The Typologies of Successful and Unsuccessful Students in Academic
Subjects using the Perspectives of Students' Metacognitive Awareness and Actions in a High
School Environment in Tennessee
Dr. Wade Smith Ms. Eucabeth Odhiambo and Ms. Hebatella El Khateeb, Tennessee State University, USA.
The purpose of this research was to use XXXX High School as a research site to assess the impact of student metacognitive awareness and actions on students academic successes in 9th and 10th grade academic classes. This research used a minimally intrusive data collection protocol. Each student was surveyed to ascertain which metacognitive awareness and actions they used in their academic classes. This required each student to complete the survey instrument, Student Metacognitive Assessment Reporting Test (SMART) for each of his or her classes. Each survey was completed in approximately ten (10) minutes. The entire data collection process was completed in forty (40) minutes. Students semester, 1st quarter, and 2nd quarter grades were collected. Step-wise multiple regression with hierarchical clustering was used to determine the typologies of successful and unsuccessful students in their academic courses. There were significant differences between successful and unsuccessful students in all subject areas. Multiple regression analyses revealed that each subject area was influenced by different students perceptions of their metacognitive awareness and activities. Multiple Regression Equations:
1) Student grade (Social studies semester) = .352(Reflective-Cognition) + (-293)(Social-Constructivism) + error. Total variance accounted for was .172.
2) Student grade (Language Arts semester) = .590(Physical-Interaction) + (-.430)(Active-Constructivism) + .361(Empathy) + (-.240)(Cognitive-Constructivism) + (-.285)(Metacognition) + error. Total variance accounted for was .442.
3) Student grade (Math semester) = -.442(Active-Constructivism) + .367(Physical-Interaction) + .347(Active-Cognition) + .349(Cognitive-Constructivism) + (-.299)(Metacognition) + error. Total variance accounted for was .489.
4) Student grade (Science semester ) = .257(Active-Cognition) + (-.354)(non-reactive) + .366(Cognitive-Constructivism) + error. Total variance accounted for was .356.
Return to Abstracts Index