Crossing Metacognitive Awareness in University Studies: An Emphasis on Beliefs
Purpose – Initially, this cross-cultural comparison paper aimed to compare and contrast lecturers’ and learners' beliefs about learners' level of metacognitive awareness and related subcomponents in Lithuanian and Iranian university studies. Additionally, it looked at investigating lecturers' justifications for assigned students' level of metacognitive awareness. Design/methodology/approach – Two instruments were applied. Firstly, a researcher-created questionnaire was developed to collect data from 20 Lecturers to analyze trends in the lecturers’ beliefs about their students' metacognitive awareness. Secondly, Schraw and Dennison's (1994) metacognitive awareness inventory was completed by 755 students to access their metacognitive awareness. Mixed methods research combined with quantitative and qualitative methods was appropriate for this study. The quantitative data was collected from the Likert scale parts of the researcher-made questionnaire for the lecturers and whole parts of the questionnaire for the students. Both descriptive and inferential analysis were done. The lecturers' written responses to the openended questions were analyzed applying deductive qualitative content analysis using an iterative approach. It was a recursive process in which the data were reviewed to determine the major themes in the written responses by the researcher and 3 raters. Finding – By comparing and contrasting the lecturers and the students’ beliefs about the students’ subcomponents levels of metacognitive awareness, we realized that both Iranian and Lithuanian lecturers’ and Iranian student’s beliefs regarding the sequence of knowledge of regulation subcomponents from the strongest to the weakest were the same (Declarative, Procedural and conditional) while Lithuanian students believed that they had a higher level of declarative knowledge and a lower knowledge in procedural subcomponents. By comparing the Lithuanian and Iranian lecturers’ beliefs with their students’ beliefs, we can realize that both of them considered monitoring and debugging weaker than planning and evaluation. Both Lithuanian lecturers and Lithuanian students considered the level of metacognitive awareness as medium. Furthermore, among the three detected key themes categorized by 3 raters through deductive content analysis from lecturers' responses for the reasons for determined students' level of metacognitive awareness, "students’ characteristics" was considered as the main reason for both groups. Research limitations/implications – The first limitation is the use of questionnaires where various methods such as think aloud or interview can be applied as well. Another limitation is that the number of lecturers was limited which can influence the generalizability of findings. Finally, the sample size for both groups of lectures and learners was randomly selected from Tehran and Vilnius which is not appropriate for overgeneralizing to other cities. Practical implications – It not only contribute to both lecturer and student development of metacognitive awareness but also guides the design and implementation of future metacognitive awareness programs for lecturers. The findings can increase lecturers’ pedagogical knowledge which is associated with their practices Originality/Value – Despite the fact that learner metacognitive awareness at university studies is gaining momentum as an educational phenomenon, there is very little simultaneous and comprehensive research globally on assessing students' beliefs and identifying those of lecturers about the students’ subcomponents level of metacognitive awareness. Therefore, the research is new and unique since no research has compared and contrasted lecturers' and students beliefs about the topic in both contexts of study.
- Straipsniai / Articles