International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(3) 28-43

The Role of Metacognitive Awareness and Motivation of Prospective Primary School Teachers in Predicting Their Academic Achievement in the ‘Science and Technology Laboratory Applications’ Course

Nevin Kozcu Çakır & Gökhan Guven

pp. 28 - 43   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1901-04-0001

Published online: June 03, 2019  |   Number of Views: 312  |  Number of Download: 845


The present study aims to investigate the predictive effects of metacognitive awareness of prospective primary school teachers and their motivation to learn science subjects on their academic achievement in the ‘Science and Technology Laboratory Applications’ course. A total of 108 (72 females, 36 males) prospective primary school teachers participated in the study. The sample of the study consists of second-grade prospective primary school teachers attending the ‘Primary School Teaching’ department of a public university in the academic year of 2017-2018.  The study was carried out with relational screening model, one of the descriptive research methods. As the data collection tools, metacognitive awareness scale, motivation scale for science learning, and the average grades of the prospective teachers from the science course were used.  To determine the relationship between the prospective primary school teachers’ academic achievements in their science courses and their metacognitive awareness and motivation for science learning, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was used. Besides, multiple regression analysis was used to determine the extent to which the sub-factors of metacognitive awareness and motivation of prospective teachers accounted for the variance in their academic achievement.  The study concludes the importance of the sub-factors predicting academic achievement as follows: knowledge of cognition, the motivation for research, the motivation for participation, the motivation for collaborative work, and motivation for performance. Furthermore, it has been determined that all factors accounted for 37% of the variance on academic achievement.

Keywords: Metacognitive awareness, motivation, science and technology laboratory applications, prospective primary school teachers

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Cakir, N.K. & Guven, G. (2019). The Role of Metacognitive Awareness and Motivation of Prospective Primary School Teachers in Predicting Their Academic Achievement in the ‘Science and Technology Laboratory Applications’ Course . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(3), 28-43. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.3

Cakir, N. and Guven, G. (2019). The Role of Metacognitive Awareness and Motivation of Prospective Primary School Teachers in Predicting Their Academic Achievement in the ‘Science and Technology Laboratory Applications’ Course . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(3), pp. 28-43.

Chicago 16th edition
Cakir, Nevin Kozcu and Gokhan Guven (2019). "The Role of Metacognitive Awareness and Motivation of Prospective Primary School Teachers in Predicting Their Academic Achievement in the ‘Science and Technology Laboratory Applications’ Course ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (3):28-43. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.3.

  1. Akin, A., Abaci, R., & Cetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, 7(2), 655-680. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aktan, S. (2012). Relationship between the academic success, selfregulating learning skills, and motivations of 5th grade students and teaching styles of teachers. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Balıkesir University Institute of Social Sciencies, Balıkesir. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aydogdu, B., & Buldur, S. (2013). An investigation of pre-service classroom teachers’ science process skills in terms of some variables. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 6(4), 520-534. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bagceci, B., Dos, B., & Sarica, R. (2011). An analysis of metacognitive awareness levels and academic achievement of primary school students. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(16), 551-566. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bagci, N. (2003). Öğretim sürecinde öğrenciye ve öğrenim amacına yönelik yeni yaklaşımlar. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 159, 112-121. [Google Scholar]
  6. Balci, G. (2007). Examining the cognitive awareness skills of 5th grade students at the level of solving verbal mathematical problems. Unpublished master thesis. Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, Adana. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baltas, Z. (2004). E-Öğrenciler Nasıl Öğreniyor Üstbiliş. Kaynak Dergisi, 20, 11-15. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barlia, L. (1999). High school students’ motivation to engage in conceptual change learning in science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Ohio. [Google Scholar]
  9. Birinci-Konur, K., & Ayas, A. (2008). The level of understanding of class teacher candidates’ some chemistry concepts. Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(1), 83-90. [Google Scholar]
  10. Birinci-Konur, K., & Ayas, A. (2010).  Pre-service primary teachers’ understanding level of the relationship between heat-volume-pressure in gases. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 128-142. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121. [Google Scholar]
  12. Budak, Y. (2015). Okulda motivasyon-Okulda güdülenme ve güdülenmeyi öğrenme. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  13. Buyukozturk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cakir, N.K., Guven, G. & Ozdemir, O. (2018). The effect of metaconceptual teaching activities on pre-service science teachers’ metacognitive awareness, motivation towards learning biology and academic achievement. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(24), 175-194. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cakir, O.S., Sahin, T., & Sahin, B. (2000). Predicting the effect of some variables related to 6. grade science course on students' affective domains. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19, 43-49. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cakiroglu, A. (2007). The effect of metacognitive strategy traıning on improving the achievement level of students having low achievement levels of reading comprehension. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciencies, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  17. Caliskan, M. (2010). The effects of learning strategies instruction on metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive skills and achievement. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Selçuk University Institute of Educational Sciencies, Konya. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cepni, S., Kucuk, M., & Ayvaci, H.Ş. (2003). A Study on implementation of the science program at the first grade of primary schools. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 23(3), 131-145. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  20. Coutinho, S.A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success. The Journal of Doctoral Research in Education, 7(1), 39-47. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cox, A.J., & Junkin III.W.F. (2002). Enhanced student learning in the introductory physics laboratory. Physics Education, 37(1), 37-44. [Google Scholar]
  22. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dede, Y., & Yaman, S. (2008). A questionnaire for motivation toward science learning: a validity and reliability study. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 19-37. [Google Scholar]
  24. Demir, M.K., & Budak, H. (2016). The relationship between self-regulating, motivatıon and metacognitive skills and mathematics success of 4th grade students. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, (41), 30-41. [Google Scholar]
  25. Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line metacognition-a domain-specific retardation in young children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 25, 123-139. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87. [Google Scholar]
  27. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (1994). Educational Psychology: Classroom connections. New York: Macmillan College Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  28. Emrahoglu, N., & Ozturk, A.(2010). The effect of cognitive awareness on academic achievement of science teacher candidates: A causal comparison study. Çukurova University Journal of Social Science Institute, 19(2), 18-30. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ergun, M. (2009). Sınıfta motivasyon. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  30. Eryaman, M. Y. (2007). Examining the characteristics of literacy practices in a technology-rich sixth grade classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET) 6(2), 26-41. [Google Scholar]
  31. Everson, H.T., & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26, 65-79. [Google Scholar]
  32. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. [Google Scholar]
  33. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2013) SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide for reference 11.0 update. (4th Ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gottfried, A.E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525-538. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gujarati, N.D. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gul, F., & Shehzad, S. (2012). Relationship between metacognition, goal orientation and academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1864-1868. [Google Scholar]
  37. Guven, G., Sulun, Y., & Cam, A. (2014). The examination of elementary preservice teachers' reflective diaries and epistemological beliefs in science laboratory. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(8), 895-907. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hacker, D.J., & Dunlosky, J. (2003). Not all metacognition is created equal. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 73-79. [Google Scholar]
  39. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (1997). Conceptions of intelligence and children’s motivational orientations: A developmental perspective. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ilgar, Ş. (2004). Motivasyon aktiviteleri ve öğretmen. Hasan Âli Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 211-222. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jacobs, J., & Paris, S. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255-278. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jones, M.G., Farquhar, J.D., & Surry, D.W. (1995). Using metacognitive theories to design user interfaces for computer-based learning. Educational Technology, 35, 12-22. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. (2001). Primary school preservice teachers' misconceptions about heat and temperature in science teaching. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 21, 59-65. [Google Scholar]
  44. Karaca, A., Ulucinar, Ş., & Cansaran, A, (2006). Indication of problems in laboratories in science education. Journal of National Education, 34(170), 1-7. [Google Scholar]
  45. Karatay, R., Dogan, F., & Sahin, Ç. (2014). Determination of attitudes of preservice teachers towards laboratory practices. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(3), 703-722. [Google Scholar]
  46. Karsenti, T. & Thibert, G. (1995). What Type of Motivation Is Truly Related to School Achievement? A Look at 1428 High-School Students. [On-line] Retrieved on September 2018, at URL: [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaya, M. (1995). The relationship of motivation, anxiety, self-confidence, and extroversion/introversion to students’ active class participation in an EFL classroom in Turkey. Unpublished master thesis. Bilkent University Institute of Economics and Social Sciences, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lai, E.R. (2011). Motivation: A literature review. Person Research’s Report. [Google Scholar]
  49. Landine, J., & Stewart, J. (1998). Relationship between metacognition, motivation, locus of controli self-efficacy, and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 32(3), 200-212. [Google Scholar]
  50. Linnenbrink, E.A., & Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ministry of National Education. (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  52. Namlu, A.G. (2004). Metacognitive learning strategies scale: a study of reliability and validity. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 27-34. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nietfeld, J.L., Cao, L., & Osborne J.W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7-28. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pardo, J.Q., & Portoles, J.J.S. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ miasapplication of Le Chatelier’s principle: Implications for the teaching of chemical equilibrum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 32(9), 939-957. [Google Scholar]
  55. Paris, S.G., & Turner, J.C. (1994). Situated Motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds). Student Motivation, Cognition, and Learning: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. Mckeachie (pp. 213-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  56. Perfect, T.J., & Schwartz, B.L. (Eds.). (2002). Applied metacognition. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual fort he use of the motivated strategies learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rowlands, S. (2008). The Crisis in Science Education and the need to enculturate all learners in Science. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.). Science Education Issues and Developments (p. 95-123). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  59. Schoon, J. K., & Boone, J. W. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553-568. [Google Scholar]
  60. Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143-154. [Google Scholar]
  61. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness, Instructinal Science, 26, 113-125. [Google Scholar]
  62. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475. [Google Scholar]
  63. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. [Google Scholar]
  64. Slayton, R.M. & Nelson, K.A. (2005). Opening lab doors to high school students: keys to a successful engagement. Physics education, 40(4), 347-354. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sperling, R.A., Howard, B.C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117-139. [Google Scholar]
  66. Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  67. Taspinar, H.K. (2004). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ task–related motivational strategy use and students’ motivation levels. Unpublished master thesis. Bilkent University Institute of Economics and Social Sciences, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tekbiyik, A., & Pirasa, N. (2009). Determination of pre-service primary teachers’ efficacies toward science teaching course: a case of rize university. Journal of National Education, 38(183), 202-218. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tekkaya, C., Capa, Y., & Yilmaz, Ö. (2000). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının genel biyoloji konularındaki kavram yanılgıları. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 18, 140-147. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ulgen, G. (2001). Kavram Geliştirme: Kuramlar ve Uygulamalar. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık (3. Baskı). [Google Scholar]
  71. Ugras, M. (2018). An Investigatıon of the relationship between eighth grade students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness and science self-efficacy beliefs with science achievement. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(24), 17-32.  [Google Scholar]
  72. Unal, M. (2010). The relationship between meta-cognitive learning strategies and academic success of university students (Ahi Evran University Sample). International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(3), 840-844. [Google Scholar]
  73. Uyanik, G. (2016). Examining of the elementary teacher candidates’ knowledge levels regarding fourth grade science course units in elementary school. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5(4), 1-15. [Google Scholar]
  74. Walterman, A.S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 3. [Google Scholar]
  75. Wolters, C. A., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between students’ motivational beliefs and their use of motivational regulation strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(7), 801-820. [Google Scholar]
  76. Yang, C.T., & Lee, S.Y. (2013). The effect of instruction in cognitive and metacognitive strategies on ninth-grade students’ metacognitive abilities. New Waves-Educational Research ve Development, 16(1), 46-55. [Google Scholar]
  77. Yangin, S. (2014). The effect of biology lesson based on metacognitive activities on prospective classroom teachers` achievements and attitudes. Education Sciences, 9(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  78. Yenice, N., Saydam, G., & Telli, S. (2012). Determining factors effecting on primary school students’ motivation towards science learning. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2). [Google Scholar]
  79. Young, A., & Fry, J.D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and achievement in college studenst. Journal of The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10. [Google Scholar]
  80. Yuruk, N. (2005). An analysis of the nature of students’ metacon¬ceptual processes and the effectiveness of metaconceptual teach¬ing practices on students’ conceptual understanding of forces and motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State Univer¬sity, Columbus. [Google Scholar]
  81. Yuruk, N., Beeth, M.E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ un¬derstanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 449-475. [Google Scholar]
  82. Yuruk, N., Selvi, M., & Yakisan, M. (2011). The effect of metaconceptual teaching activities on pre-service biology teachers’ conceptual understanding about seed plants. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 447-464. [Google Scholar]