Relationship between metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring and self-regulation during problem-based laboratory among final-year electrical engineering students of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
In order to solve a problem, metacognition is needed, as it triggers the learning of the individuals. The learning skills are very important to the engineering students as it developed the students to solve the problem through the engineering curriculum as well as experiences in life. There are thre...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/100264/1/WongYeeChingMPP12021.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In order to solve a problem, metacognition is needed, as it triggers the learning of the individuals. The learning skills are very important to the engineering students as it developed the students to solve the problem through the engineering curriculum as well as experiences in life. There are three main objectives in this study, which are (1) to identify the metacognitions’ level of the engineering through the problemsolving process, (2) to examine whether there is difference exist in the level of the metacognitions between the two phases, which are Phase 1: problem identification and Phase 2: strategy development and problem-solving process and (3) to observe whether there is relationship exists between the Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Monitoring and Self-Regulation when the students undergo the problem-solving process in the problem-based laboratory. Questionnaire established by Rakib (2019) were administered using Google Forms to gather the data for the study. The questionnaire consisted of 149 items and through the purposive sampling method, the study had obtained 128 responses from final-year electrical engineering students who studied in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The four metacognitions’ level, which consisted of Metacognitive Knowledge in Phase 1, Metacognitive Monitoring and Self-Regulation in Phase 1, Metacognitive Knowledge in Phase 2 and Metacognitive Monitoring and Self-Regulation in Phase 2 were moderately high. There was a significant difference between Metacognitive Knowledge in Phase 1 and Phase 2, as well as Metacognitive Monitoring and Self-Regulation in Phase 1 and Phase 2, as the p-value is less than 0.05. The significant correlation between Metacognitive Knowledge in Phase 2 and Metacognitive Monitoring and SelfRegulation in Phase 2 were found to be very strong. While the significant correlation between Metacognitive Knowledge in Phase 1 and Metacognitive Monitoring and Self-Regulation in Phase 1 were found to be strong. The data collected from this study might be helpful for the facilitators in understanding the metacognitive of the students and they would be able to provide guidance to the students in enhancing their skills in solving problem. |
|---|