Abstract
Group Metacognition Scale (GMS) developed by Biasutti and Frate (2018) was adapted into Turkish in this study. The original scale was a 20-item, 4-factor self-report scale measuring students' metacognitive group skills and addressing what generally happened in their group during online collaborative activities. The study was conducted with 208 university students who performed group activities and tasks in online collaborative learning environments. Purposive and convenient sampling method was used in the selection of the participants. According to the confirmatory factor analysis performed in the study, it was found that the fit indices indicated an acceptable fit of the data. It was seen that the factor loadings of the items in the scale vary between 0.51 and 0.82. Cronbach's alpha values for the factors in the scale were calculated as knowledge of cognition, 0.851, planning 0.851, monitoring 0.787 and evaluating 0.845. In this study, the differentiation status of group metacognition scores according to gender and perception of achievement was also examined. The subscales and total score mean of the group metacognition scale of the participants showed a significant difference according to gender and perception of achievement. Suggestions were made within the framework of the findings.
Highlights
Metacognition is defined as knowledge about the regulation of cognitive activities in learning processes (Flavell, 1979)
According to Reeve and Brown (1985), metacognition is the ability of individuals to control their own cognitive processes and direct them when necessary
Biasutti and Frate (2018) emphasized that in addition to examining metacognition at the individual level, attention should be paid to group metacognition
Summary
Metacognitive skills include the use of strategies for determining learning goals, planning, monitoring, controlling and evaluating by students (Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Zion et al, 2015). When the knowledge of cognition is examined within the scope of group metacognition, it is defined as awareness about group learning strategies, information selection, material use and classification of new information (Bisautti & Frate, 2018). Planning, another factor in GMS, is the selection of the appropriate strategy and the right allocation of resources before executing a task (Schraw and Dennison, 1994). This study is considered important to fill this gap in the literature
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
