SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Academic Research in Education / 2022 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Investigation of relationship between intellectual risk taking in science learning and metacognitive awareness

Esra AÇIKGÜL FIRAT
Mustafa Serdar KOKSAL
Yusuf YILMAZ
Pages
51–63
Publication Date
2022-12-31
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)

In conclusion, there is a significant causal relationship between metacognitive awareness and intellectual risk taking.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the relationship between intellectual risk taking in science learning and metacognitive awareness of sixth, seventh and eighth-grade students was investigated by using the path analysis technique.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, 418 students enrolled in ordinary formal secondary schools were involved.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, there is a significant causal relationship between metacognitive awareness and intellectual risk taking.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Metacognitive awareness · Intellectual risk taking · Science education

Abstract

In this study, the relationship between intellectual risk taking in science learning and metacognitive awareness of sixth, seventh and eighth-grade students was investigated by using the path analysis technique. This study is predictive research designed to determine the relationship between metacognitive awareness, grade level, gender, and students' intellectual risk taking. In the study, we examined a hypothesized model of relationships between variables. According to the hypothesized model, the endogenous variable of the study is IRT and exogenous variables are gender, grade level, and metacognition. In this study, 418 students enrolled in ordinary formal secondary schools were involved. One hundred and ninety-one were female while 227 were male. As data collection tools, two Likert type instruments; intellectual risk taking and metacognitive awareness scales, were used. The analysis of the data revealed that metacognitive awareness significantly predicted intellectual risk taking. In conclusion, there is a significant causal relationship between metacognitive awareness and intellectual risk taking. By increasing metacognitive awareness, we can increase intellectual risk taking and active participation to learning. It may be suggested to increase the sample size and to use different higher-order thinking skills methods and measure metacognitive awareness and IRT.

🔖

Cite This Article

FIRAT, E. A., KOKSAL, M. S., YILMAZ, Y. (2022). Investigation of relationship between intellectual risk taking in science learning and metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 51–63. https://ajindex.com/articles/868559

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Açıkgül, K. & Şahin, K. (2019). Investigation of secondary school students' perceptions on their mathematics-oriented academic risk-taking behaviors in terms of gender, grade level, metacognition and attitude variables. Adiyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(32), 1-30.
  2. Akbay, T., Akbay, L., & Gülsoy, V. G. B. (2018). Causal Effect of Epistemological Beliefs and Metacognition on Critical Thinking Disposition. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(45), 88-104.
  3. Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154
  4. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Atkins, W. J., Leder, G. C., O'Halloran, P. J., Pollard, G. H., & Taylor, P. (1991). Measuring risk taking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(3), 297-308.
  5. Aydın, U., & Ubuz, B. (2010). Turkish Version of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory: An Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Education and Science, 35(157), 30-45.
  6. Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 210–223.
  7. Beghetto, R. A., & Baxter, J. A. (2012). Exploring student beliefs and understanding in elementary science and mathematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 942-960.
  8. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate software, Inc. Bonds, C. W., Bonds, L. G., & Peach, W. (1992). Metacognition: Developing independence in learning. The Clearing House, 66(1), 56-59.
  9. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. USA: ASCD. MA. Byrne B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D., & Schafer, W. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367 – 383. 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
  10. Clifford, M. M., & Chou, F. C. (1991). Effects of payoff and task context on academic risk taking. Journal of E