Understanding how unobservable constructs operate as a function of culture and language is an important goal for researchers. Because language and culture exert such a powerful influence on how psychological phenomena are experienced, latent constructs may not work universally across cultures and languages. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was twofold. First, a process of cultural adaptation of the 24-item Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT), originally developed by Balcikanli (2011), was carried out. Second, the translated instrument was tested and validated in a sample of Colombian teachers (N = 755). A modified factor structure is assumed from that proposed in the original validation study. Results revealed that, after removal of three non-fit items, the team’s hypothesized factor structure for the 21-item MAIT-R demonstrated excellent fit to the data..el-inventario
El Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) fue desarrollado originalmente en inglés por Schraw & Dennison en 1994 para medir las habilidades metacognitivas. Desde su validación inicial, el MAI ha sido considerado como el instrumento más utilizado en el mundo para evaluar las habilidades metacognitivas de autoinforme de las personas, razón por la que ha sido traducido y empleado en varios idiomas, demostrándose así, en diferentes investigaciones sobre la estructura psicométrica de la prueba una alta confiabilidad de consistencia interna y una validez de constructo adecuada. Sin embargo, ningún estudio hasta la fecha había examinado si el instrumento en su forma original, cuando se usa en el idioma español, mantiene una estructura factorial consistente con lo informado por Schraw & Dennison (1994). Así mismo, en el presente trabajo se buscó proporcionar evidencia empírica del uso práctico de este instrumento en poblaciones de estudiantes universitarios de habla hispana.ValidacinenCastellano_ACCEPTED
While the research on metacognition and cognitive styles is strong for either field alone, little research has addressed the two together. Furthermore, no study to date has examined more specific goals related to specific aspects of metacognition, such as monitoring ability and its relationship to cognitive style. Therefore, the present study investigated measures of confidence, performance, and accuracy for three types of metacognitive judgments (prediction, concurrent, and post-prediction) and three different types of metacognitive questions: task questions, self questions, and questions at different times. (before, during and after) and how they are related to cognitive style (field dependent, intermediate, field independent) in a sample of 57 Colombian university students. The results revealed that there were differences in the accuracy and bias of metacognitive monitoring based on cognitive style, and that these findings were similar across time points and across metacognitive judgments. Regarding cognitive style, those with an intermediate or field-independent cognitive style reported higher monitoring accuracy and less bias than people with a field-dependent style. Implications for research, theory and practice are discussed.estilo-cognitivo
A deeper understanding of the factors that influence metacognition has never become more pressing than in today’s digital age, in which information flows constantly and rapidly. To this end, the present study explored the role of culture in mediating how individuals experience metacognitive phenomena. For this one purpose, the International Metacognition Group (IGM) developed a rigorous international standard protocol for to measure metacognition in Spanish-speaking university students (N = 1,461) in 12 cultures in Latin America and Spain, using a subjective measure of metacognitive awareness (the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory [MAI]) and various objective metacognitive monitoring metrics in three learning domains: vocabulary, probabilities (mathematical reasoning) and paper folding (visual-spatial reasoning). The data was then compared between the various cultures with subjective metacognitive awareness and the raw frequencies of the four cells mutually exclusive 2 × 2 performance/judgment matrix as outcomes. The results revealed differences significant with respect to the macro-level components of subjective metacognitive awareness, knowledge, and regulation of cognition. In addition, significant and significant differences emerged for the raw frequencies of the four mutually exclusive cells based on culture, especially for vocabulary, in which differences between cultures emerged for all four cells. Implications for research are discussed metacognitive theory and practice.