Résumés
Résumé
La présente recherche a pour but de construire et de valider le Questionnaire des composantes métacognitives de la révision de textes (QCMR) en contexte universitaire. Au total, 451 étudiants de licence (trois premières années à l’université) appartenant à plusieurs domaines d’étude dans une université française ont participé à l’étude. Après une version initiale du questionnaire, qui comportait 41 items, une analyse factorielle exploratoire a révélé 5 facteurs correspondant aux dimensions théoriques envisagées. Une analyse factorielle confirmatoire a validé cette structure, qui mesure les variables suivantes : connaissances métacognitives déclaratives, gestion du temps, autosurveillance, connaissances métacognitives procédurales et recherche d’aide. Un bon niveau de fiabilité a été constaté : des coefficients alpha allant de 0,74 à 0,83 ainsi qu’un degré satisfaisant de stabilité temporelle. Le QCMR possède également une bonne validité prédictive.
Mots-clés :
- révision,
- autorégulation,
- connaissances métacognitives,
- étudiants,
- validation
Abstract
The present study aims to construct and validate the Metacognitive Components of Revising Questionnaire (QCMR) in university context. The participants were 451 students from a French university enrolled in different first to third year programs. After a first version of the questionnaire including 41 items, an exploratory factor analysis showed 5 factors which correspond to the theoretical dimensions considered by the researchers. This structure was confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis and can measure the following variables: declarative metacognitive knowledge, management of time, self-monitoring, procedural metacognitive knowledge and seeking help. The analysis presents a good internal reliability with alpha coefficients ranged from .74 to .83. The results of the test-retest reliability were good. Finally, the QCMR presents a correct predictive validity.
Keywords:
- revising,
- self-regulation,
- metacognitive knowledge,
- university students,
- validation
Resumo
O objetivo desta investigação é construir e validar o Questionário de componentes metacognitivos da revisão de textos (QCMR) no contexto universitário. Participaram no estudo 451 estudantes de licenciatura (três primeiros anos na universidade) de várias áreas de estudo de uma universidade francesa. Após uma versão inicial do questionário, que incluiu 41 itens, uma análise fatorial exploratória revelou 5 fatores correspondentes às dimensões teóricas consideradas. Uma análise fatorial confirmatória validou esta estrutura que mede as seguintes variáveis: conhecimentos metacognitivos declarativos, gestão do tempo, autovigilância, conhecimentos metacognitivos processuais e investigação de ajuda. Constatou-se um bom nível de fiabilidade: os coeficientes alfa variam de 0,74 a 0,83 e a estabilidade temporal apresenta um grau satisfatório. QCMR também tem boa validade preditiva.
Palavras chaves:
- revisão,
- autorregulação,
- conhecimentos metacognitivos,
- estudantes,
- validação
Parties annexes
Références
- Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
- Allal, L. et Saada-Robert, M. (1992). La métacognition : cadre conceptuel pour l’étude des régulations en situation scolaire. Archives de psychologie, 60(235), 265-296.
- Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210-223. doi: 10.1080/00461 520.2010.515934
- Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
- Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400-404. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400
- Bereiter, C., Burtis, P., & Scardamalia, M. (1988). Cognitive operations in constructing main points in written composition. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 261-278. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90054-X
- Berninger, V. W., Cartwright, A. C., Yates, C. M., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing, 6(2), 161-196. doi: 10.1007/BF01026911
- Berninger, V., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Assessment of planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology, 34(1), 23-52. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(95)00024-0
- Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1(2), 100-112. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.100
- Boekaerts, M. (1999). Metacognitive experiences and motivational state as aspects of self-awareness: Review and discussion. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 571-584. doi: 10.1007/BF03172980
- Bouffard-Bouchard, T. et Gagné-Dupuis, N. (1994). Pratiques parentales et développement métacognitif chez l’enfant d’âge préscolaire. Enfance, 47(1), 33-50. doi: 10.3406/enfan.1994.2083
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
- Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239-297. doi: 10.1007/BF01464075
- Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y.-L., Hanson, M. A., & Schmeiser, C. (2012). Predicting early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial characteristics, and behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 407-420. doi: 10.1037/a0027180
- Castelló, M., Bañales, G., & Vega, N. A. (2010). Research approaches to the regulation of academic writing: The state of the question. Electronical Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 1253-1282. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/228845741_Research_approaches_to_the_regulation_of_academic_writing_The_state_of_the_question
- Ciascai, L., & Haiduc, L. (2011). Gender differences in metacognitive skills: A study of the 8th grade pupils in Romania. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 396-401. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.255
- Cicchetti, D. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
- Costabile, A., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Manfredi, P., & Figliuzzi, S. (2013). Metacognitive components of student’s difficulties in the first year of university. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 165-171. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v2n4 p165
- Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
- Cota, A. A., Longman, R. S., Holden, R. R., Fekken, G. C., & Xinaris, S. (1993). Interpolating 95th percentile eigenvalues from random data: An empirical example. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53, 585-596. doi: 10.1177/00131644 93053003001
- Delcambre, I., Donahue, T. et Lahanier-Reuter, D. (2012). Ruptures et continuités dans l’écriture à l’université. Scripta, 13(24), 227-244. Repéré à http://periodicos.pucminas.br/index.php/scripta/article/view/4405
- Donahue, C. (2010). Évolution des pratiques et des discours sur l’écrit à l’université : étude de cas. Lidil – Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues, 41, 137-160. Repéré à http://journals.openedition.org/lidil/3034
- Eme, E. et Rouet, J.-F. (2001). Les connaissances métacognitives en lecture-compréhension chez l’enfant et l’adulte. Enfance, 53(4), 309. doi: 10.3917/enf.534.0309
- Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. (1992). Socially mediated instruction: Improving students’ knowledge and talk about writing. Elementary School Journal, 92(4), 411-449. doi: 10.1086/461700
- Escorcia, D. et Fenouillet, F. (2011). Quel rôle de la métacognition dans les performances en écriture? : analyse de la situation d’étudiants en sciences humaines et sociales. Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 34(2), 53-76.
- Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26, 473-488. doi: 10.1023/A:1003202412203
- Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. doi: 10.1037/ 0003-066X.34.10.906
- Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
- Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
- Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879-896. doi: 10.1037/a0029185
- Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. doi: 10.1177/0741088312451260
- Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. doi: 10.2307/356600
- Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 29-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Hoyle, R., & Panter, A. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 100-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
- Huet, N. et Mariné, C. (1998). Techniques d’évaluation de la métacognition – I. Les mesures indépendantes de l’exécution de tâches. II. Les mesures dépendantes de l’exécution de tâches. L’année psychologique, 98(4), 711-742. doi: 10.3406/psy. 1998.28566
- Ibabe, I., & Jauregizar, J. (2010). Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge. Higher Education, 59(2), 243-258. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9245-6
- Kermarrec, G. et Michot, T. (2007). Développement et validation d’une échelle de mesure des stratégies d’apprentissage spontanément utilisées par des adolescents en éducation physique et sportive. Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 39(3), 235-245. doi: 10.1037/cjbs2007018
- Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379-390. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004
- Lavelle, E. (1993). Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in college composition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 489-499. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01073.x
- Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche [MESR]. (2016). L’enseignement supérieur en chiffres – Parcours et réussite aux diplômes universitaires : les indicateurs de la session 2015. Note flash Enseignement supérieur & Recherche, n° 15, Repéré à www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid109439/parcours-et-reussite-aux-diplomes-universitaires-les-indicateurs-de-la-session-2015.html
- Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
- Mongeau, P. et Hill, J. (1998). Relations entre l’explicitation, l’anticipation et la performance. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 24(2), 323-334. doi: 10.7202/502014ar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
- Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2010). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: General or domain-specific? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(2), 163-178. doi: 10.1007/s10212-010-0040-7
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: MacGraw-Hill.
- O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32, 396-402. doi: 10.3758/BF03200807
- O’Neil, H. F., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 234-245. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1996.9941208
- Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., Nanty, I. et Fontaine, R. (2011). Métacognition et déficience intellectuelle chez l’enfant et l’adolescent : effet d’un entraînement sur la résolution de problèmes. Enfance, 2(2), 225-244. doi: 10.4074/S0013754511002047
- Pihlainen-Bednarik, K., & Keinonen, T. (2011). Sixth graders’ understanding of their own learning: A case study in environmental education course. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(1), 59-78. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930280.pdf
- Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
- Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003024
- Piolat, A., & Roussey, J.-Y. (1991). Narrative and descriptive text revising strategies and procedures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6(2), 155-163. doi: 10.1007/BF03191934
- Pollet, M.-C. (2001). Pour une didactique des discours universitaires : étudiants et système de communication à l’université. Bruxelles : De Boeck Supérieur.
- Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Kirschner, B. W. (1989). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(4), 343-379. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40171153
- Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287-297. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.287
- Risemberg, R. (1996). Reading to write: Self-regulated learning strategies when writing essays from sources. Literacy Research and Instruction, 35(4), 365-383. doi: 10.1080/19388079609558221
- Roen, D. H., & Willey, R. J. (1988). The effects of audience awareness on drafting and revising. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(1), 75-88. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171133
- Romainville, M. (1993). Savoir parler de ses méthodes : métacognition et performance à l’université. Bruxelles : De Boeck Supérieur.
- Roussey, J.-Y. et Piolat, A. (2005). La révision du texte : une activité de contrôle et de réflexion. Psychologie française, 50(3), 351-372. doi: 10.1016/j.psfr.2005.05.001
- Scardamalia, M. et Bereiter, C. (1998). L’expertise en lecture-rédaction. Dans A. Piolat et A. Pélissier, La rédaction de textes: approche cognitive (pp. 13-50). Lausanne : Delachaux et Niestlé.
- Schraw, G. (2010). Measuring self-regulation in computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 258-266. doi : 10.1080/00461520.2010. 515936
- Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 3-16). Heidelberg, NL: Springer Netherlands.
- Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
- Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. doi: 10.1007/BF02212307
- Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Sitko, B. M. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. Graesser (Eds.) Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93-115). London: LEA.
- Thomas, G., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008). Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students’ metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1701-1724. doi: 10.1080/09500690701482493
- Turner, N. E. (1998). The effect of common variance and structure on random data eigenvalues: Implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 58, 541-568. doi: 10.1177/0013164498058004001
- Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
- Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537-555. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00049-4
- Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 267-276. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2010.517150
- Young, A., & Fry, J. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e06/f9a6207a49fd83b9d0ce375dba00a21a0514.pdf
- Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
- Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660-668. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660
- Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628. doi: 10.3102/00028312023004614
- Zimmerman, B., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73-101. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
10.7202/502014ar