Siti Nazirah Butai*1
1*, Preparatory Centre for Science and Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, MALAYSIA.
(E-mail: [email protected])
*corresponding author ABSTRACT
Metacognition is a concept that has been recognized as a required skill for students to succeed in physics problem-solving. The main purpose of this study is to identify the pre-university students’
level of metacognition in physics problem-solving ability which influences their achievement in the final examination result. This descriptive research involved 267 pre-university students from Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Quantitative data analysis techniques, which includes the frequency, mean and standard deviation were used to analyze the data. Physics Metacognition Inventory (PMI) was used to measure the level of metacognition in physics problem-solving. The result of this study indicated that the level of pre-university students’ metacognition in physics problem solving is at a high level with (M = 3.68, SD = 0.212). Results also show that the level of metacognition influences their achievement in the final examination result, where the higher the students’ level of metacognition is, the better the student’s achievement in the final examination results. The findings from the study suggest that it is important for metacognition to be applied in physics problem-solving to solve physics problems, and it can also be used as a teaching technique for pre-university students to meet their learning needs.
Keywords: Metacognition, Physics Problem Solving, Achievement, Pre-university Students.
INTRODUCTION
Metacognition is a very complex structure with many different meanings. Metacognition has long been recognized as an internal, psychological process required for effective learning and problem solving [1-5]. According to Akturk and Sahin [4], metacognition is different from cognition because cognition is an individual’s ability to memorize and recall information. Meanwhile, metacognition refers to an individual’s ability and awareness to understand, monitor, and regulate his\her cognitive system [6]. Furthermore, the function of metacognition is as a cognitive process to understand how a task must be carried out properly, while cognition is only needed when performing the task [7].
As we all know, metacognition research in the arena of education is not new; in fact, the term is frequently related to students’ problem-solving abilities [8-11]. This is because students’ problem- solving abilities are not only viewed as a purely cognitive activity. It also includes the metacognitive
115 aspect of students, which is based on the control of the thought process and behaviour that is required when students solve problems [12]. Generally, metacognition can be divided into two important components; knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition [1, 13]. According to previous research, these metacognitive components contribute to student success in problem-solving [12, 14, 15]. As mentioned By Yuberti et al. [16], higher metacognition improves students’ problem-solving abilities.
Physics problem solving is a fundamental component of physics learning that students must master. The ability of students in physics problem solving is not only seen in the answers obtained correctly, but it also involves awareness of the solution process that he/she is doing [17, 18].
Therefore, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) has stated that problem-solving ability is an important factor that must be considered when developing learning outcomes to assess student achievement and mastery in the learning that followed [19]. In solving physics problems, researchers admitted that problem-solving requires a complex cognitive paradigm as well as non-routine experiences [20]. When problems arise, the problems experienced by everyone are different. Students can be experts or novices and a problem can be routine or non-routine depending on who solves it [20, 21]. The approach of an expert to solving physics problems differs from that of a novice. The expert problem-solvers were more successful in solving the problem, understanding how to identify physics problems, organizing and interpreting data, and developing solutions [20, 22]. In contrast, novice problem solvers have fragmented knowledge, and their decision-making processes are scattered and unstructured, frequently narrowly context-related and based on memorizing formulas [15, 23]. Other than that, differences in students’ problem-solving abilities can also be distinguished based on their grade level. Based on the students’ grade achievement, the instructor can determine which students are experts and novices in problem-solving and then they can assist students in solving the next problem [23].
On the back of that, metacognition is important for physics problem-solving. Metacognition can assist students in solving problems, whether they are experts or novices. The importance of metacognition in physics problem solving has been claimed by Dökme and Koyunlu Ünlü [18] that metacognitive awareness is essential for understanding, monitoring, and regulating students’ thought processes while engaged in problem solving. Students who have metacognitive awareness understand when, how, and why to use cognitive strategies in physics problem-solving. Besides that, students understand what they should do to achieve their goal in problem-solving, what prior knowledge they must have to make a connection between new knowledge about physics concepts and the problem structure, which strategies they will use or develop to solve problems, what resources they will need to know, how to increase confidence in physics problem solving and how they will use the strategies to achieve their goal [18].
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify the pre-university students’ level of metacognition in physics problem-solving ability and how it has an influence on their achievement in final examination results.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design and Instrument
A survey research design was used in this study, along with quantitative data analysis techniques.
A validated questionnaire namely Physics Metacognition Inventory (PMI) [13] was used as an
116 instrument to measure students’ metacognition in physics problem-solving. The Physics Metacognition Inventory (PMI) uses a 5-point scale ranging from never true of myself (1) to always true of myself (5). This PMI questionnaire contains 26 items consisting of six dimensions of metacognition. (1) Knowledge of cognition; (2) regulation of cognition in information management;
(3) regulation of cognition in monitoring; (4) regulation of cognition in evaluation; (5) regulation of cognition in planning; and (6) regulation of cognition in debugging. Table 1 shows the mean score of dimensions of metacognition level to be obtained.
Table 1. Level of Dimension of metacognition in physics problem-solving.
Level of Dimension High Moderate Low
Mean score 3.68 – 5.00 2.33 – 3.67 1.00 – 2.32
In this study, the questionnaire was randomly distributed online to pre-university students at Universiti Malaysia Sabah. A total of 267 pre-university students completed the survey and which was then aligned with their final exam results.
Data Analysis
Based on a survey, the frequency distribution of students’ grades is plotted in a bar chart to identify students’ achievements in the final examination. The plotting of the bar chart is conducted in SPSS 25.0 software. Then, the data scores are analyzed as overall using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) to find out the distribution of each dimension of metacognition among students.
To analyze the influence of metacognition on grades, the mean score of pre-university students' metacognition was first obtained with the help of frequency distribution of students’ grades. The mean scores of metacognitions can be grouped and analyzed separately according to their grade distribution. After the mean scores are sorted based on grades, the percentage is calculated based on the metacognition mean score for each of the grades before it is plotted against grades. A bar chart is used to plot the graph due to the categorical variables of students’ grades.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of Pre-university Students in Final Examination Grades
Table 2 shows the distributions of students’ final examination results of the Physics course. From this table, B+ is the highest grade for those who scored in final examination with 76 students, followed by A- (70 students), A (66 students), B (43 students), B- (7 students), C+ (4 students) and D+ (1 student). Here, there are no students who obtained grades C, C-, D and E.
Table 2. Distributions of students’ grades
Grades A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D E
Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
66 (24.7)
70 (26.2)
76 (28.5)
43 (16.1)
7 (2.6)
4 (1.5)
0 0 1
(0.4)
0 0
117 Figure 1. Bar graph of distribution in students’ grades
Based on the bar chart in Figure 1, the distribution of grades among students are centred around the mode of grade B+. The distribution skews towards the lower grades, with a single student obtaining grade D+ as an outlier of this distribution. The importance of this grade distribution is to indicate the level of pre-university students’ achievement in the final examination for the physics course and further to see the influence of their metacognition in physics problem-solving ability.
Analysis of Pre-university Students’ Level in Metacognition During Physics Problem Solving Table 3 provides the analysis of pre-university students’ dimensions of metacognition.
Table 3. The students’ mean and standard deviation values and the level of the dimensions of metacognition given by pre-university students.
Dimension of metacognition
Mean, M
Standard Deviation, SD
Level Knowledge of cognition 3.315 0.633 Moderate Regulation of cognition:
Information management
3.752 0.794 High
Monitoring 3.479 0.654 Moderate
Evaluation 3.787 0.854 High
Planning 3.790 0.574 High
Debugging 3.941 0.819 High
According to Table 3, the mean score and standard deviation for knowledge of cognition is 3.315 and 0.633, respectively. This indicates that the students have a moderate level of knowledge of cognition in physics problem-solving. These results obtained for knowledge of cognition is similar to the study conducted by these researchers [9, 17]. This means that students with moderate knowledge of cognition have a better understanding of their skills knowledge and can use appropriate strategies to achieve the goals in physics problem-solving. This can be seen in the results of student achievement in the final examination, where 255 students achieved excellent results with grades A, A-, B+ and B, while the rest got grades B- and below. This indicates that students are good at using strategies
66 70 76
43
7 4
0 0 1 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D E
Frequency
Grades
118 effectively to achieve given problem-solving objectives.
For regulation of cognition in information management (M = 3.752, SD = 0.794), evaluation (M
= 3.787, SD = 0.854), planning (M = 3.790, SD = 0.574) and debugging (M = 3.941, SD = 0.819), the mean score shows at the higher level except the regulation of cognition in monitoring (M = 3.479, SD = 0.654) which show a moderate level during students solve physics problems. The regulation of cognition in monitoring refers to the actions taken by a student from time to time during solving physics problems. It also refers to the students’ awareness and understanding of their task performance [25]. This ability requires an individual’s involvement by making periodic assessments of each result of the work he/she does. Although the finding shows a regulation of cognition in the monitoring of pre-university students at a moderate level, the level of regulation in cognition on the other dimensions is at a high level which can help students’ ability to solve physics problems. This is again proven by the student’s grade achievement. The students’ ability in physics problem solving influences the student achievement in physics subject [26].
Analysis of Pre-University Students Metacognition in Physics Problem Solving and Its Influence on Their Achievement in Final Exam Grades
Table 4. The students’ mean score and their level of metacognition.
Grades A A- B+ B B- C+ D+
Mean (%)
3.815 (76.3)
3.688 (73.8)
3.535 (70.7)
3.521 (70.4)
3.286 (65.7)
2.923 (58.5)
3.000 (60.0) Level High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Figure 2. Bar graph of students’ grades achievement and percentage level of metacognition.
Table 4 shows the information of students’ mean scores and the level of metacognition based on their final examination grades. Meanwhile, the illustrations are shown in Figure 2 clearly shows that there is an influence of metacognition in physics problem solving on student grade achievement, disregarding outlier in D+ grade. This finding is supported by Mirzaei et al. and Ozsoy [6, 26], there is a significant positive relationship between students who have good metacognition may have good grad achievement.
In addition, to get good grades in physics, students must be proficient and able in physics problem-solving. Students’ ability in physics problem solving requires good knowledge and skills
76.3 73.8 70.7 70.4 65.7 58.5
60.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
A A- B+
B B- C+
D+
Pencentage of Level of Metacognition
Grades Achievement
119 such as using forward-thinking concept-based strategies, organizing the process of solving new problems, having a variety of methods for getting unstuck, etc [15]. Thus, metacognitive skills must be taught to students during they solve physics problems so that they are aware of their metacognition.
This is because metacognitive skill, which consists of declarations, procedures, and strategies, is thought to be capable of ensuring that objectives in problem-solving are achieved.
As a result, the graph in Figure 2 found a significantly increasing trend of data on the grad level of student achievement with the level of student metacognition. The fundamental finding of this study indicates that metacognition, physics problem solving, and student achievement are interrelated with each other.
CONCLUSION
This study concludes that students’ levels of metacognition in physics problem solving has an impact on their grade achievement. The ability of students to solve physics problems is influenced by their metacognition, i.e., how they control their thinking processes during physics problem-solving.
Therefore, it is important to identify students’ metacognitive levels to determine how students can be taught to use their metacognitive control. In addition, the instructor can also plan related activities that can stimulate the metacognitive abilities of their students. Since physics cannot avoid problem- solving, by applying metacognitive strategies in problem-solving during teaching and learning will hopefully help students develop their true expertise in physics problem-solving. Based on the result, it is hoped that this study is expected to contribute and provide positive implications to all parties, whether they are directly involved or not in the teaching and learning process.
REFERENCES
[1] Flavell, J. H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am.
Psychol., 34(10) (1979), 906–911.
[2] Pintrich, P. R. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning , teaching , and assessing. Theory Pract. 41(4) (2002), 219–225.
[3] Edwards, S. Active learning in the middle grades. Middle Sch. J. 46 (5) (2015), 26–32.
[4] Akturk, A. O. and Sahin, I. Literature review on metacognition and its measurement. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., 15(1) (2011), 3731–3736.
[5] Zohar, A. and Barzilai, S. Studies in science education: A review of research on metacognition in science education : Current and future directions. Stud. Sci. Educ. 49(2) (2013), 121–169.
[6] Ozsoy, G. An investigation of the relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 12 (2011), 227–235.
[7] Schraw, G. A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition Learn. 4(1) (2009), 33–45.
[8] Siagian, M. V. Saragih, S. and Sinaga, B. Development of learning materials oriented on problem-based learning model to improve students' Mathematical problem solving ability and metacognition ability. Int. Electron. J.
Math. Educ. 14(2) (2019), 331–340.
[9] Butai, S. N. andPhang, F. A. Relationship between dimension metacognition and students’ ability level in physics problems solving involving the use of free-body diagram. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Stud. 6(7) (2018), 252–257.
[10] Ince, E. Implementation and Results of a New Problem Solving Approach in Physics Teaching. Momentum Phys.
Educ. J. 3(2) (2019), 58–68.
[11] Akben, N. Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 50(3) (2020), 1143–1165.
[12] Susilo, M. B. and Retnawati, H. An analysis of metacognition and mathematical self-efficacy toward
120 mathematical problem solving ability. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1097 (1) (2018), 1–9.
[13] Taasoobshirazi, G. and Farley, J. Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 35 (3) (2013), 447–459.
[14] Lee, H. M., Chuang, C. P., Li, J. and Huang, Y. C. “A study on the relation between meta-cognition and problem solving ability among the students of mechanical engineering. Appl. Mech. Mater. 266 (2013),3 439–3443.
[15] Ali, M., Johari, S., Abdullah, A.H., Shukor, N.A., Halim, N.D.A., Ali, D.F., and Suhairom, N. The pattern of physics problem solving between more successful and less successful from metacognitive perspective Adv. Sci.
Lett., 24(11) (2018), 8476–8479.
[16] Yuberti, I. Kartika, Viyanti, H. Wulandari, and Anillah. Identification of students’ metacognitive levels in physics learning viewed from the problem-solving ability. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1467(1) (2020).
[17] Dulger, Z. and Feral, O.-B. Examination of students ’ metacognitive awareness and their physical problem solving strategies. ICEMST 2018 Int. Conf. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 9 (2018) 59–63.
[18] Dökme, İ. and Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. The challenge of quantum physics problems with self-metacognitive questioning. Res. Sci. Educ., 2019.
[19] Ministry of Higher Education, Guidelines of Curriculum : Foundation (GCF). Cyberjaya: Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2019.
[20] Kohl, P. B., Finkelstein, N. D., Hsu, L. Henderson, C. and McCullough, L. Expert and novice use of multiple representations during physics problem solving. Aip Conf. Proc. (2007), 132–135.
[21] Kohl, P. and Finkelstein, N. Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 4(1) (2008), 1–13.
[22] Ali, M., Ibrahim, N. H., Abdullah, A. H., Surif, J.and Saim, N. Physics problem solving : Selecting more successful and less successful problem solvers, in International Conference of Teaching, Assessment and Learning (TALE) (2014), 186–191.
[23] JDocktor, J.L., Dornfeld, J., Frodermann, E., Heller, K., Hsu, L., Kackson, K.A., Mason, A., Ryan, Q.X. and Yang, J. Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12(1)(2016), 1–18.
[24] Morphew, J. W., Gladding, G. E. and Mestre, J. P. Effect of presentation style and problem-solving attempts on metacognition and learning from solution videos. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16(1) (2020), 10104.
[25] Winne, P. H. Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 89(3) (1997), 397–410.
[26] Gok, T. An investigation of students’ performance after peer instruction with stepwise problem-solving strategies.
Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 13(3) (2015), 561–582.
[27] Mirzaei, F., Phang, F. A., Sulaiman, S. and Kashefi, H. Mastery goals, performance goals, students’ belief and academic success : metacognition as a mediator. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 46 (2012) (2012), 3603–3608.
121 001-010