Monitoramento e inteligência como preditores do desempenho acadêmico geral e específico no ensino superior

• Ano de defesa: 2018
• Autor(a) principal: Marcio Alexander Castillo Diaz
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; UFMG
• Palavras-chave em Português: Ensino Superior; Desempenho Acadêmico; Metacognição; Inteligência; Ensino superior; Psicologia
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/BUOS-B3PJKN

Intelligence is considered the main predictor of academic achievement. However, studies have been showing that metacognition, especially monitoring, might be as important as intelligence to predict academic achievement. Prediction is important because it permits diagnosis and interventions in higher education contexts. Considering the relevance of monitoring and intelligence, this article aims to response three questions: (1) Are monitoring and general intelligence non-correlated distinct constructs and do they both predict general academic achievement in higher education? (2) Are monitoring and general intelligence associated constructs and do they both predict general academic achievement in higher education? (3) Do monitoring or general intelligence predict specific academic achievement in higher education, taking general academic achievement as control? The sample was composed by 459 freshmen enrolled in the National Autonomous University of Honduras in 2017. Participants completed the Metacognitive Monitoring Test, the Purdue University Intelligence Test - Form B and the Academic Aptitude Test. Eight models were analyzed through structural equation modeling in order to answer the questions of the study. The model with the best data fit assumes that intelligence and monitoring are correlated; as well they both predict general academic achievement. The results permit to conclude that: (1) Although monitoring and intelligence are distinct constructs, they are both correlated; (2) monitoring is a better predictor than intelligence to forecast general academic performance in higher education; (3) Both variables just predict general academic performance. Implications for further research and for educational practice are discussed.