This study is intended to understand teaching quality of English student teachers when they conduct their teaching practicum. Teaching quality is conceptualized based on the principles of effective teaching resulted by teacher effectiveness studies. Thes


IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 78  

 

 

 

Metacognition Awareness and Its Correlation with Academic 

Achievement of Student Teachers: The Case of One Private 

Higher Education Institution 

ELFA ERIYANI
1
 

Abstract  

This study aimed to describe the metacognitive awareness of Indonesian language 
and literature educational students in one private higher education institution, Jambi, 
Indonesia and to differentiate student metacognition by gender and length of study, 
and to correlate metacognition awareness on student achievement indexes. This was 
a quantitative study and the sample was taken by involving the third, fifth, and 
seventh semester student teachers. Documents in the forms of student achievement 
index data and questionnaires were used as the instruments of this study and manual 
calculations and SPSS 16.0 for Windows were used to analyze the collected data. The 
results showed that there was no significant difference between metacognitive 
awareness of male and female student teachers, and between metacognitive 
awareness of the second year, the third year, and the fourth year. Also, there was a 
very weak positive relationship between metacognitive awareness and students’ 
achievement. Implications and future research are also discussed. 

 
Keywords 
Educational students, gender, length of study, metacognition awareness, students’ 
achievement 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Lecturer at Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan YPM Bangko, Jambi, Indonesia; 
elfaeriyani@stkipypmbangko.ac.id  

mailto:elfaeriyani@stkipypmbangko.ac.id


IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 79  

 

 

 

 
Introduction 

 
Metacognition is a somewhat new knowledge introduced in Indonesian education 

listed in the 2013 Curriculum. The ability of thinking has actually been discussed since the 
days of Plato and Aristotle (Akturk & Sahin, 2011; Othman, Mustapha, Tray, & Ahmad, 
2008). However, the concept of metacognition was introduced by Flavell in 1976 by 
examining the ways and processes of learning (Akturk & Sahin, 2011; Othman, Mustapha, 
Tray, & Ahmad, 2008). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) added knowledge of metacognition 
to the dimension of knowledge in Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy that the knowledge dimension 
becomes four categories; factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, 
and metacognitive knowledge. Besides, knowledge of metacognition is included in the 
educational curriculum in Indonesia. 

Furthermore, metacognition ability is found as one of the core competencies that 
must be mastered by students of XI and XII classes. This competency ties various basic 
competencies into aspects of attitudes, skills, and knowledge that students must learn for a 
school, class, and subject level (Kemendikbud, 2013). This means that all subjects in classes 
of XI and XII involve learning metacognition skills so that students can form metacognitive 
awareness. Metacognition awareness should have been formed since secondary school that 
will settle and develop when they become a student. The formation and development of 
metacognitive awareness will be more expected in student teachers because they are 
prepared to become teachers who later will have tasks to develop students' cognitive abilities. 

In addition, metacognition can be a driving force as well as a supervisor in using 
cognition or knowledge that a person has when completing a particular task or while 
studying so that one's success, in any field, is more determined by his metacognition abilities. 
Moreover, metacognition is a key element in learning (Fisher, 1998) which will affect the 
success of learning (Asriningsih, Saepuzaman, & Ferranie, 2016) and will later affect the 
success of one's life. This is possible because metacognition includes knowledge of cognition 
and regulation of cognition (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Furthermore, metacognition 
awareness directs someone to recognize what he knows and what he does not know is 
related to the task to be completed. This knowledge includes declarative knowledge, 
procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge. Based on those, arrangements are made 
for the implementation of tasks included planning, information management strategies, 
monitoring understanding, debugging strategies, and evaluation (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). 
Therefore, it is no exaggeration if it is stated that metacognition will help an individual to 
learn or complete tasks more effectively. 

Effective learning or completion of tasks refers to the learning process or the 
completion of a successful task, which is marked by achieving the right goals. Achieving 
goals, not only can be achieved precisely but can also be achieved more quickly because the 
goals that have been formulated and realized before the learning process/ completion of the 
task is made. Research done by Baird (1998), Hacker (1998), and White and Gunstone (1989, 
cited in Conner, 2007) showed that learning can be improved if students use a metacognitive 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 80  

 

 

 

process, while the Conner (2007) study showed that the use of metacognitive strategies for 
planning and monitoring work produced higher quality essays. However, this study has not 
documented the level of metacognition awareness of students and their relationship to their 
learning achievement. Hence, this study was intended to reveal the level of metacognitive 
awareness of students of the Indonesian language and literature education program in one 
private higher education institution. This study also looked at the differences in 
metacognition awareness based on gender and length of study and its relation to student 
academic success as determination of metacognition in the context of educational students is 
still rare.  To achieve the research objectives, three research questions were formulated; 1) 
Is there any significant difference between metacognition awareness of male students and 
female student teachers? 2) Is there any significant relationship between the second, third, 
and fourth year student metacognition awareness? 3) Is there any significant relationship 
between student metacognition awareness and student achievement index? 

 
Literature Review 
 
Metacognition awareness 
 
Metacognition awareness is called by several researchers with different terms, while it 

refers to the same object. Flavell (1976 as cited in Akturk & Sahin, 2011; Cubukcu, 2009) 
defines metacognition as one’s knowledge concerning one' s own cognitive processes and 
products or anything related to them. Besides, Akturk and Sahin (2011) noted several terms 
used by researchers referring to objects called Metacognition by Flavell (1976) including: 
self-management, metamentation, meta-learning, metacognitive beliefs, executive skills, 
meta-components and judgment of learning. The term of metacognition awareness is also 
used by Schraw and Denisson (1994), Schraw (1998), and Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal and 
Tafaghodtari (2006). Schraw and Denisson (1994) state that metacognition refers to a 
person's ability to reflect, understand, and control learning.  

Various studies on metacognition provide varying meanings, whereas not too much 
different. Akturk and Sahin (2011), after reviewing various literatures related to 
metacognition, formulated the most commonly used definition of metacognition, that is, 
information that one possesses about its cognition and ability to regulate the structure of 
that cognition. This definition distinguishes metacognition into two main components; 
knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Schraw 
& Denisson, 1994; Schraw, 1998). Furthermore, Schraw and Dennison (1994) divide the 
knowledge component of cognition into three subcomponents; (1) declarative knowledge 
(knowledge of self and strategy), (2) procedural knowledge (i.e., knowledge on how to use 
strategies), and (3) conditional knowledge (i.e. knowledge on when and why to use strategies) 
in which divided into five subcomponents, including (4) planning, (5) information 
management strategies, (6) understanding monitoring, (7) debugging strategies, and (8) 
evaluation. 

 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 81  

 

 

 

 
Metacognition awareness and learning achievement 
 
Metacognition activities cannot stand alone in the learning process and in the 

completion of one's tasks. It is closely related to cognition. Akturk and Sahin (2011) describe 
that metacognition activities occur before cognitive activities (planning metacognition), 
during cognitive activities (monitoring metacognition) and after cognitive activities 
(evaluation metacognition). Thus, metacognition is higher knowledge of cognition, which 
serves to recognize cognitions owned or not possessed and manage cognition in order to 
solve problems or learning processes. If cognition is to realize and understand something, 
then metacognition is to realize and know how someone learns and understands something. 
In short, metacognition can be said as a person's knowledge of his cognition process and 
product cognition and the ability to manage and manage it. Although metacognition and 
cognition cannot be separated, they are functionally different. Schraw (1998) and Holton and 
Clarke (2006) assert that metacognition is different from cognition. Metacognition is needed 
to understand how a task will be performed, while cognition itself is needed to complete the 
task (Schraw, 1998). It means that metacognition works first then followed by cognition. 
Schraw (1998) furthermore emphasized that metacognition is a basic requirement for the 
effectiveness of cognition. The ability of cognition functions effectively if metacognition is 
in a high level. Conversely, cognitive abilities will not function effectively if metacognition is 
in a low level. Thus, it means that the ability of metacognition determines one's success more 
than its cognition. 

In learning, metacognition is related to the ability to plan learning, monitor progress 
or setback experience during the learning process and finally evaluate the results of the 
learning process. Thus, it will help students to carry out more appropriate learning activities 
in order to achieve learning goals because awareness of metacognition includes knowledge of 
cognition and regulation of cognition (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). By the knowledge of 
cognition and cognitive settings, student learning activities can be more effective. In 
addition, effective learning refers to a successful learning process, which is characterized by 
the achievement of learning objectives appropriately. The objectives are formulated and 
realized before the learning processes are used as the basis in carrying out learning and in 
evaluating. Effective learning certainly impacts on student academic achievement as Schraw 
said (1998) that metacognition is important for successful learning because it allows 
individuals to better manage their cognitive skills, and to determine weaknesses that can be 
improved by building new cognitive skills. Additionally, Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger and 
Kruger (as cited in Al Baddareen, Ghaith, & Akour, 2015) state that metacognition is a 
strong predictor of academic success for students. Several studies have shown that 
metacognition can improve learning. In Conner’s study (2007), he listed several studies 
(Baird, 1998; Hacker, 1998; and White & Gunstone, 1989), which showed that learning can 
be improved if students use the metacognitive process that is if they realize, monitor, and 
control their own learning. In general, it is evident that good students are metacognitive 
skilled and on the other hand metacognitive poor people are imperfect in the way they 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 82  

 

 

 

handle learning tasks in most subjects (Conner, 2007 as cited in Baird, 1986, 1992, 1998; 
Shuell , 1988; Wang & Peverly, 1986). 

In brief, this study examined the relationship of metacognition awareness on the 
academic achievements of student teachers, who will later become teachers. Academic 
achievement refers to knowledge, skills, and scientific attitudes mastered by students after 
going through a unit of education time in college. The smallest unit of education in college is 
called as semester. In one semester, students can learn several subjects so that academic 
achievement includes the results of learning all the subjects. Student academic achievement 
in one semester is expressed in the form of an achievement index (IP), and in the form of 
the average value of all courses studied by students in one semester. 
 

Methodology 

 
Research design, participants, and locale of the study   

 
A quantitative method was used and the sample was taken by involving the third, 

fifth, and seventh semester students to describe the metacognitive awareness of Indonesian 
language and literature educational students in one private higher education institution, and 
to differentiate student metacognition by gender and length of study, and to correlate 
metacognition awareness on student achievement indexes. Variable metacognition and 
student achievement indexes were collected without giving treatment and data were collected 
at the time of the study. 

The research sample was taken using nonprobability sampling. Samples were taken 
by involving semester III, V, and VII student teachers; while the first semester students were 
not involved because they were learning at the time so their learning achievements cannot be 
recorded. The number of samples completing the data was 42 respondents, consisting of 25 
women and 17 men with the ages ranging from 20 years to 26 years. 

 
Data collection and analysis 
 
Data collection was carried out by using documents in the forms of student 

achievement index data and questionnaires. The documents were used to collect student 
achievement index data administered in Academic and Student Administration Section at the 
research site. The questionnaire was used to collect student metacognition awareness data. 
There were 52 question items in the questionnaire modified from the MAI (metacognitive 
awareness inventory) questionnaire developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994) with a 
reliability value of Cronbach's alpha 1.0096 (greater than 0.6). The items in the questionnaire 
statement consisted of 19 items of metacognition knowledge (6 items of procedural 
knowledge, 8 declarative knowledge, and 5 conditional knowledge) and 33 items of 
regulatory metacognition (10 items of information management strategy, 7 items of 
monitoring, 6 items of evaluations, 5 items of planning, and 5 items of debugging strategies). 
The questionnaire was in the form of a Likert scale, where each item was followed by 4 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 83  

 

 

 

answer choices; Strongly Disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Agree (A), or Strongly Agree (SA). 
Each answer choice was given a score in sequence 1, 2, 3, and 4. The choice of this answer 
did not use a midpoint to avoid a neutral answer. 

Data analysis was performed using manual calculations and SPSS 16.0 for Windows. 
To test the differences in metacognition awareness of male students and female students, the 
Mann Whitney Large Sample Rank Test formula was used because the sample was more 
than 20 respondents (Siregar, 2015). Meanwhile, the Spearman Rho correlation formula was 
used to examine the relationship between student metacognition awareness and student 
achievement indexes.  

 
Ethical considerations 

 
This study used individuals as the main source of the information. To contend with 

the ethics, although in Indonesia there is no administrative body established to protect the 
rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in this research, I 
covered the identities of people, places, and the research location by way of made-up names 
to keep the rights of human research participants. Additionally, participation in this study 
was totally volunteer. 

 
Findings  
 
Student metacognition awareness 
 
Based on the data analysis, it was found that the scores of metacognition awareness 

obtained by students ranged from 117 to 184, with the same average and median score of 
157 or 76% and standard deviation of 14.53. After this score was converted into a scale of 
0-100 to be categorized as Green rating scale (Suratno, 2011), it turns out that most students 
(33 people or 79%) were in ‘Good’ category (score 68-84), (51-67), the remaining 5 people 
or 12% included in ‘Very Good’ category (85-100) and 4 respondents (10%) included the 
developing category. Thus, it can be stated that student metacognition awareness was 
included in ‘Good’ category. 

 
Table 1. Category of student metacognition awareness  
 

Category Range of Score (%) Frequency % 

Very good 85-100 5 12 
Good 64-84 33 78 

Developing 51-63 4 10 

 
Furthermore, this also describes student metacognition awareness based on 

components presented in Table 2. 
 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 84  

 

 

 

 
Table 2. Components of student metacognition awareness 
 

No Components of Metacognition Total of items Average score % 

1 Cognition Knowledge 19 55.95 74 

  
Declarative knowledge 8 23.95 75 

  
Procedural knowledge 6 17.59 73 

  
Conditional knowledge 5 14.41 72 

2 Cognition Regulation 33 100.14 76 

  
Planning 5 15.83 79 

  
Information management Strategy 10 28.88 72 

  
Monitoring of understanding 7 21.12 75 

  
Debugging strategy 5 16.24 81 

    Evaluation 6 18.07 75 

 
According to Table 2, it was known that the components of student cognition 

regulation measured through 33 items of statements turned out to have a greater average 
(100.14 or 75%) than students' cognition knowledge with an average of 55.95 or 73% 
measured through 19 statements. Furthermore, based on the details of the two types of 
metacognition translated into eight aspects categorized as Schraw and Dennison (1994), the 
highest aspect was debugging strategy with an average score of 16.24 or 81%. Next, the 
mean sequentially covered planning aspect of 15.83 (79%), monitoring aspect of 21.12 
(75%), evaluation aspect of 18.07 (75%), declarative knowledge aspect of 23.95 (75), 
procedural knowledge aspect of 17.59 (73%), information management strategies aspect of 
28.88 (72%), and knowledge aspect of 14.41 (72%). Thus, it meant that the lowest score of 
metacognition awareness was from the knowledge aspect. 

 
Differences in metacognition based on gender and length of study 
 
Differences in metacognition between female and male students were analyzed by 

using nonparametric comparative analysis with a large Mann Whitney rating test formula 
(Siregar, 2015) because the sample was more than 20 (twenty) respondents. From these 
calculations, Z was calculated -.128. On the other hand, Z table at the real level (significance) 
of 5% with the two-party test was 1 - .05 / 2 = 1- .025 = .957, and the value of .957 in the 
Normal Distribution Table is 1.96. So, Z count was in the acceptance region of null 
hypothesis, -1.96 <- .128 <1.96, so it was noticed that there was no significant difference 
between metacognitive awareness of male and female students. Calculations using SPSS 16.0 
for Windows were obtained by Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) of .898, because of the value of 
Asymp. Sig. .898> .05 it can be concluded that the null hypothesis was accepted. There was 
no significant difference between metacognitive awareness of male and female students. 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 85  

 

 

 

 
Table 3. SPSS test results using the Mann Whitney U Formula 
 
 Metacognition Awareness 

Mann-Whitney U 
Wilcoxon W 
Z 
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 

207.500 
360.500 
-.128 
.898 

 
As with sex differences, the differences in the length of the study did not show 

statistical differences. By using the Kruskal-Wallis Ranking Test (H Test), the value of H 
count = .11083. This value turned out to be smaller than the X² table 5.991 in the Chi 
Square Table. This meant that the null hypothesis was accepted that there was no significant 
difference (significant) metacognitive awareness between students in semester III, V, and 
VII. Based on the Kruskal-Wallis test, the value of the average metacognition awareness was 
obtained every semester as listed in Table 4. Sequential metacognitive awareness of semester 
III, V, and VII students was 20.82, 21.20, and 22.15. Briefly, there was a very small 
difference between 0.38 and 0.95. 
 
Tabel 4. Mean rank 
 
 Semester N Mean Rank 

Metacognition Awareness third semester 
fifth semester 
seventh semester 
Total 

17 
5 
20 
42 

20.82 
21.20 
22.15 

 
The long difference in this study was not significant based on testing using SPSS 16.0 

for Windows which resulted in the value of P Value as indicated by the value of Asymp. Sig. 
amounting to .946. This value was greater than the critical limit .05 which meant the null 
hypothesis was accepted; there was no significant difference between metacognitive 
awareness of students in the third semester, the fifth semester, and the seventh semester. 
The calculation results were listed in Table 5. 

 
Tabel 5. Testing score of Kruskal Wallis 
 
 Metacognition Awareness 

Chi-Square 
Df 
Asymp. Sig. 

.111 
    2 
.946 

a. Kruskal Wallis Test 
b. Grouping Variable: Semester 

 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 86  

 

 

 

 
Correlation of metacognition awareness with learning achievement 

 
Based on data analysis, student achievement index ranged from 2.99 to 4.00, with an 

average of 3.46 and standard deviation .27. Categorization rating scale was used from Green 
(2011) by converting data into a scale of 0-100. Student academic achievement index can be 
categorized as ‘Very Good’ because 59.05% of students were in ‘Very Good’ category and 
the rest (40.5%) was in ‘Good’ category. 

Furthermore, the correlation between metacognition awareness and student 
achievement index was calculated by using SPSS and obtained the correlation coefficient 
number .193. The sig (2-tail) value was 0.220 greater than the criticism value of 0.05. To 
conclude, the correlation was not significant. Although it was not significant, there was a 
very weak direct correlation between metacognitive awareness and student achievement 
index of student teachers. 
 

Discussion  
 

The first result of this study stated that there was no significant difference between 
metacognitive awareness of male and female student teachers. This finding confirmed the 
research findings of Mesároã, Mesároãová, and Mesároãová’s (2012) study that also found 
that there were no gender differences in the metacognition awareness of university students 
in Slovakia. This study also used a modified MAI questionnaire in Slovak (Schraw & 
Denisson, 1994). The second result stated that there was no significant difference between 
metacognitive awareness of the third semester, fifth semester, and seventh semester 
students. This result was different from the theory put forward by Flavell (1976) and his 
colleagues (Fisher, 1998) reported that metacognition awareness develops with age, and 
older students are more successful or higher in metacognitive awareness because they have 
internalized a large amount of metacognitive information. However, Fisher (1998) added 
that the failure to use metacognition awareness is not too age-related, but rather has to do 
with experience. When older students (in this case students of the fifth and seventh 
semester) did not show better metacognition awareness than their younger counterparts 
(third semester students), it can be noted that the students' experience in using metacognitive 
awareness was lacking. 

In this regard, educator intervention is needed to provide experience for students 
with using metacognition awareness. The frequency of experience given will develop the 
components of metacognition awareness; it can increase the success of students in 
completing their learning tasks and life tasks. Fisher (1998) stated that what students need is 
not only explicit teaching but also metacognition assistance. The help of metacognition can 
be carried out in various ways, and one of the ways suggested by Fisher (1998) is the 
experience of mediated self-reflection. This mediated learning is also called scaffolding 
learning. Therefore, educators should carry out learning by involving scaffolding techniques 
so that students can gradually manage their own learning and thinking. Scaffolding is 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 87  

 

 

 

provided by lecturers or people who are more capable of guiding students or people who are 
learning past the zone of proximal development (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001). Scaffolding 
helps students to work with increasing independence, students not only know what is done 
and thought, but also how to think, do, and apply it in a new context. 

Moreover, there are three main characteristics of scaffolding actions named 
contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility (van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010). 
Contingency is the provision of assistance or support in accordance with the needs of 
students, and must be a little higher than the ability of current students. For this reason, a 
diagnostic strategy is needed to find out the strengths and weaknesses of students so that 
they can provide the needed assistance. After knowing the existence of student 
metacognitive abilities, the lecturers are expected to teach contingency so that students 
succeed in understanding their metacognition. When students begin to understand, 
recognize themselves, plan, monitor, and evaluate, then gradually assistance and support 
reduced from time to time, this is called scaffolding. When support is reduced, lecturers can 
transfer responsibility to students so that students will take higher control over their learning 
activities (Young, 2018). 

In short, scaffolding learning can be given by using one or a combination of the 
following scaffolding techniques: oral scaffolding, writing scaffolding, and action scaffolding 
(Eriyani, 2016). Oral scaffolding is given through verbal interactions with students, such as 
giving explanations, lectures, and discussions. Writing scaffolding is given through written 
communication, such as lecturer notes on student worksheets, and handouts. Action 
scaffolding action is given through certain actions in the form of direct involvement of the 
lecturer in the activities of solving or completing student assignments to transfer their work 
methods (in planning, monitoring, and evaluating) to students. 
 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

This study aimed to describe the metacognition awareness of Indonesian language 
and literature education students in one private higher education institution, Jambi 
Indonesia, and to distinguish student metacognition based on gender and length of study, 
and correlate metacognition awareness with student achievement indexes. The results of the 
study reported, first, the metacognitive awareness of student teachers can be categorized as 
‘Good’ level with an average score of 76%. Second, there was no significant difference 
between metacognitive awareness of male and female students, because Z count was in the 
acceptance area of the null hypothesis, -1.96 <- .128 <1.96. Third, there was no significant 
difference between metacognition awareness of the third, fifth and seventh semester 
students. The last findings were quite surprising, it turned out that there was a very weak 
positive relationship between metacognition awareness and student learning achievement. 

Finally, the third finding alarmed to be aware that the length of learning had not yet 
affected student metacognition awareness. Therefore, an intervention effort is needed that 
allows older education students to have higher education as well as their metacognition 
awareness so that when they pass their study, their metacognition awareness has developed 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 88  

 

 

 

maximally. This will enable them to become educators who can compete anywhere. For this 
reason, it is recommended that educators apply learning that accelerates the mastery of 
student metacognition awareness so that they can face and resolve learning problems and 
tasks they face. 

 
Disclosure statement  
 
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. 
 
Acknowledgments  

I would like to thank IRJE and reviewers for accepting my article. 

 
References 

Al-Baddareen, G., Ghaith, S., & Akour, M. (2015) Self efficacy, achievement goal, and 
metacognition a predictors of academic motivation. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Science, 
191, 2068-2073. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com 

Aktur, A. O., & Sahin, I. (2011). Literature review on metacognition and its measurement. 
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3731-3736.  

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A  
revision of Blooms’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson Education. 

Asriningsih, I., Saepuzaman, D, & Ferranie, S. (2016). Penerapan strategi metakognisi pada 
pembelajaran kooperatif untuk mengidentifikasi profil metakognisi siswa SMA kelas x. 
Graviti, 2(2), 166-177.  

Baird, J. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. 
European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263–282. 

Baird, J. (1992). The individual student. In J. Baird & J. Northfield (Eds.), Learning from the 
PEEL experience (pp. 37–60). Melbourne, Australia: Monash University. 

Baird, J. (1998). A view of quality in teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International 
handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 153–167). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. 

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New 
York: Longmans, Green. 

Conner, L. N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a 
final year high school Biology class. Research in Science Education, DOI: 
10.1007/s11165-004-3592-x.  

Cubukcu, F. (2009). Metacognition in the classroom. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 
559-563.  

Eriyani, E. (2016) Teknik scaffolding dalam penulisan skripsi mahasiswa sarjana. Fokus 1(1), 
1-7.  

Fisher, R. (1998) Thinking about thinking: Developing metacognition in children. Early Child 
Development and Care, 141, 1-15. 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 89  

 

 

 

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The 
nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Hacker, D. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlowsky, & 
A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, 
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and 
literacy education. Australia: Primary English Teaching Association. 

Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of 
Mathematical Education in Sciece and Technology, 37(2), 127 – 143. 

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Kementerian 
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 

Mesaros, P., Mesarosova, M., & Mesarosova, L. (2012). Learning to learn competency, 
metacognitive learning strategies and academic self-concept of university student. 
International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 5(2), 489-497 

Othman, Y., Mustapha, G., Baki, R., & Ahmad, S. (2008) Proses pemahaman daripada 
perspeftif metakognitif dalam kalangan pelajar university. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. and Hum, 
16(2), 213-223. 

Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschat, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The 
metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. 
Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462.  

Siregar, S. (2015) Metode penelitian kuantitatif dilengkapi dengan perbandingan perhitungan manual dan 
SPSS. Jakarta: Prenadamedia Group. 

Suratno. (2011) Kemampuan metakognisi dengan metacognitive awareness inventory (MAI) 
pada pembelajaran biologi SMA dengan strategi jigsaw, reciprocal teaching (RT) dan 
gabungan jigsaw-RT. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 18(1), 11-18.  

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R., S. (1994). Assesing metacognition awareness. Contemporary 
Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.   

Schraw, G. (1998) Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 
113-125.  

Shuell, T. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary 
Educational Psychology, 13, 276–295. 

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student 
interaction: A decade of research. Educ. Psycho. Rev. 22(3), 271-296.  

Wang, M. C., & Peverly, S. T. (1986). The self- instructive process in classroom learning 
contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 370–404. 

White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of 
Science Education, 11, 577–586. 

Young, M. S. (1). Indonesia’s Active, Creative, Effective and Joyful Learning: From a 
University Teacher Training Program to High School Classrooms. IRJE (Indonesian 
Research Journal in Education) , 2(1), 7-31. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v2i1.4467 

 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 90  

 

 

 

  

 
Biographical notes 
 
Dr. ELFA ERIYANI is a lecturer at Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan YPM 

Bangko, Jambi, Indonesia. She obtained her master’s in Indonesian language education from 
Universitas Negeri Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia and she obtained a doctoral degree in 
Education with a specialization in Indonesian language education for her dissertation from 
the Graduate School, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia. elfaeriyani@stkipypmbangko.ac.id 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

mailto:elfaeriyani@stkipypmbangko.ac.id