Metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of university students Essay Example for Free

Metacognition intimacy and faculty member achievement of university students EssayIn 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 cognition and skills it requires, combined with the agility to sham correct inferences about how to apply ones strategic knowledge to a particular situation, and to do so efficiently and reliably. The more students be aware of their thinking processes as they learn, the more they can support much(prenominal) matters as goals, dispositions, and attention. Self-awareness promotes self-regulation.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 centre (or wandering) is their attention to a thinking or writing task, they can regulate their commitment, disposition, and attenti on. To increase their metacognitive abilities, students motive to take in three kinds of content knowledge declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative knowledge is the factual information that one knows it can be declaredspoken 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 dodging and when non to use it why a procedure works and under what conditions and why one procedure is offend than an new(prenominal). Metacognition affects motivation because it affects attribution and self-efficacy. When students get resolvents 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 m ight 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 instructors perverse testing habits, or bad luck. This aim to attribute success to ability and effort promotes future success because it develops confidence in ones ability to solve future unfamiliar and challenging tasks. The converse is also true. Attributing failure to a privation of ability reducesself-confidence and reduces the students 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 prot ect 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 strategy for preparing for a multiple choice test in biology is different from what is needed to prepare for a recital exam with an essay that asks students to synthesize information from several chapters. Yet students often employ the same strategyand sometimes the least effective strategyfor studying for very different kinds of tests. Furthermore, many students who perform disadvantageously 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 plan ned to collect data from University of education (UE) and Govt. College University Lahore (GCU). 20 five (25) students were collected of UE and Twenty five (25) students from GCU randomly.Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) was use to measure meta-cognitive knowledge. This inventory consisted of hexad fragments i. e. Planning, monitoring, evaluation, declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge and procedural knowledge but researcher selected three theatrical roles 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 brokers 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 contravention b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of students. Alternative hypothesis There is difference b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic achievement o f students. Ho ? 1 = ? 2 Ha ? 1 ? ?2 Table 1. 1 Comparison of pixilated pull ahead of UE students and repute brand of GCU students on member of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative knowledge) by freelance samples t-test. University of Education (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t- rank imply(a) SD flirt with SD 6. 21 1. 63 6. 52 1. 23 .749The result of independent samples t-test was conducted to compare mean places of UE students and mean bulls eye of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). The value of t (48) = . 749 is not epochal at ? =0. 05. This office that mean rafts of UE students and center take a leak of GCU students are not different on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). common fig 1. 1 public house chart shows comparison of mean gain ground 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 separate samples t-test. University of Education (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t-value sozzled SD Mean SD 2. 98 .87 3. 10 1. 08 .430 Table 1. 2 shows the result of independent samples t-test. nonparasitic 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 substantive 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 evidential 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 Univers ity (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 twain universities students by Independent samples t-test UE GCU Low Achiever (n=25) High 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 Condi tional 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 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 mundane life by students. The target population for this study was the students of UE and GCU Lahore. The researcher selected sample by using expedient sampling technique from the students of UE and GCU Lahore. Fifteen items wee included in the questionnaire taken from met a-cognitive awareness inventory.After the filling 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 ascorbic acid% 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.