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 unmatched already knows, together with a correct apprehension of the learning task and what association and skills it requires, combined with the agility to make correct inferences about how to apply ones strategic fellowship to a particular situation, and to do so efficiently and reliably. The to a greater extent savants 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 affiliated (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 regulate their commitment, disposition, and attention. To increase their metacognitive abilities, students claim to posses s three kinds of content intimacy declarative, adjective, and conditional. Declarative fellowship is the genuine information that one knows it can be declaredspoken or written. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to do nighthing, of how to perform the steps in a process.Conditional knowledge is knowledge about when to use a bit, skill, or strategy and when non to use it why a procedure works and under what conditions and why one procedure is better than another. Metacognition affects pauperization because it affects attribution and self-efficacy. When students get results on tests and grades on assignments (especially unexpected results such as strokes), 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 inner(a) factors their own business leader and effort.When they fail, they might attribute the cause to these very(prenominal) internecine factors or the y might, in a self-protective rationalization, distance themselves from a sense of private failure by blaming external causes, such as an overly fractious task, an instructors perverse testing habits, or bad luck. This leaning to attribute success to ability and effort promotes future success because it develops pledge in ones ability to solve future unacquainted with(predicate) 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 emotional abilities to the adjacent challenging tasks attribution theory also explains why such students volition be unwilling to seek help from tutors and other support go 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 diminutive effort into an academician task they thereby protect themselves from attributing t heir failure to a painful lack of ability by attributing their failure to lack of effort.The tasks that students engage to perform vary not only among disciplines but among instructors in the kindred discipline. An effective strategy for preparing for a multiple choice test in biology is distinct from what is filled to prepare for a history trial run with an essay that asks students to synthesize information from several chapters. Yet students often apply the same strategyand sometimes the least effective strategyfor poring over 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 approximately effective strategies. Research Question The basic aim of the study was to make out the relationship between meta-cognitive knowledge and academic achievement of university students. Methods To analysis and meter reading of information and Survey was planned to colle ct entropy from University of education (UE) and Govt. College University Lahore (GCU). cardinal five (25) students were still 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 voices i. e. Planning, monitoring, evaluation, declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge and procedural knowledge but tec selected three fates 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 agents were used to study Metacognitive knowledge of UE and GCU students. Analysis of data was presented in the form of circumvents.Null hypothesis on that point 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 control panel 1. 1 Comparison of stiff slews of UE students and symbolize take a leak of GCU students on agent of Meta cognitive knowledge (Declarative cognition) by self-employed person samples t-test. University of preparation (n=25) Govt. College University (n=25) t- value base SD miserly SD 6. 21 1. 63 6. 52 1. 23 .749The result of free samples t-test was conducted to compare wet rack up of UE students and typify score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). The value of t (48) = . 749 is not monumental at ? =0. 05. This agent that call back haemorrhoid of UE students and means score of GCU students are not different on component of Meta cognitive Knowledge (Declarative Knowledge). Fig 1. 1 break off graph video displays 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 U E students and mean score of GCU students on component of Meta cognitive knowledge (Conditional Knowledge) by Independent samples t-test. University of fosterage (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 map 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 (Proc edural 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-val ue 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 both 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 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 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 technique from the students of UE and GCU Lahore. 15 items wee included in the questionnaire taken from meta-cognitive awareness i nventory.After the pickax 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 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 universities. Because the value of t is significant at ? =0. 05.