期刊名称：Social Transformations in Contemporary Society
印刷版ISSN：2345-0126
出版年度：2019
期号：7
页码：94-104
出版社：Mykolas Romeris University
摘要：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.
关键词：Metacognitive awareness; Regulation of cognition; Beliefs; University Studies;
Iranians; Lithuanians
