SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2010 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 157

Turkish version of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory: The validation study

Bilişüstü Yetiler Envanteri'nin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması: Geçerlilik çalışması

Utkun AYDIN
Behiye UBUZ
Pages
30–45
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These results demonstrated that the Turkish version of Jr.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article describes a study measuring metacognition by means of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory developed in the USA which was then adapted to be used in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The survey data from 314 middle school students and 589 tenth grade students were collected in two phases to facilitate both the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These results demonstrated that the Turkish version of Jr.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article describes a study measuring metacognition by means of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory developed in the USA which was then adapted to be used in Turkey. The survey data from 314 middle school students and 589 tenth grade students were collected in two phases to facilitate both the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Furthermore, the reliability analysis of the scores and convergent, discriminant, and subgroup validity coefficients were examined. Findings suggested that the inventory measures two constructs, namely, the knowledge and regulation of cognition. These results demonstrated that the Turkish version of Jr. MAI is a valid and reliable instrument which may serve as useful in guiding future research aiming to understanding students’ metacognitive awareness.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın iki amacı vardır. İlki, bilişüstü yeti boyutlarını belirlemek üzere Bilişüstü Yeti Envanteri’ni Türkçeye uyarlamak, ikincisi ise envanterin geçerlik ve güvenirliğini Türk kültüründe test etmektir. Bilişüstü yeti, bireylerin kendi öğrenme yapısını algılama ve kendi öğrenme özelliklerinin farkında olma gibi zihinsel güçlerini kapsamaktadır. Çalışma, farklı sınıf düzeylerinde 314 ilköğretim öğrencisinin bilişüstü yeti puanlarının yer aldığı açımlayıcı faktör analizi ve 589 onuncu sınıf öğrencisinin bilişüstü yeti puanlarının yer aldığı doğrulayıcı faktör analizi olmak üzere iki aşamadan oluşmaktadır. Öğrencilerin bilişüstü yeti puanlarının güvenirlik analizleri yapılmış ve uyuşum, ayırtedici ve altgrup geçerlikleri incelenmiştir. Bulgular, envanterin “Bilişin Bilgisi” ve “Bilişin Düzenlemesi” olmak üzere iki boyuttan oluştuğunu göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar envanterin, öğrencilerin bilişüstü yetilerini ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, U., UBUZ, B. (2022). Turkish version of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory: The validation study. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 157, 30–45. https://ajindex.com/articles/497782

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students: Relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 94-101.
  2. Allon, M., Gutkin, T. B., & Bruning, R. (1994). The relationship between metacognition and intelligence in normal adolescents: Some tentative but surprising findings. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 93-96.
  3. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley. Borkowski, J. G. (1985). Signs of intelligence: Strategy generalization and metacognition. In S. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children (pp. 105-144).
  4. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  5. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 263-340). New York: Wiley. Brown, A. L. (1978).
  6. Knowing When, Where and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77-165).
  7. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Carr, M., Jessup, D. L., & Fuller, D. (1999). Gender differences in first-grade mathematics strategy use: Parent and teacher contributions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 20-46.
  8. Carr, M., & Jessup, D. L. (1997). Gender differences in first-grade mathematics strategy use: Social and metacognitive influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 318-328.
  9. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum Press.
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131-142.
  11. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. W. (1998). A longitudinal study of gender differences in young children’s mathematical thinking. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 6-11.
  12. Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. L. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gen- der-related differences in mathematics. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender-related differences in classroom interactions (pp. 17-35). New York: Academic Press.
  13. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new Area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911