Metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of university students Essay

In 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 fellowship and skills it requires, combined with the agility to make correct inferences about how to apply ones strategic knowledge to a particular situation, and to do so efficiently and reliably. The more learners are aware of their thinking processes as they learn, the more they can control such 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 foc apply (or wandering) is their attention to a thinking or writing task, they can coiffe their commitment, disposition, and attention. To increase their metacognitive abilities, students need to possess three kinds of content know ledge declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative knowledge is the factual information that one knows it can be declared mouth or written. adjectival 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 strategy and when not to use it why a procedure works and under what conditions and why one procedure is better than another. Metacognition affects motivation because it affects ascription and self-efficacy. When students get consequents 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 safe(p) results, students tend to attribute the result to two internal factors their own ability and motility.When they fail, they might attribute the cause to these homogeneous internal factors or they might, in a self-protective rational ization, distance themselves from a sense of personal failure by blaming external causes, such as an overly difficult task, an instructors perverse interrogatory habits, or bad luck. This tendency to attribute success to ability and effort promotes future success because it develops confidence in ones ability to exploit future unfamiliar and challenging tasks. The converse is also true. Attributing failure to a lack of ability reducesself-confidence and reduces the students summoning of intellectual and worked up abilities to the next challenging tasks attribution theory also explains why such students will be unwilling to seek help from tutors and other support operate 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 protect themselves from attributing their failure to a painful lack of ability by attributing th eir failure to lack of effort.The tasks that students need to perform spay not only among disciplines but among instructors in the same discipline. An effective strategy for preparing for a multiple choice test in biology is different from what is require to prepare for a history exam with an essay that asks students to synthesize information from several chapters. Yet students often employ the same strategyand sometimes the least(prenominal) effective strategyfor studying for very different kinds of tests. Furthermore, many students who perform badly 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 psychoanalysis and interpretation of data and Survey was planned to collect data from University of education (UE) and Govt. College University La hore (GCU). Twenty five (25) students were amass of UE and Twenty five (25) students from GCU randomly.Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) was used to measure meta-cognitive knowledge. This inventory consisted of six instalments i. e. Planning, monitoring, evaluation, declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge and procedural knowledge but researcher selected three components i. e. declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge, and procedural knowledge. Responses were salt away on three point scale i. e. Yes, no and to some extent. Scores of these components were used to compare Metacognitive knowledge of UE and GCU students. Analysis of data was presented in the form of Tables. invalid hypothesis There is no difference b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of students. Alternative hypothesis There is difference b/w the metacognition knowledge and academic achievement of students. Ho ? 1 = ? 2 Ha ? 1 ? ?2 Table 1. 1 likeness of inculpate scores of UE stu dents and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative friendship) by Independent samples t-test. University of educational activity (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t- measure Mean SD Mean SD 6. 21 1. 63 6. 52 1. 23 .749The result of 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 (Declarative Knowledge). The cling to of t (48) = . 749 is not significant at ? =0. 05. This means that mean scores of UE students and means score of GCU students are not different on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). pattern 1. 1 kibosh chart shows comparison of mean scores of UE students and means score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). Table 1.2 Comparison of mean scores of UE students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Conditional Knowledge) by Independent samples t-test. University of Education (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t-value Mean SD Mean SD 2. 98 .87 3. 10 1. 08 .430 Table 1. 2 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 (Conditional Knowledge). The value of t (48) = . 430 is not significant 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 significant 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 University (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-tes t. 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 both(prenominal) 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 Conditional 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 achieve 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 use meta-cognitive knowledge in daily life by students. The target population for this study was the students of UE and GCU Lahore. The researcher selected sample by using convenient sampling proficiency from the students of UE and GCU Lahore. Fifteen items wee included in the questionnaire taken from meta-cognitive awareness inventory.After the selection of sample and development of the questionnaire, the questio nnaires were distributed. The questionnaire was administered personally by the respondent and filled questionnaire collected back. The return rate of the questionnaire was 100% 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 un iversities. Because the value of t is significant at ? =0. 05.