Main Article Content
The purposes of this research were (1) to study the use of action research to promote professional Thai language professional teacher experience practicing students’ metacognition development of students studying Thai language; (2) to assess metacognition of students studying Thai language; and (3) to study the relationship of metacognition and learning achievement of students studying Thai language. The target group consisted of 5 fifth year students who were undertaking the teacher professional experience practicum in the Thai Language Program of the Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University; and 225 secondary school students in five classrooms, each of which containing 45 students, of five schools where
the student teachers had their practicum during the 2019 academic year. The instruments used to collect data were (1) a knowledge adjustment training plan for professional experience practicing students and mentors; (2) a quality verification form for learning management plans using metacognitive strategies of professional experience practicing students; (3) a teaching supervision form for supervision of practicing student’s teaching with the use of metacognitive strategies; (4) a reflective thinking form for professional experience practicing students; (5) a student’s metacognition measurement and evaluation form; (6) a student’s metacognition observation form; (7) a test of student’s learning achievement, (8) a reflective thinking form for students learning with the use of metacognitive strategies; and (9) a student interview form. The researcher designed and planned the research using the action research process which was the use of PAOR circuits or Plan-Act-Observe-Reflect. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics including the mean, standard deviation, percentage, Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient, and effect size; while qualitative data were analyzed with descriptive narration method. Research findings could be concluded as follows:
1. The results of using action research to promote professional Thai language professional teacher experience practicing students’ metacognition development of students studying Thai language is the use of PAOR circuits or Plan-Act-Observe-Reflect. In the development of students, the process was divided into 3 main circuits, which were circuit 1: organizing a seminar training to adjust the students’ background knowledge; circuit 2: creating and developing instructional management plans; and circuit 3: actual teaching practice.
2. Regarding the metacognition assessment results of students in Thai language, when the total score was considered, it was found that the students’ post-learning metacognition mean score was 3.99, which was 79.80 % of the total score. Also, the students post-learning metacognition mean score was increased over their pre-learning counterpart mean score with the overall size effect (d) of 0.32, which was considered as increasing at the moderate level.
3. The correlation coefficients of learning achievement and metacognition scores of students in the five schools ranged from 0.25 to 0.68, which were at the low to moderate levels.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
I and co-author(s) certify that articles of this proposal had not yet been published and is not in the process of publication in journals or other published sources. I and co-author accept the rules of the manuscript consideration. Both agree that the editors have the right to consider and make recommendations to the appropriate source. With this rights offering articles that have been published to Panyapiwat Institute of Management. If there is a claim of copyright infringement on the part of the text or graphics that appear in the article. I and co-author(s) agree on sole responsibility.
Fernandez-Duque, D. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness
and Cognition, 9, 288-307.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in
Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 149 - 172). Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nonglak Wiratchai. (2005). Principles of Quantitative Research and Qualitative Research. Retrieved December 4 ,2009, from www.research10ubru.con/work/nongluk.doc.
Ozturk, N. (2016). An Analysis of Pre-service Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of
Metacognition and Pedagogies of Metacognition. Journal of Teacher Education and
Educators,5(1), 47- 68.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Somjet Phanphrom. (2017). The Development of an Instructional Model Based on
Metacognitive Reading Strategies with Scaffolding to Enhance Analytical Reading
Ability for Upper Secondary Students. Doctoral Dissertation, Naresuan University.
Suwimon Wongwanich. (2012). Classroom action research. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University
Press. [In Thai]
The Institute for the promotion of teaching Science and Technology. (2013). Assessment Results of PISA (Programmed for International Student Assessment) 2012 : Mathematic Reading and Science Executive Summary. Bangkok: The Institute for the promotion of teaching Science and Technology (IPST).
The Ministry of Education (2008). The Basic Core Curriculum 2008.Bangkok: The Agricultural Cooperative Federation of Thailand. Limited. [In Thai]
Vicharn Panich. (2012). The Ways of creating to learn for students in the 21st century.
Bangkok: Sodsri-Saritwong Foundation. [In Thai]
Wood,Bruner,&Ross. (1976). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal
Of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,17(1), 89-100.