Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and reliability of an English translation of the Teacher Metacognition Inventory (TMI) with mathematics teachers in Singapore

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the validity of an English translation of the Teacher Metacognition Inventory (TMI) originally developed by Jiang et al. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 403-413, (2016) in China with a sample of mathematics teacher in Singapore. A total of 436 valid responses were collected from primary and secondary female and male mathematics teachers with various degrees of experience. This inventory measures teachers’ metacognitive knowledge about self and pedagogy, regulation on planning and monitoring, reflection and experiences. Whereas the original inventory had six dimensions and 28 items, a better fit was found with seven dimensions and 26 items. The extra dimension reflected a split of Teacher Metacognitive Experiences into positive and negative ones. The seven-dimension structure had good reliability and validity. The instrument was also invariant across gender, level (i.e., primary and secondary school teachers) and years of experience. Together, the results suggest that the TMI was an effective instrument and could be used to assess teacher metacognition in educational settings or for teachers to reflect on their metacognition and metacognitive practice, as suggested by the original developers of the scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1998). Mathematics teaching as problem solving: A framework for studying teacher metacognition underlying instructional practice in mathematics. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcikanli, C. (2011). Metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1309–1332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, A., & Orion, N. (2013). Teachers’ voices on integrating metacognition into science education. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3161–3193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J.-L., & Karabenick, S. A. (2016). Construct validity of self-reported metacognitive learning strategies. Educational Assessment, 21(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.1127751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables John Wiley New York.

  • Borkowski, J. G., Johnston, M. B., & Reid, M. K. (1987). Metacognition, motivation, and controlled performance. Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities, 2, 147–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

  • Byrne, B. M.(2010) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. In: New York: Routledge.

  • Carmines, E., & Mclver, J. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved models: Analysis of covariance structures. Beverly Hills. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). CA: Sage.

  • Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Cox, J. K. (1996). Effects of contextual, learning-based instruction versus computer-assisted instruction on basic skills in selected vocational. Courses: Oklahoma State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ee, J., & Wong, K. Y. (2002). Understanding and overcoming pupils' learning difficulties in mathematics. Teaching and Learning, 23(1), 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297-323): Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Efklides, A. (2002). Feelings and judgments as subjective evaluations of cognitive processing: How reliable are they? Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society.

  • Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research and Reviews, 1(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema, 21(1), 76–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A., Kourkoulou, A., Mitsiou, F., & Ziliaskopoulou, D. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge of effort, personality factors, and mood state: Their relationships with effort-related metacognitive experiences. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6581-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A., & Vlachopoulos, S. P. (2012). Measurement of metacognitive knowledge of self, task, and strategies in mathematics. European Journal of Psychological Assessment., 28, 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002) Cognitive development (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.

  • Foong, P., & Ee, J. (2002). Enhancing the learning of underachievers in mathematics. ASCD Review, 11(2), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. M., & Vallin, L. M. (2018). Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence. Metacognition and Learning, 13(1), 15–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, T. P., Benjamin, A., & Brezinski, K. L. (2000). Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Erratum to “changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures”: [teaching and teachers education 21(4) 343–356]. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 743–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Y., Ma, L., & Gao, L. (2016). Assessing teachers' metacognition in teaching: The teacher metacognition inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, H., Virta, K., Kallio, M., Virta, A., Hjardemaal, F. R., & Sandven, J. (2017). The utility of the metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers among in-service teachers. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, J. D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrivee, B. (2008). Meeting the challenge of preparing reflective practitioners. The New Educator, 4(2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880802014132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N. H., Chang, A. S. C., & Lee, P. Y. (2001). The role of metacognition in the learning of mathematics among low-achieving students. Teaching and Learning, 22(2), 18–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N. H., Yeo, D. J. S., & Hong, S. E. (2014). A metacognitive-based instruction for primary four students to approach non-routine mathematical word problems. ZDM, 46(3), 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers' adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J., Koh, C., Chye, S., Chua, B. L., & Lim, B. S. C. (2012). Revised motivated strategies for learning questionnaire for secondary school students. International Journal of Research, 8.

  • Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi delta kappan, 87(9), 696–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, Y., Lau, S., & Liau, A. K. (2012). The teacher efficacy scale: A reliability and validity study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2), 414–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninkovic, S., & Knezevic-Floric, O. (2018). Validation of the Serbian version of the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale (TSES). Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 50(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.2298/ZIPI1801072N.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Development aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Gracia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). Manual for the use of the motivated learning for strategies questionnaire. University of Michigan.

  • Prytula, M. P. (2012). Teacher metacognition within the professional learning community. International Education Studies, 5(4), 112–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safari, Y., & Meskini, H. (2016). The effect of metacognitive instruction on problem solving skills in Iranian students of health sciences. Global Journal of Health Science, 8(1), 150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, K. (2010). Some guidelines concerning the modeling of traits and abilities in test construction.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, P. W., Cooper, S. S., & Moulding, L. R. (2007). Metacognitive development in professional educators. The Researcher, 21(1), 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, C. (2008). Improving schools through reflection for teachers: Lessons from Singapore. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450802047931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 785–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Paris, S. G. (1997). Australian students' self-appraisal of their work samples and academic progress. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 523–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). The learning and study strategies inventor (LASSI). H & H Publishing.

  • Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. (2004). The study on influence of new curricular reform to teachers' sense of teaching efficacy, teaching motivation and occupational stress. Southwest Normal University. A Chinese Master's dissertation, published in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Retrieved 7 March 2020 from: http://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?QueryID=6&CurRec=1&recid=&filename=2004085533.nh&dbname=CMFD9904&dbcode=CMFD&pr=&urlid=&yx=&v=MjI3NThSOGVYMUx1eFlTN0RoMVQzcVRyV00xRnJDVVJMeWZZT1JvRnlubFU3M0pWMTI3R3JPd0c5VFBySkViUEk.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participating schools and teachers for the time taken for participating in the survey.

Funding

This study was fund by the Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (AFR 03/17 TLS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Lee Yong Tay, Liang See Tan, Jing Yi Tan, Thaslim Begum Aiyoob, Monica Woei Ling Ong, Christina Lim-Ratnam & Puay Huat Chua

Authors
  1. Lee Yong Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liang See Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jing Yi Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thaslim Begum Aiyoob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Monica Woei Ling Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christina Lim-Ratnam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Puay Huat Chua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee Yong Tay.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee. Nanyang Technological University, Institutional Review Board – IRB-2018-05-025.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• The Teacher Metacognition Inventory (TMI) originally developed by Jiang et al. (2016) of six-factor and 28 items in Chinese was revalidated with Singapore primary and secondary math teachers in the English version.

• Confirmatory factor analysis found support for a seven-factor structure TMI consisting of 26 items.

• The original dimension of metacognitive experiences was split into positive and negative dimensions, which was theoretically more valid and coherent.

• Measurement invariance was found across gender, years of teaching experience, and level.

• The revalidated TMI had good statistical fit and validity.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 125 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tay, L.Y., Tan, L.S., Tan, J.Y. et al. Validity and reliability of an English translation of the Teacher Metacognition Inventory (TMI) with mathematics teachers in Singapore. Curr Psychol 42, 2643–2656 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01622-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01622-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation