Psychological Components of Metacognition - Research Paper Example

www.academia-research.com Sumanta Sanyal Dissertation - Metacognition d: October 18, 2005 An investigation into the development of a questionnaire measuring components of Metamemory. Abstract The dissertation starts off with a simple definitive introduction to what metacognition actually is and how it can enhance learning or cognitive processes in students. It also defines and describes metamemory and its various components and processes. In this manner it sets the stage for its main work - that of assessing whether the questionnaire, which is also put in thereafter, is inclusive enough of all items entailing metacognitive strategies that can efficiently assess the levels of metamemory components in a respondent. Thereafter the dissertation goes into the methods to be utilised to assess the efficiency and discusses them in some detail. It explains how factor analysis can assess how the items in the questionnaire are positioned in relation to the three factors - components of metamemory, acquisition, retention and retrieval - and in relation to each other. The reliability analysis with Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the items inventory also assesses overall reliability of the items list for the designed purpose as well as the correlations in reliability of the three factors. Details of statistics and their implications in the context of the purposes are also discussed. The dissertation ends with a discussion of what implications may be construed from the end results of the factor analysis and the reliability tests. Only the positive implications have been taken while negative ones are implied. Introduction Metacognition is a term that has become increasingly popular in the field of educational psychology within the last 30 years. It is usual to define it roughly as "thinking about thinking". Within this rough definition lie the seeds of distinction between cognition and metacognition. So what is the distinction between cognitive and metacognitive strategies While cognitive strategies allow an individual to achieve a particular goal, such as understanding a particular problem in algebra, metacognitive strategies allow the same individual to regulate the cognitive processes to ensure maximum utilisation of the applied cognitive strategies. Thus metacognitive strategies are adopted just before or after a cognitive activity. They are often adopted when the normal cognitive strategies fail - understanding the text of a particular novel. Such an imbroglio often prompts the learner to reassess his or her cognitive strategies by regulating them with metacognitive ones (Roberts & Erdos, 1993, from J. A. Livingston, 1997) Flavell (1976) describes metacognition as - "Metacognition refers to one's knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes or anything related to them, e.g., the learning-relevant properties of information or data. For example I am in metacognition if I notice that I am having more trouble learning A than B, if it strikes me that I should double check C before accepting it as fact". (Flavell, 1976, p 232, from: TIPs concepts) Another definitive description is - "Metacognition has been defined as the knowledge or awareness of cognitive processes and the ability to use self-regulatory mechanisms to control these processes (Eggen & Kauchak, 1997)". (Regine M. Shia, undated) Metacognitive regulation of cognitive strategies consists in planning and monitoring such strategies as well as checking the outcomes to assess their efficiencies within the learning process. Flavell divides metacognitive knowledge into three categories: knowledge of person variables, task variables and strategy variables. The three categories of knowledge are briefly explained hereunder. Knowledge of person variables include general knowledge of how humans learn and process information as well as individual knowledge of one's own learning processes. Knowledge of task variables involves knowledge of the peculiarity of a particular task at hand and what particular demands it would make on an individual. Of course task here means any primarily cognitive exercise. Knowledge of strategy variable includes knowledge of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies that are available at hand as well as conditional knowledge of how and when such strategies should be applied to get the maximum efficiencies. (Jennifer A. Livingston, 1997) As this dissertation is to assess the efficiency of described methods of developing a particular checklist of 30 items for testing the metacognitive powers of the respondent in particular relation to components of metamemory all three variables deposed by Flavell are a part of it. This shall be discussed later. Since metacognitive activities work on several cognitive processes they are spread out over a large area of the brain that are associated with these cognitive processes. Metacognition may not predict actual achievement but it does serve as a mediator to learning (Bruning, Schraw and Ronning, 1995). A broader understanding of this statement would mean that since metacognition in itself is a secondary process developed by the learner to assist him or her in utilising his or her primary cognitive processes to the maximum possible extent it can never really determine the final achievement. Final achievement does still depend a lot upon the cognitive strategies as well as innate cognitive capacities of the subject though they may be enhanced in large part by metacognitive efforts. Thus, metacognitive strategies remain a secondary aid to learning that act as stimulant to the cognitive processes of the student that in themselves are the primary causes of achievement. This is even though metacognitive strategies have to be put in place before applying the primary cognitive strategies whose success may depend in large part depends upon the efficiencies of the metacognitive ones. It should also be noted in particular context to this dissertation that metacognitive processes may ultimately, with long usage, be inculcated within the individual in the form of metamemory promoting automatic self-regulation of cognitive processes yet they are still secondary and dependent upon the primary cognitive processes for most efficient learning. Thus, using the part of Eggen & Kauchak's definition of metacognition as knowledge or awareness of cognitive processes and the ability to use self-regulatory mechanisms to control such processes metacognitive strategies should be adopted and set in place in relation to cognitive processes, strategies and capacities of the adopter for maximum benefit. This again is in line with Flavell's division of metacognitive strategies into the three previously-mentioned variables which mean in effect that such strategies are rather dependent upon the three variables and, thus, in relation to these variables, specific in nature. Even then a certain generality is available to investigators of metacognitive processes in humans to enable them to assess metacognitive powers of individuals by subjecting them to tests. Questions set on such generalities can be utilised to assess the effectiveness of metacognitive strategies already adopted by the individual subjected to the tests. Such questions can also reveal the necessities of adopting further strategies or rearranging existing ones to reinforce cognitive processes. Also, such generalities are based on how a majority of humans process information, that is, how they acquire, retain and retrieve information. The generalities nevertheless draw upon Flavell's three variables in such a manner that the specificities inherent within the variables are served on an overall basis. The development of the checklist this dissertation deposes upon is one such that is based on generalities that are meant to serve the purpose of assessing the metacognitive powers individuals have inculcated in form of metamemory testing how self-regulatory they already are in relation to their particular stage in life. . The Primary Hypothesis As mentioned before, the purpose of this dissertation is to provide cogent arguments in favour of a set of questions (Item 1, Appendix) that is being specially devised to assess partly the efficiencies of the metacognitive processes adopted to enhance the acquisition, retention and retrieval functions in students who shall be subjected to the test. The checklist draws upon Schraw's (1990) 10-item checklist that was geared to assess the performance efficiencies of adopted metacognitive strategies of those who will be subjected to the test. The questionnaire goes a step further and also draws upon the Nelson-Narens (1990) memory framework model to devise the 30-item questionnaire that will not only assess the efficiencies of adopted metacognitive strategies in relation to the acquisitive functions of the psychology of the subject, as is asserted that Schraw's model did, but it will also strive to assess the efficiencies of the same adopted metacognitive strategies in relation to the retention and retrieval functions of the subject's psychology. The preliminary checklist is presented hereafter for better understanding of the dissertation. The hypothesis is that the checklist is sufficiently inclusive of all items that can accurately assess the performance efficiencies of the subject's metacognitive strategies in relation to acquisition, retention and retrieval of information and thus, upon full development, enable assessment of the degree of self-regulation already inherent in the subject in the form of metamemory Metamemory, which is basically knowledge of one's memory or mnemonic processes, assists in the cognitive processes by familiarising the subject with the workings of his or her memory. Thus, subjects first use metacognitive strategies to enhance cognitive processes and with subsequent increasing acquaintance with his or her mnemonic processes develop a metamemory that further enhances the cognitive processes. Most people can process six or seven bits of information at one time (George A. Miller, 1956) but increasing use of mnemonic aids like note-taking, list-making and other essentially metacognitive processes gradually develops in a subject a metamemory that increasingly reinforces the subject's metacognitive strategies. "As with metacognition, metamemory is a developmental occurrence: as we get older, we get better at remembering, and we also improve our abilities for developing strategies to assist our memories." (Bruning et al, 1999, Kimberley Fitzer) The hypothesis draws upon these observations to state that metacognitive strategies progressively develop a metamemory that allows the subject to become self-regulatory. This, in essence, means that metamemory allows the subject increasing freedom from consciously having to choose metacognitive strategies to enhance cognitive processes all the time. There is certainly a limit to this but constant usage of supportive metacognitive strategies gradually builds up a metamemory that makes the individual increasingly self-regulatory. While metacognition is conscious self-regulation metamemory allows unconscious self-regulation. Question number 12 - "I am a good judge of how accurate my memory is" has a singular implication. It is very difficult to be an inherent judge of one's memory. Instead such judgement can only be inculcated through constant study of one's mnemonic processes, possibly with assistance of adopted strategies to enhance them, which is essentially metacognition. Thus, the question is essentially a very good indicator of how well metamemory is developed in the subject and consequently how innately self-regulatory the subject is. Another question that is a good indicator of metamemory in the subject is No: 15 - "I am always conscious of what I have inducted so far as I perform the task." Since the hypothesis draws upon the Nelson and Narens (1990, 1994) influential memory model it observes that the model describes metacognition is interplay between two levels of analysis - an object level and a metalevel. Thus, metacognitive monitoring involves flow of information from the object level to the metalevel. Once the metalevel is well-stocked with essential information on the object level it can successfully provide feedback for increasing efficiencies of processes within the object level. (Arthur P. Shimamura, 2000). This is again essentially building up an efficient metamemory. According to the duo - Nelson and Narens - questions such as No: 17 - "I don't feel that I have to remind myself of what I have inducted so far" are feelings of knowing. Also, questions like No: 18 - "I get better with retaining information as I move on with the task at hand" are judgements of learning. Both these are memory evaluations and considered aspects of metacognitive monitoring. Thus, till now, it stands that the primary hypothesis is that the checklist being developed through questioning 100 undergraduates will be sufficiently inclusive of all items spread across three factors - acquisition, retention and retrieval functions - with indicative loading to successfully assess the level of self-regulation inherent in each subject questioned. Knowledge of Cognition Checklist The questionnaire was distributed to 100 undergraduates with the following guidelines for administering it: Distribute copies of the questionnaire to each student Ask him or her to provide identifying information Read aloud through the questionnaire and discuss the response options and make sure the students understand the rating scale Ask if anyone has any questions about any aspect of the questionnaire Instruct the students to study the questionnaire carefully and circle the appropriate responses and be absolutely honest in their responses Encourage the students to relax and work at their own pace The responses are rated on a 5-point Likert-like scale given below: Option: Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree Nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Checklist or Items Inventory (Also Item 1 in Appendix) 1. I have a specific purpose for each strategy I use when I study. 2. I am always conscious of what strategy I am using when I solve problems. 3. I change strategies when I fail to understand a certain task or a portion thereof. 4. I take a preview of the task to get a preliminary understanding of what is at hand. 5. I consciously focus my attention on important parts of a task. 6. I always stop and go back over sections that are not clear. 7. I make notes on key ideas within the task that I regularly look at. 8. I consciously arrange information I am inducting into easy-to-remember chunks. 9. I stop and start again in sections I lose concentration over. 10. I think about what I already know on the subject of the task to help me understand it better. 11. I am a good judge of how well I understand something. 12. I develop strategies for retaining information contained within the task. 13. I am a good judge of how accurate my memory is. 14. I test myself periodically on the information I have already learned to check on how I am retaining it. 15. I do not feel I have to remind myself of the information I have learned. 16. I am always conscious of what I have inducted so far as I perform the task. 17. I need to go over notes regularly to retain information. 18. I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension. 19. I get better at retaining information as I move on with the task at hand. 20. I find it easier to remember sections of the task using cues. 21. I always know when each strategy I use to acquire information is effective. 22. I experience tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. 23. I find it easy to recite information I have learned. 24. I remember things better under pressure. 25. I cannot remember things under pressure. 26. I take a long time in remembering things. 27. I get better at retrieving information as I go up the academic ladder. 28. I feel confident in answering questions on the information I have learned. 29. In examinations my confidence levels are reflected in the grades I get. 30. I develop strategies for my future learning process based on my present retrieval capacity. The items are to be spread across three factors or subscales with indicative loading after processing the scores derived from the students - Factor 1 - Acquisitive Strategies Factor 2 - Retentive Strategies Factor 3 - Retrieval Strategies Methodology This section of the dissertation treats the methodology that will be used to test the efficiency of the questionnaire. Initially the questionnaire will be handed out to 100 undergraduates who will be instructed on how to best answer the questions. This has been treated previously. After the scores have been derived a factor analysis will be carried out with the three factors - acquisition, retention and retrieval - to examine any correlations between them. Graphs will be drawn of the scores in each factor and the correlation coefficients among the factors will be derived. Cronbach's Alpha will be calculated from the correlation coefficients to test the reliability of the test at the entire undergraduate level. To test the overall cogency and reliability of the items Crocker and Algina (1986) suggested looking at the following: a) whether each item contribute or detract from the reliability of the subscales, b) whether items exhibit simple structure (primary loading on a single factor), c) whether items have high factor loadings, and d) for items that fail all the above criteria, whether they appear unclear or out of place in relation to other items. (K. Mokhtari & C. A. Reichard, Page 252, 2002) The style of the questionnaire is in the following manner: Questions 1-11 - Assesses the acquisition stage Question 12-20 - Assesses the retention stage Question 21-30 - Assesses the retrieval stage Nevertheless, for analysis of reliability it is recommended that items should be included within a factor if their loadings are at least .20 or above so that there is some overlap of items. All items should be examined for ambiguity and lack of fit with other questions within the scale by checking if they exhibit simple structure or have rotated factor loading below .30 for all three factors. (K. Mokhtari & C. A. Reichard, Page 252, 2002) The overall reliability of the 30-items checklist shall be demonstrated through the following combined observations: a) whether they have low factor loadings, b) whether they have reduced reliabilities, and c) whether they are duplications of other items. (K. Mokhtari & C. A. Reichard, Page 252, 2002) Ensuring that the above statistical criteria have been satisfied will mean that the list of 30 items are reliable and complete and do not require any further additions or adaptations. Statistics Scoring The students can score the inventory quite easily and the scores for each strategy can be transferred to the score sheet that will accompany the questionnaire. After the individual scores have been recorded in columns they should be added up and divided by the number of respondents (in this case 100) to get an average response for each subscale (acquisition, retention and retrieval) and for the entire inventory. The scores should then be interpreted as per the interpretation guidelines. Interpretation The information thus derived from the responses of the students to the questionnaire is to be interpreted as per schemes used in previously published instruments (e. g., Henk & Melnick, 1995, Oxford, 1990, K. Mokhtari & C. A. Reichard, Page 254, 2002). To examine the usage of the item strategies, which ranges from 1 to 5, three levels of usage can be identified: 1. high (mean of 3.5 or higher), 2. medium (mean of 2.5 to 3.4), and 3. low (mean of 2.4 or lower). (K. Mokhtari & C. A. Reichard, Page 255, 2002) These usage levels provide a helpful standard for interpreting the average scores obtained by individual students. These levels - high, moderate and low - should designate the levels of usage of each strategy in each subscale. In general terms the overall average scores for the entire item list indicate how often students use the listed strategies when they start on cognitive exercises. The averages for each subscale indicate how often they use the listed strategies to enhance the cognitive functions - acquisition, retention and retrieval - the relevant subscale marks. The information derived from the scoring can indicate to the student if they score very high or very low in each strategy group. A low score in any subscale or parts of the inventory may indicate whether the relevant scorer should consider using the strategies therein when he or she decides to use cognitive functions in future. In this particular case individual strategies are not considered and the total average scores of the entire set of 100 respondents are analysed to get results. In particular relation to the hypothesis being discussed the information derived from the scoring can definitely indicate whether students who have prolonged usage of metacognitive strategies are already sufficiently self-regulatory by high levels of scoring in memory evaluation strategies which, in effect, indicate a big presence of metamemory which regulates cognitive functions without conscious monitoring. Results and Discussion The average scores derived from 100 undergraduate respondents is tabulated in Table 1 of the appendix. As can be seen all the scores are above the mean (3.5) for the acquisition factor. This proves all that respondents use these strategies closely and gives a rough estimate that the items fulfil their purposes for this factor. The same is true for nearly all the average scores for the items under the retention factor. All of them are well above the mean signifying the same as for the average scores for the acquisition factor. The two items that have average scores below the other eight and very near to the mean - average scores for items 15 & 16 - demonstrate a singularity. Both items ask questions of the respondent that relate to short term memory - if the respondent has to remind him- or herself of all that has been learned so far and if he or she is always conscious of what has been learned so far. The lower scores indicate that respondents are not every sure of their short-term memorial functions. Items in the last factor, the retrieval one, have average scores that are not as high as in the other factors. They are close to the mean and only a little higher. Two items - 25 & 26 - have average scores that are below the mean. This has a special significance. Item 24 asks if the respondent remembers things under pressure and has an average score of 3.82. This is fair enough and proves that respondents are using their metacognition strategies fairly well enough. Item 25 however asks the respondent, rather negatively, if he or she cannot remember things under pressure. Thus, the low score below average. Item 25 is the inverse of item 24 and it is recommended that either items may be replaced by some other newly generated item so that the inversion does not cause a double effect that generates an average score for one item and a low one for the other paired item. If one respondent admits that he or she fairly remembers things under pressure he or she is unlikely to admit to the inverse item that he or she does not remember things under pressure. Only those respondents who answered negatively to the first item will respond positively to the second. Item 26 is also concerned with a memory function and the dissertation concludes that since most averages associated with short and long term memory functions that are related to remembering have a lower score than other functions this batch of respondents are not sure of their remembering functions, both in the retention and retrieval segments. The rest of the items in the questionnaire, as per scores in the table, show high affinity to the learning attitudes of the respondents. Graphs 1, 2 and 3 of the appendix demonstrate the position of the average scores against the items in factor 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Graph 1 has the most even gradient showing that the item scores are mostly closely related. Graph 2 has a trough at items 15 & 16 as per discussions on the tabulated scores. Graph 3 has the deepest trough at items 25 & 26 as per discussions on the tabulated scores. Graph 4 is a combination of the other three graphs and shows that factors 1 & 2 have the most closely related scores while factor three has scores that are slightly below the other factors. Also items in factors 1 & 2 are more closely related to each other within the same factor and across than items in factor 3. Table 2 of the appendix gives the summary statistics and they bear out the discussions to the tabulated data and the graphs. Factor 1 & 2 have overall average mean values that are very close to each other signifying close correlations. The average mean value for factor 3 is close to the mean score value of 3.5. This signifies that responses to items in the first two factors are much more positive than to factor 3. The standard deviation for scores in factor 1 is lowest while highest for factor 3. This signifies that items in factor 1 & 2 have average scores that are more closely related to each other than items in factor 3 where item scores vary as much as .955 on an average. This may be due to the fact that some items within factor 3 are inverses of each other. Also, items in factor 3 are about retrieval and it may be that items within this factor are a little too difficult to experience for ordinary people - such items as tip-of-the-tongue experience and ability to recite instantly previously learnt information. These have low scores though they are still above the average score of 3.5. Nevertheless, since the average scores for the first two factors are quite high it should be that the factor 3 items should also have correspondingly high scores. It is observed that items in factor three related to confidence levels in retrieval and progression in retrieval capabilities have very high scores. This may prove that respondents are slightly discouraged in acknowledging their retrieval phenomena when it is couched in technical words like tip-of-the-tongue and recitation, which is often implied as repeating everything learned verbatim. There can be no other explanation for low scores in these items. Nevertheless it is recommended that these items be kept within the perspective of the questionnaire as they are very competent denominators of how respondents rate their retrieval capabilities. Table 3 of the appendix bears out the previous discussions. It is observed that factor 1 & 2 items have closely related scores with a matrix of -0.179. The slightly negative matrix means that scores in factor 1 a slightly more increasing trend than scores in factor 2 items. Nevertheless, the close correlation can be spotted and proves that all items in factor 1 & 2 have legitimacy to be included within the same questionnaire without being correlated so highly that they should be included within the same factors. The same is true for factor 1 & 3 item scores. The negative matrix value - -0.313 - signifies that though correlation is not as high as for the first two factors. Still items in factors 1 & 3 have legitimacy to be included within the same questionnaire without being included within the same factors. The correlation between factors 2 & 3 is a positive one, 0.931, a value very close to 1 signifying that items in both factors have legitimacy to be included within the same questionnaire without being included within the same factors. There are other conclusions that can be drawn from the correlation matrices but these are not essential to the purpose of the dissertation and hence these are left out. Instead, it is pointed out that all the matrix values lie close to one and thus the correlations between the factor items are significant enough to conclude that all items have legitimacy to be included within the list. This is in exception to the two items (No: 24 & 25) that the dissertation recommends be changed as they have a detrimental inverse relationship. Cronbach's Alpha: Cronbach's alpha for items in factors 1 & 2 is - 0.324. This may seem rather low for an alpha value but there is sufficient reason for this. The low value proves that the items in the two separate factors 1 & 2 are not too highly related. This means that the items in the two factors are not unidimensional but multidimensional. This signifies that the items have true validity to be included within separate factors. To understand better, if the alpha value had been closer to one than it would have signified that the items in either factor had legitimacy to be included within the other factor. This signifies for the dissertation that the items have been chosen wisely for inclusion within the separate factors 1 & 2. Cronbach's alpha for factors 2 & 3 have a similar low value - 0.436. This has the same significance as before. Items within factors 2 & 3 have been chosen wisely for inclusion within the chosen factor. Thus, these items do not significantly overlap and this is good for the questionnaire as items chosen for a factor would work best if they do not have the same level of significance for other factors within the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha for items within factors 1 & 3 have not been derived on the basis that the correlation matrix between these two factors are not significantly high and subsequently the alpha value would also be low signifying that items in the two separate factors have legitimacy to be included therein without any possibility of overlap of factor items. Conclusion It is concluded that all items other than the two items - items 24 & 25 - that seem to inversely related have legitimacy to be included within the questionnaire and also have been wisely chosen to be included within the presently-chosen factor. It is recommended that either item 24 or 25 be kept for inclusion while the other be scrapped out and replaced by a more suitable item. Also, it is found that metamemorial retrieval items have lower scores than others. This is possibly because respondents are not too sure of the retrieval capacities. Nevertheless the items have legitimacy to be included within the retrieval factor 3. Except for this singular anomaly the present questionnaire is an amply efficient one to gauge respondents' metamemorial functional capabilities. The high level of confidence in choosing metacognitive strategies as demonstrated by the higher scores in these items compared to items that query on performance levels indicate that respondents get progressively sure of the strategies they want to adopt to improve their metacognitive functions. This is despite low scores in the performance level items indicating that respondents are not discouraged by these low levels of performance and believe that the strategy they have chosen is good enough to stand tem in good stead for a long time. This implies that the feel that the performance levels will increase with usage of the existing strategies. List of References Arthur P. Shimamura, 2000, Toward a Cognitive Neuroscience of Metacognition, Consciousness and Cognition 9, Pages: 313-323. Available Online at: http://www.ideallibrary.com Basic Statistics, 2003. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stbasic.html#Descriptive%20statistics C.D. Schunn et al, 2001, Awareness and working memory in strategy adaptability. Memory and Cognition, 29(2), 254-266. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/Schunn/research/papers/SLR.html#_ednref1 Christian D. Schunn et al, 1997, To calculate or not to calculate: A source activation confusion (SAC) model of problem-familiarity's role in strategy selection, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(1), 3-29. Available Online at: http://www.apa.org/journals/ Douglas J. Hacker, 1990, Metacognition: Definition And Empirical Foundations. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/trg/meta.htm Jennifer A. Livingston, 1997, Metacognition: An Overview. Extracted on 2./10/2005 from: http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/Metacog.htm#Top Judy Adkins, May 1997, Metacognition: Designing for Transfer. Extracted on 5/10/2005 from: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/Adkins/ABSTRACT.HTM K. Mokhtari and C. A. Reichard, Assessing Students' Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies, Journal of Educational Psychology, 2002, Vol. 94, No. 2, 249-259. Kimberley Fitzer, Metacognition and Metamemory, EdPsy 399OL. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://students.ed.uiuc.edu/fitzer/EdPsy399OL/L9-Q1metarequired.htm Metacognition. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://tip.psychology.org/meta.html Metacognition. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/Lectures/meta.htm#Top Principal Components and Factor Analysis, 2003. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stfacan.html#general R.J.Rummel, Understanding Factor Analysis. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/UFA.HTM#1 Reliability and Item Analysis, 2003. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/streliab.html#general Richard B. Darlington, Factor Analysis. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm Rick A. Sheets, 2005, Metacognition. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/sheets/lmw/meta.htm Steven Ravett Brown, August 2003, Structural Phenomenology: An Empirically-Based Model of Consciousness. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://cogprints.org/3061/01/Dissertation_Master.htm#_ftnref291 What does Cronbach's alpha mean ULCA Academic Technology Service. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/alpha.html What is Metacognition. Extracted on 2/10/2005 from: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/Adkins/SEC1.HTM Appendix Items List: 31. I have a specific purpose for each strategy I use when I study. 32. I am always conscious of what strategy I am using when I solve problems. 33. I change strategies when I fail to understand a certain task or a portion thereof. 34. I take a preview of the task to get a preliminary understanding of what is at hand. 35. I consciously focus my attention on important parts of a task. 36. I always stop and go back over sections that are not clear. 37. I make notes on key ideas within the task that I regularly look at. 38. I consciously arrange information I am inducting into easy-to-remember chunks. 39. I stop and start again in sections I lose concentration over. 40. I think about what I already know on the subject of the task to help me understand it better. 41. I am a good judge of how well I understand something. 42. I develop strategies for retaining information contained within the task. 43. I am a good judge of how accurate my memory is. 44. I test myself periodically on the information I have already learned to check on how I am retaining it. 45. I do not feel I have to remind myself of the information I have learned. 46. I am always conscious of what I have inducted so far as I perform the task. 47. I need to go over notes regularly to retain information. 48. I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension. 49. I get better at retaining information as I move on with the task at hand. 50. I find it easier to remember sections of the task using cues. 51. I always know when each strategy I use to acquire information is effective. 52. I experience tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. 53. I find it easy to recite information I have learned. 54. I remember things better under pressure. 55. I cannot remember things under pressure. 56. I take a long time in remembering things. 57. I get better at retrieving information as I go up the academic ladder. 58. I feel confident in answering questions on the information I have learned. 59. In examinations my confidence levels are reflected in the grades I get. 60. I develop strategies for my future learning process based on my present retrieval capacity. Table 1: Average scores of 100 undergraduate respondents. No. Items Scores Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1. I have a specific purpose for each strategy I use when I study 4.28 2. I am always conscious of what strategy I am using when I solve problems. 4.16 3. I change strategies when I fail to understand a certain task or a portion thereof. 4.29 4. I take a preview of the task to get a preliminary understanding of what is at hand. 4.31 5. I consciously focus my attention on important parts of a task. 4.30 6. I always stop and go back over sections that are not clear. 4.4 7. I make notes on key ideas within the task that I regularly look at. 4.00 8. I consciously arrange information I am inducting into easy-to-remember chunks. 4.12 9. I stop and start again in sections I lose concentration over. 4.37 10. I think about what I already know on the subject of the task to help me understand it better. 4.44 11. I am a good judge of how well I understand something. 4.21 12. I develop strategies for retaining information contained within the task. 4.26 13. I am a good judge of how accurate my memory is. 4.47 14. I test myself periodically on the information I have already learned to check on how I am retaining it. 4.50 15. I do not feel I have to remind myself of the information I have learned. 3.71 16. I am always conscious of what I have inducted so far as I perform the task. 3.82 17. I need to go over notes regularly to retain information. 4.37 18. I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension. 4.44 19. I get better at retaining information as I move on with the task at hand. 4.45 20. I find it easier to remember sections of the task using cues. 4.47 21. I always know when each strategy I use to acquire information is effective. 3.93 22. I experience tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. 3.82 23. I find it easy to recite information I have learned. 3.85 24. I remember things better under pressure. 3.82 25. I cannot remember things under pressure. 1.76 26. I take a long time in remembering things. 2.18 27. I get better at retrieving information as I go up the academic ladder. 4.46 28. I feel confident in answering questions on the information I have learned. 4.36 29. In examinations my confidence levels are reflected in the grades I get. 4.27 30 I develop strategies for my future learning process based on my present retrieval capacity. 4.53 Total Scores 42.67 42.7 36.98 Note on Factors: Factor 1 - Acquisitive Strategies Factor 2 - Retentive Strategies Factor 3 - Retrieval Strategies Table 2: Summary statistics: Factors Observations Obs. with missing data Obs. without missing data Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation Factor 1 10 0 10 4.000 4.440 4.267 0.136 Factor 2 10 0 10 3.710 4.500 4.270 0.284 Factor 3 10 0 10 1.760 4.530 3.698 0.955 Table 3: Correlation matrix (Pearson): Factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 1 -0.179 -0.313 Factor 2 -0.179 1 0.931 Factor 3 -0.313 0.931 1 Values in bold are significantly different from 0 with a significance level alpha=0.05 Graph 1: Graph of total average scores for items 1-10 (Factor 1: acquisition) Graph 2: Graph of total average scores for items 11-20 (Factor 2: retention) Graph 3: Graph of total average scores for items 21-30 (Factor 3:retrieval) Graph 4: Composite graph of factors 1, 2 and 3 derived from Graphs 1, 2 and 3. Series 1 (Blue line): Total average scores for factor 1 (acquisition) Series 2 (Pink line): Total average scores for factor 2 (retention) Series 3 (Green line): Total average scores for factor 3 (retrieval). Read More