To know the percentage of students metacognitive awareness. The instrument used is Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994) which contains 52 questions with a score of 1 (true) and 0 (false). The results show that the mean value of metacognitive awareness is declarative knowledge (5,4); procedural knowledge (2,6); conditional knowledge (3.8); planning (4.9); information management strategy (6.4); understanding monitoring (4.8), search strategy (4.3) and evaluation (3.6). The percentage of knowledge about cognition of students with high (37.78%); medium (15.50%) and low (46.67%). The percentage of regulation about cognition of students with high (34.44%); medium (34.44%) and low (31.12%). The percentage of students metacognitive awareness with high (36.67%), medium (28.89%) and low (34.44%) so that there should be efforts to increase metacognitive awareness in biology education students.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Wachidatul Linda Yuhanna, Universitas PGRI Madiun

Pendidikan Biologi

Nuri Ati Ningsih, Universitas PGRI Madiun

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

References

Akman, Ö., & Alagöz, B. (2018). Relation between Metacognitive Awareness and Participation to Class Discussion of University Students.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works:Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

Aydın, S. (2015). An Analysis of the Relationship Between High School Students' Self-Efficacy, Metacognitive Strategy Use and Their Academic Motivation for Learn Biology. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(2), 53-59.

Bensley, D. A., & Spero, R. A. (2014). Improving Critical Thinking Skills and Metacognitive Monitoring through Direct Infusion. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 55-68.

Brown, A. L. (1987). Control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Chantharanuwong, W., Thatthong, K., Yuenyong, C., & Thomas, G. P. (2012). Exploring the Metacognitive Orientation of the Science Classrooms in A Thai Context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5116-5123.

Corebima, A.D. 2006. Metakognitive Skill Measurement Integrated In Achievement Test. SM310509ADC.

Cotterall, S., & Murray, G. (2009). Enhancing metacognitive knowledge: Structure, affordances and self. System, 37(1), 34-45.

Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462-473.

Dye, K. M., & Stanton, J. D. (2017). Metacognition in Upper-Division Biology Students: Awareness Does Not Always Lead to control. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar31.

Ellis, A. K., Denton, D. W., & Bond, J. B. (2014). An analysis of research on metacognitive teaching strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4015-4024.

Ellis, A., Bond, J., & Denton, D. (2012). An Analytical Literature Review of the Effects of Metacognitive Teaching Strategies in Primary and Secondary Student Populations. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Development, 1(1), 9-23.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.

Freeman, E. E., Karayanidis, F., & Chalmers, K. A. (2017). Metacognitive monitoring of working memory performance and its relationship to academic achievement in Grade 4 children. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 58-64.

Kleitman, S., & Gibson, J. (2011). Metacognitive beliefs, self-confidence and primary learning environment of sixth grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(6), 728-735

Lei, P. L., Sun, C. T., Lin, S. S., & Huang, T. K. (2015). Effect of metacognitive strategies and verbal-imagery cognitive style on biology-based video search and learning performance. Computers & Education, 87, 326-339.

Lukitasari, M., Handhika, J., & Murtafiah, W. (2016, October). Analisis Kebutuhan E-Portofolio Berbasis Metakognisi untuk Meningkatkan Ketrampilan Abad 21. In Prosiding Seminar Biologi (Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 93-96).

Mynlieff, M., Manogaran, A. L., Maurice, M. S., & Eddinger, T. J. (2014). Writing Assignments With A Metacognitive Component Enhance Learning In A Large Introductory Biology Course. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 311-321.

Norman, E., & Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media?. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 301-309.

Öza, H. (2016). Metacognitive Awareness and Academic Motivation: A Cross-Sectional Study in Teacher Education Context of Turkey.

Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Benoit, D. F. (2016). Promoting metacognitive regulation through collaborative problem solving on the web: When scripting does not work. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 325-342.

Rahimirad, M. (2014). The impact of metacognitive strategy instruction on the listening performance of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1485-1491.

Roelle, J., Nowitzki, C., & Berthold, K. (2017). Do cognitive and metacognitive processes set the stage for each other?. Learning and Instruction, 50, 54-64.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460-475.

Stanton JD, Neider XN, Gallegos IJ, Clark NC (2015). Differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: when prompts are not enough. CBE Life Sci Educ 14, ar15.

Veenman MVJ (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In: Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis, ed. C Artelt and B Moschner, Berlin: Waxmann, 75–97.

Yıldız-Feyzioğlu, E., Akpınar, E., & Tatar, N. (2013). Monitoring students’ goal setting and metacognitive knowledge in technology-enhanced learning with metacognitive prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 616-625.

Zhussupova, R., & Kazbekova, M. (2016). Metacognitive strategies as points in teaching reading comprehension. Procedia-Social and Beha

Downloads

Published

2022-11-25

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022)

Section

Articles

License

Every accepted manuscript should be accompanied by "Copyright Transfer Agreement" prior to the article publication.




Florea : Jurnal Biologi dan Pembelajarannya by http://e-journal.unipma.ac.id/index.php/JF is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Author not hold and retain copyright and grant the journal of first publication with the work simultaneously licenced under Creative Commons Atribution Licence that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Â