KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Research on Education and Psychology / 2021 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Turkish Adaptation of the Group Metacognitive Scale: Metacognition in Online Collaborative Group Activity

Hatice YILDIZ DURAK
Nilüfer ATMAN USLU
Sayfa
288–301
Yayın Tarihi
2021-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Suggestions were made within the framework of the findings.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Group Metacognition Scale (GMS) developed by Biasutti and Frate (2018) was adapted into Turkish in this study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The original scale was a 20-item, 4-factor self-report scale measuring students' metacognitive group skills and addressing what generally happened in their group during online collaborative activities.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Suggestions were made within the framework of the findings.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Collaborative learning · Group Metacognition · Metacognition

Abstract

Group Metacognition Scale (GMS) developed by Biasutti and Frate (2018) was adapted into Turkish in this study. The original scale was a 20-item, 4-factor self-report scale measuring students' metacognitive group skills and addressing what generally happened in their group during online collaborative activities. The study was conducted with 208 university students who performed group activities and tasks in online collaborative learning environments. Purposive and convenient sampling method was used in the selection of the participants. According to the confirmatory factor analysis performed in the study, it was found that the fit indices indicated an acceptable fit of the data. It was seen that the factor loadings of the items in the scale vary between 0.51 and 0.82. Cronbach's alpha values for the factors in the scale were calculated as knowledge of cognition, 0.851, planning 0.851, monitoring 0.787 and evaluating 0.845. In this study, the differentiation status of group metacognition scores according to gender and perception of achievement was also examined. The subscales and total score mean of the group metacognition scale of the participants showed a significant difference according to gender and perception of achievement. Suggestions were made within the framework of the findings.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

DURAK, H. Y., USLU, N. A. (2021). Turkish Adaptation of the Group Metacognitive Scale: Metacognition in Online Collaborative Group Activity. Research on Education and Psychology, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 288–301. https://ajindex.com/articles/797232

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (8)

  1. Basu, S., & Dixit, S. (2022). Role of metacognition in explaining decision-making styles: A study of knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 111318. Biasutti, M., & Frate, S. (2018). Group metacognition in online collaborative learning: Validity and reliability of the Group Metacognition Scale (GMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1321-1338.
  2. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. In: Weinert, F., Kluwe, R. (eds.) Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding, pp. 65–116.
  3. Erlbaum, Hillsdale. Brown, A. L. (1981). Metacognitive development and reading instruction. In R. Spiro (Ed.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136.
  4. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows. London: Routledge Press.
  5. Chalmers, C. (2009). Group metacognition during mathematical problem solving. In Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 1-8). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2010). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities, differences, and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 321-338.
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2. bs.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  7. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1–79
  8. Güngör, D. (2016). A Guide to scale development and adaptation in psychology. Turkish Psychological Articles, 19(38)