Author :
Abstract
Keywords
Abstract
Metacognition is an invaluable agent in ethical decision making process. This is because it gives individuals the opportunity to switch gears through the monitoring and control of thinking in solving complex ethical dilemmas. It can be said that the importance of studies evaluating the decision-making process from a moral point of view increases considering the necessity of taking a huge number of decisions in today's complex world. However, studies that measure metacognition as a domain-specific capacity are rarely encountered. The purpose of the present study, then, was to adapt the moral metacognition scale developed in English by McMahon and Good (2016) into Turkish language and to evaluate dimensionality of the scale. The study participants consisted of 302 prospective teachers. This study is a scale adaptation study performed in line with the survey method. The psychometric properties of the instrument have been established by the use of confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to determine the internal consistency of each of the confirmed factors. Data collected from the sample were tested for sampling adequacy. KMO value was found .85 as meritorious and Bartlett test that examines homogeneity of variances was significant. To validate the scale, we ran a four-factor confirmatory factor analysis using chi-square statistic (χ2/df = 1.33; RMSEA=0.045; SRMR=0.063; RMR=0.059; CFI=0.97; GFI=0,89). Given these values, it was seen that scale’s hypothesized measurement model with four factors was consistent with actual data yielding good fit indices. In addition, the overall internal reliability of the scale was found to be .87 and .75, .72, .56, .74 for the dimensions in the scale, respectively. The results showed that the scale met the validity and reliability. In conclusion, Turkish version of the moral metacognition scale provided a valid and reliable measure of moral metacognition across preservice teachers.
Keywords
- Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475.
- Albright, J. J., & Park, H. M. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CALIS. University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing Indiana University. Working Paper. http://www. indiana. edu/~ statmath/stat/all/cfa/ind ex. html.
- Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). AmosTM 6.0 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation.
- Cassidy, E, W. & Kurfman, D, G. (1977). Decision making as purpose and process, In Developing Decision- Making Skills, Virginia: NCSS, 47th Yearbook.
- Chong, W. H. (2007). The role of personal agency beliefs in academic self-regulation: An Asian perspective. School Psychology International, 28(1), 63-76.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Dinsmore, D, L,, Alexander, P, A,, & Loughlin, S, M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning, Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391-409.
- Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognitive experiences: The missing link in the self-regulated learning process. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 287-291.
- Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
- Hannah, S, T,, Avolio, B, F,, & May, D, R. (2011), Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action, Academy of Management Review, 36, 663-685.
- Heath, P. A., White, A. L., Berlin, D. F., & Park, J. C. (1987). Decision making: Influence of features and presentation mode upon generation of alternatives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9), 821-833.
- Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of management, 21(5), 967-988.
- Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 6 (1), 53–60.
- Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
- Jordan, J. (2009). A social cognition framework for examining moral awareness in managers and academics. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 237–258.
- Kline, R., B. (2010). Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research. In: Thompson B, Subotnik RF, editors. Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 147–69.
- Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children's orientations toward a moral order: I. Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita humana, 11-33.
- Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose by any other name?. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 469-475.
- McMahon, J, M.,& Good, D, J, (2016). The moral metacognition scale: Development and validation, Ethics & Behavior, 26(5), 357-394.
- Narvaez, D. (2010). Moral complexity: The fatal attraction of truthiness and the importance of mature moral functioning, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 163-181.
- Oguz, N. (2001). Felsefi Yaklaşımların Işığında Klinik Etiğe Giriş. Klinik Etik. İstanbul: Nobel, 9-25.
- Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.
- Ricco, R. B., & Overton, W. F. (2011). Dual systems Competence ←-→ Procedural processing: A relational developmental systems approach to reasoning. Developmental Review, 31(2-3), 119-150.
- Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Before virtue: Biology, brain, behavior, and the “moral sense”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 351-376.
- Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures, Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.
- Schraw, G., Crippen, K, J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning, Research in science education, 36(1-2), 111-139.
- Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
- Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational psychology review, 20(4), 463-467.
- Suhr, D. (2006). Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis. SAS Users Group International Conference (pp. 1 - 17). Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.
- Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.
- Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of management, 32(6), 951-990.
- Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of educational psychology, 81(3), 329.
- Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169.
