Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 13(1) • Winter • 666-670

©
2013 Educational Consultancy and Research Center
www.edam.com.tr/estp

Predicting Critical Thinking Skills of University Students

through Metacognitive Self-Regulation Skills and
Chemistry Self-Efficacy
a b
Esen UZUNTİRYAKİ-KONDAKÇI Yeşim ÇAPA-AYDIN
Middle East Technical University Middle East Technical University

Abstract
This study aimed at examining the extent to which metacognitive self-regulation and chemistry
self-efficacy predicted critical thinking. Three hundred sixty-five university students participated
in the study. Data were collected using appropriate dimensions of Motivated Strategies for Le-
arning Questionnaire and College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
ranged from .77 to .88. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results indicated
that metacognitive self-regulation was found to be positively and significantly related to chemistry
self-efficacy for cognitive skills and chemistry self-efficacy for everyday applications. In addition,
there was a positive and significant relationship between chemistry self-efficacy for everyday app-
lications and critical thinking, whereas there was no significant relationship between chemistry
self-efficacy for cognitive skills and critical thinking. Overall, the tested model explained 68.5% of
critical thinking. Findings provide suggestions in order to enhance critical thinking in chemistry
classes.
Key Words
Critical Thinking, Metacognitive Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, Structural Equation Modeling, Chemistry Educa-
tion.

There is a continuous development in knowledge the most essential skills that individuals should
and changes in needs of a human being, which have to adapt to the changing world (Seferoğlu &
increases the importance of learning new skills Akbıyık, 2006). Critical thinking is also important
(Halpern, 1998). Nowadays, people have to make for students because it enhances meaningful learn-
decisions about both themselves and their soci- ing. Students can use critical thinking in various
ety. Thereby, critical thinking has become one of activities and problems (Dressel & Mayhew, 1954
as cited in Renaud & Murray, 2008; Schafersman,
1991). In the same vein, research findings indicate a
positive relationship between critical thinking and
a Esen UZUNTİRYAKİ-KONDAKÇI, Ph.D., is an academic achievement (Ip, Lee, Lee, Wootton, &
associate professor in the field of chemistry Chang, 2000; Phan, 2008). On the other hand, criti-
education. Her research interests are construc-
cal thinking is low even among university students
tivism, teacher education, affective variables,
(Halpern, 1998; Kuhn, 1999; Şengül & Üstündağ,
and self-regulatory learning. Correspondence:
Middle East Technical University, Department of 2009). Examining the factors which take role in de-
Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, veloping critical thinking, therefore, is important.
06800 Ankara/Turkey. E-mail: [email protected] The present study aimed to examine the extent to
Phone: +90 312 210 4067. which metacognitive self-regulation and chemistry
b Yeşim ÇAPA-AYDIN, Ph.D., Middle East Technical self-efficacy predict critical thinking. Chemistry
University, Department of Educational Sciences. requires higher-order thinking skills in addition to
Ankara/Turkey. content knowledge (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 2008).
 UZUNTİRYAKİ-KONDAKÇI, ÇAPA-AYDIN / Predicting Critical Thinking Skills of University Students through Metacognitive

Critical thinking is defined in various ways such as In the present study, we examined the extent to
reflective thinking used during decision-making which critical thinking is predicted by metacogni-
process (Ennis, 1985) or use of cognitive skills nec- tive self-regulation and chemistry self-efficacy by
essary to achieve a desirable outcome (Halpern, testing the following model:
1999). According to Paul (1996), critical thinking
is related to taking one’s own responsibility. Linn
(2000) states that critical thinking comprises of dif-
ferent skills as searching for source of knowledge,
testing validity of knowledge, questioning reliabil-
ity, and making evaluations to reach conclusions.
In the current study, based on Linn’s conceptualiza-
tion, critical thinking is defined as student’s using
prior knowledge to solve a problem and making
decisions and evaluations.
Figure 1.
Critical thinking has some essential characteristics: Model Used to Predict Critical Thinking via Metacognitive
Firstly, it is context-sensitive. Prerequisite knowl- Self-Regulation and Chemistry Self-Efficacy
edge, complexity of the event or content of the
knowledge influences people’s ability to draw cor-
rect conclusions (Norris, 1985). Secondly, critical Method
thinking can be developed through effective guid-
Research Design
ance (Facione, 2000). Thirdly, it is related to meta-
cognition (Kuhn, 1999). During critical thinking This study employed correlational design. The
process, students monitor their own thinking, as- purpose of correlational design is to examine the
sess whether they reach their goals, and evaluate degree of relationship among different variables
their efforts, use of time, and effectiveness of their (Karasar, 2000). In the current study, we investigat-
decisions (Halpern, 1998). All of these processes ed the relationship among metacognitive self-regu-
involve metacognitive skills as well as cognitive lation, chemistry self-efficacy, and critical thinking.
ones. Accordingly, this study considers metacog-
nitive self-regulation as a variable playing role in
critical thinking. Self-regulation is defined as mon- Participants
itoring behavior, comparing with a criterion, and Employing convenience sampling, a total of 365
make adjustments if necessary (Senemoğlu, 2004). students from three universities in Ankara who
Self-regulation is related to several variables such were taking general chemistry class participated in
as anxiety, learning strategies, and self-efficacy the study voluntarily. Of these students, 236 were
(Çapa Aydın, Uzuntiryaki, & Demirdöğen, 2011; female (64.7%), 129 were male (35.3%). Majority
Jain & Dowson, 2009). Self-efficacy is defined as of the students were freshman (96%), while others
people’s beliefs in their capability to perform a were senior students. More than half of the stu-
task successfully (Bandura, 1986). People with dents (n = 232, 63.6%) were in Faculty of Science
high self-efficacy in science tend to select science- and 36.4% (n = 133) were in Faculty of Education.
related activities or courses, show more effort to be
successful, and do not give up when they face with
obstacles (Bandura, 1997; Britner & Pajares, 2001). Data Collection Instruments
Therefore, efficacious students tend to be more
In an effort to collect data, “Critical Thinking” and
successful (Andrew, 1998; Lau & Roeser, 2002).
“Metacognitive Self-Regulation” dimensions of
Research studies indicated a positive significant re-
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
lationship between self-efficacy and self-regulatory
and “Chemistry Self-Efficacy for Cognitive Skills”
strategies (������������������������������������
Çapa Aydın��������������������������
et al.; Ramdass & Zimmer-
and “Chemistry Self-Efficacy for Everyday Ap-
man, 2008; Schnoll & Zimmerman, 2001; Schunk
plications” dimensions of Chemistry Self-Efficacy
& Ertmer, 1999, 2005; Sungur, 2007; Zimmerman,
Scale were used.
2000). Self-efficacy is also related to critical think-
ing (Bandura, 1997). Students with high self-effi- Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire:
cacy are more likely to utilize critical thinking to This questionnaire was developed by Pintrich,
overcome a problem than students with low self- Smith, Garcia and McKeachie (1991) and adapted
efficacy (Phan, 2009). into Turkish by Sungur (2004). It consists of 15

667
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

dimensions and 81 items on a 7-point rating scale Procedure

from “not at all true of me” to “very true of me.”
Data were collected from students on a voluntary
In the present study, we used critical thinking and
basis during class hours by the researchers. It took
metacognitive self-regulation dimensions. Critical
approximately 10 minutes to administer the instru-
thinking dimension measures the degree to which
ments.
students use their previous knowledge, analyze sit-
uations, and make decisions and evaluations. This
dimension comprises of five items. The sample item Data Analysis
is: “I often find myself questioning things I hear or
The model was tested using structural equation
read in chemistry class to decide if I find them con-
modeling utilizing maximum likelihood estima-
vincing.” Metacognitive self-regulation dimension
tion via AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999).
assesses planning, monitoring, and regulatory pro-
Latent variables were critical thinking, metacogni-
cesses of students with 10 items. The sample item
tive self-regulation, chemistry self-efficacy for cog-
is: “I ask myself questions to make sure I under-
nitive skills, and chemistry self-efficacy for every-
stand the material I have been studying in chemis-
day applications. Items were identified as manifest
try class.” In the present study, confirmatory factor
variables. Frequently used fit indices are chi-square
analysis was conducted to test the factor structure
statistics (c2), comparative fit index (CFI), non-
of the scores obtained from the dimensions of the
normed fit index (NNFI), and root mean square
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire.
error approximation (RMSEA). Considering the
Results indicated good fit to the data with the fol-
limitations of chi-square statistics (Byrne, 2001),
lowing fit indices: χ2 (89) = 211.307, p < .05; CFI =
CFI, NNFI, and RMSEA were used in the present
.990; NNFI = .987; RMSEA = .061. Factors load-
study. For acceptable fit, CFI and NNFI are recom-
ings were found between .63 and .73 for critical
mended to be higher than .95 while RMSEA to be
thinking and .52 and .63 for metacognitive self-
lower than .08 (Byrne; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline,
regulation. Cronbach alpha internal consistency
1998).
coefficient was found to be .80 for critical thinking
and .84 for metacognitive self-regulation.
Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale: This scale was de- Results
veloped by Uzuntiryaki and Çapa Aydın (2009) Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and
to measure students’ beliefs in their capability to correlations among the variables. Findings indi-
perform chemistry tasks successfully. It consisted cated significant positive relationship between
of three dimensions as self-efficacy for cognitive variables.
skills, self-efficacy for psychomotor skills, and
self-efficacy for everyday applications. In the cur-
rent study, two dimensions of the scale were used:
Table 1.
self-efficacy for cognitive skills (12 items, sample Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation among Variables
item: “To what extent can you explain chemical
Variables M SD 1 2 3
laws and theories?”) and self-efficacy for everyday
1. Self-efficacy for cogni-
applications (4 items, sample item: “To what extent 5.87 1.13
tive skills
can you propose solutions to everyday problems by
2. Self-efficacy for
using chemistry?”). Items were rated on a 9-point 5.57 1.38 .77**
everyday applications
scale ranging from “nothing” (1) to “a great deal” 3. Metacognitive self-reg-
4.54 1.09 .47** .44**
(9). Findings of confirmatory factor analysis indi- ulation
cated acceptable fit: χ2 (103) = 380.477, p < .05; CFI 4. Critical thinking 4.09 1.25 .44** .46** .67**
= .984; NNFI = .978; RMSEA = .086. Factor load- N = 365. **p < .01
ings ranged between .46 and .72 for self-efficacy for
cognitive skills and between .60 and .74 for self-
Findings of structural equation modeling showed
efficacy for everyday applications. Cronbach alpha
acceptable fit to the data (χ2 (429) = 1101.23, p <
internal consistency coefficient was .88 for self-effi-
.05; CFI = .978; NNFI = .974; RMSEA = .066). Fig-
cacy for cognitive skills and .77 for self-efficacy for
ure 2 displays standardized coefficients. All factor
everyday applications.
loadings were significant and ranged between .46
and .75.

668
 UZUNTİRYAKİ-KONDAKÇI, ÇAPA-AYDIN / Predicting Critical Thinking Skills of University Students through Metacognitive

and evaluate their learning process and in this way

they observe their progress. This process helps
them think critically. There are empirical findings
supporting this claim in literature (Phan, 2010;
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). On
the other hand, metacognitive self-regulation did
not predict indirectly critical thinking via chemis-
try self-efficacy.
Another finding was the significant relationship
between metacognitive self-regulation and chem-
istry self-efficacy (self-efficacy for cognitive skills
Figure 2. and for everyday applications). Students who take
Findings of Structural Equation Modeling responsibility of their own learning, in other words,
students using self-regulatory strategies effectively,
tend to be higher in efficacy. These students believe
Findings indicated significant and positive rela- in their capabilities to both explain fundamental
tionship between metacognitive self-regulation chemistry concepts and connect chemistry with
and self-efficacy for cognitive skills (γ= .64, p<.05) everyday life. Similar findings were found both in
and metacognitive self-regulation and self-efficacy national and international studies (Çapa Aydın et
for everyday applications (γ=.64, p<.05). In addi- al., 2011; Jain & Dowson, 2009; Ramdass & Zim-
tion, there was a significant positive relationship merman, 2008; Schnoll & Zimmerman, 2001; Sc-
between metacognitive self-regulation and criti- hunk & Ertmer, 1999; Sungur, 2007).
cal thinking (γ=.78, p<.05). However, there was no
significant relationship between self-efficacy for Although efficacious students are expected to be
cognitive skills and critical thinking (γ=.06) and higher in critical thinking (Bandura, 1997; Phan,
self-efficacy for everyday applications and criti- 2010), there are inconsistent findings in literature.
cal thinking (γ=.12). The model tested explained For example, Phan (2009) found positive and sig-
68.5% variance in critical thinking. Direct, in- nificant relationship between efficacy and criti-
direct, and total effects are presented in Table 2. cal thinking in a cross-sectional and longitudinal
While critical thinking was predicted directly by study, whereas he did not find any relationship in
metacognitive self-regulation, it was not predicted 2007. However, self-efficacy was treated as one-di-
indirect through self-efficacy. mensional in these studies. The findings of the pres-
ent study were consistent with those of Phan (2007).
The current study provides insights to better un-
Discussion derstand critical thinking of students. On the other
The present study examined the degree to which hand, as the study utilized correlational design and
critical thinking was predicted directly or indi- did not use random sampling, findings should be
rectly by metacognitive self-regulation and chem- evaluated cautiously. Experimental or longitudi-
istry self-efficacy using structural equation mod- nal studies should be conducted in future to imply
eling. The model was found to be acceptable and cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, aca-
explained 68.5% variance. The most striking find- demic achievement might be added to the model
ing was that metacognitive self-regulation plays a as an outcome variable in different disciplines.
key role in critical thinking. Accordingly, students Thereby, findings would have implications for en-
higher in metacognitive self-regulation monitor hancing student achievement.

Table 2.
Standardized Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects
Predictors Criterion variables Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

Metacognitive self-regulation Self-efficacy for cognitive skills .64* - .64*

Self-efficacy for everyday
.64* - .64*
applications
Critical thinking .78* .04 .82*

Self-efficacy for cognitive skills Critical thinking .06 - .06

Self-efficacy for everyday
Critical thinking .12 - .12
applications

669
References/Kaynakça Phan, H. P. (2008). Unifying different theories of learning:
Theoretical framework and empirical evidence. Educational
Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic per- Psychology, 28, 325-340.
formance in science. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 596–603.
Phan, H. P. (2009). Relations between goals, self-efficacy, cri-
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. tical thinking, and deep processing strategies: A path analysis.
Chicago, IL: SPSS. Educational Psychology, 29, 777-799.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Phan, H. P. (2010). Students’ academic performance and vari-
A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ous cognitive processes of learning: An integrative framework
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New and empirical analysis. Educational Psychology, 30, 297–322.
York: Freeman. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, moti- (1991). A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Le-
vation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of arning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center
Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271–285. for Research
�����������������������������������������������������
to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learn-
ing, University of Michigan.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.
J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated
Çapa Aydın, Y������������������������������������������������
., Uzuntiryaki, E., & Demirdöğen, B. (2011). In- strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and
terplay of motivational and cognitive strategies in predicting Psychological Measurement, 53, 810–814.
self-efficacy and anxiety. Educational Psychology, 31, 55-66.
Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2008). Effects of self-
Ennis, R. H. (1985). The logical basis for measuring CT skills. correction strategy training on middle school students’ self-
Educational Leadership, 43 (2), 44–48. efficacy, self-evaluation, and mathematics division learning.
Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 18-41.
Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thin- Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2008). Comparison of a sub-
king skill. lnformal Logic, 20 (1), 61-84. ject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking. Thin-
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer king Skills and Creativity,3, 85-93.
across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455. Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking
Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping colle- [Online]. Retrieved October 21, 2010 from http://www.freein-
ge students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. quiry.com/critical-thinking.html.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80 (Winter), 69-74. Schnoll, R., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation tra-
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in ining enhances dietary self-efficacy and dietary fiber con-
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new sumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101,
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. 1006–1011.

Ip, W., Lee, D., Lee, J. C., Wootton, Y., & Chang, A. (2000). Dis- Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes
positions toward critical thinking: A study of Chinese undergra- during computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative inf-
duate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 84-90. luences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 251–260.

Jain, S., & Dowson, M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety as a func- Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Self-regulation and
tion of multidimensional self-regulation and self-efficacy. Con- academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In
temporary Educational Psychology, 34, 240–249. M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook
of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Aca-
Karasar, N. (2000). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel. demic Press.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equati- Seferoğlu, S. ve Akbıyık, C. (2006). Eleştirel düşünme ve öğreti-
on modeling. New York: Guilford. mi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 193-200.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Senemoğlu, N. (2004). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim: Kuramdan
Educational Researcher, 28 (1), 16–26. uygulamaya. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2008). Ortaöğretim 11. sınıf kimya der- Sungur, S. (2004). The implementation of problem based lear-
si öğretim programı. Ankara: Yazar. ning in high school biology courses. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and moti-
vational processes in high school students’ situational engage- Sungur, S. (2007). Modeling the relationships among students’
ment and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, motivational beliefs, metacognitive strategy use, and effort
139–162. regulation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51,
315–326.
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration
environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, Şengül, C. ve Üstündağ, T. (2009). Fizik öğretmenlerinin
781–796. eleştirel düşünme eğilimi düzeyleri ve düzenledikleri
etkinliklerde eleştirel düşünmenin yeri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking.
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36, 237-248.
Educational Leadership, 42 (8), 40-45.
Uzuntiryaki, E., & Çapa Aydın, Y. (2009). Development and
Paul, R. (1996). Critical thinking workshop handbook. Rohnert
validation of chemistry self-efficacy scale for college students.
Park, CA: Centre for Critical Thinking, Sanoma State University.
Research in Science Education, 39, 539–551.
Phan, H. P. (2007). An examination of reflective thinking,
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social
learning approaches, and self-efficacy beliefs at the university
cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.
of the south pacific: A path analysis approach. Educational Psy-
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San
chology, 27, 789-806.
Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.