Factors Underlying Metacognitive Judgements in Foundation Chemistry

Kgadi Mathabathe

doi:10.29333/ejmste/105868

Full Text (PDF)

Kgadi Mathabathe ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ University of Pretoria, Groenkloof Campus, SOUTH AFRICA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Poor performing students have been found to generally report unjustified high levels of confidence in their academic performance. The aim of this study was to elucidate the reasons students provide as justifications for their perceived academic performance in a chemistry test. As part of a larger mixed methods study, students enrolled in a foundation chemistry course (N = 91) were required to justify their level of confidence in the accuracy of their responses during a pre- and posttest set on a specific chemistry topic. The qualitative data was analysed for the purposes of the current study and is presented in this paper. The students’ responses shed light on the explanations students give as justifications for their confidence judgements and the influence of teaching on these explanations.

Keywords

metacognitive judgements
overconfidence
foundation chemistry
underlying factors

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2019, Volume 15, Issue 5, Article No: em1712

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105868

Publication date: 21 Mar 2019

Article Views: 1858

Article Downloads: 1019

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Adedokun, O. A., & Burgess, W. D. (2012). Analysis of paired dichotomous data: a gentle introduction to the McNemar test in SPSS. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 125–131.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 89–92.
Beyer, S. (1999). Gender differences in the accuracy of grade expectancies and evaluations. Sex Roles, 41(314), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018810430105.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Dunlosky, J., Serra, M. J., Matvey, G., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Second-order judgements about judgements of learning. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.132.4.335-346.
Ehrlinger, J. (2008). Skill level, self-views and self-theories as sources of error in performance evaluation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 382–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00047.x.
Fernandez-Duque, D., & Black, S. E. (2007). Metacognitive judgment and denial of deficit: Evidence from frontotemporal dementia. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(5), 359–370.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (2nd Ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: the effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition Learning, 3, 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9021-5.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809.
Harrits, G. S. (2011). More than method? : A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811402506.
Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<65::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N.
Jing, L., Kazuhisa, N., & Yuejia, L. (2003). Neural correlates of “feeling-of-not-knowing”: evidence from functional MRI. Chinese Science Bulletin, 48(2), 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1360/03tb9029.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer assisted learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.
Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know what we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.609.
Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0433.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.187.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Mending metacognitive illusions: a comparison mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1133.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated performance evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Mixed research in counselling: Trends in the literature. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 44(3), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175611409848.
Mathabathe, K.C., & Potgieter, M. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and learning gain in foundation chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 94–104.
Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. India: Sage publications.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory. San Diego, California: Academic Press, Inc.
Nowell, C., & Alston, M. R. (2007). I thought I got an A! Overconfidence across the economics curriculum. Journal of Economic Education, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.38.2.131-142.
Nussinson, R., & Koriat, A. (2008). Correcting experience-based judgements: the perseverance of subjective experience in the face of the correction of judgement. Metacognition Learning, 3, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9024-2.
Potgieter, M., Davidowitz B., & Mathabatha S. (2007). Do they know that they don’t know? The relationship between confidence and performance of first year chemistry students at three tertiary institutions in South Africa. Presented at the 38th annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA) in Fremantle, WA.
Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: the interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943867.
Rosenthal, D. M. (2000). Consciousness, Content, and Metacognitive Judgments. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0437.
Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overconfidence and the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2003.09.010.
Schwartz, B. L., & Perfect, T. J. (2002). Introduction: toward an applied metacognition. In B. L. Schwartz & T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Applied Metacognition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489976.002.
Winnie, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2010). The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 653 – 678. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348.

How to cite this article

APA

Mathabathe, K. (2019). Factors Underlying Metacognitive Judgements in Foundation Chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(5), em1712. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105868

Vancouver

Mathabathe K. Factors Underlying Metacognitive Judgements in Foundation Chemistry. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(5):em1712. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105868

AMA

Mathabathe K. Factors Underlying Metacognitive Judgements in Foundation Chemistry. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(5), em1712. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105868

Chicago

Mathabathe, Kgadi. "Factors Underlying Metacognitive Judgements in Foundation Chemistry". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 5 (2019): em1712. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105868

Harvard

Mathabathe, K. (2019). Factors Underlying Metacognitive Judgements in Foundation Chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(5), em1712. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105868

MLA

Mathabathe, Kgadi "Factors Underlying Metacognitive Judgements in Foundation Chemistry". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 5, 2019, em1712. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105868