Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metacognition and control of study choice in children

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Middle childhood may be crucial for the development of metacognitive monitoring and study control processes. The first three experiments, using different materials, showed that Grade 3 and Grade 5 children exhibited excellent metacognitive resolution when asked to make delayed judgments of learning (JOLs, using an analogue scale) or binary judgments of knowing (JOKs, ‘know’ or ‘don’t know’) without the target being present. (The delayed method used here also results in excellent metacognitive resolution in adults). In three subsequent experiments after making JOLs the children were asked to choose which items they would like to restudy to optimize learning. We then either honored or dishonored the children’s restudy choices, and tested their memory performance. In Experiment 4, honoring the children’s choices made no difference to final recall performance. Experiments 5 and 6 showed that when the computer, rather than the children, chose the items for restudy based on theoretical constraints proposed by the Region of Proximal Learning model of study time allocation, the children’s recall performance improved. In all three experiments, Grade 3 children’s choices were random. Whereas the Grade 5 children showed some indication of a metacognitively guided strategy of choosing the lowest JOL items for study, it did not, consistently, improve performance. Apparently, accurate metacognitive monitoring is largely in place in middle childhood, but is not yet converted into effective implementation strategies. This dissociation between metaknowledge and its implementation in choice behavior needs to be taken into account by educators aiming to design interventions to enhance learning in children at this age.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: when agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138, 432–447. doi:10.1037/a0015928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, L. S. (2009). Enhancing student academic regulatory processes: A study of metacognition, strategic enactment and achievement. In Paul R. (Ed.), Pintrich Award Invited Address, American Psychological Association Convention, Toronto, Canada

  • Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of a second-language vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 124–129. doi:10.1037/h0033475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, I. M., Martin, L. A., & Needham, D. R. (1992). Memory monitoring: how useful is self-knowledge about memory? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 127, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., & Diaz, M. (2008). Measurement of relative metamnemonic accuracy. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 73–94). New York: Psychology Press.

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Curiosity and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 97–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisanz, G. L., Vesonder, G. T., & Voss, J. F. (1978). Knowledge of one’s own responding and the relation of such knowledge to learning: a developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D. F., & Douglas, R. N. (1997). The development of memory strategies. In N. Cowan (Ed.), The development of memory in childhood (pp. 201–246). Hove East Sussex: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P. H. Musen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. III, pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, E., Nelson, T. O., & Peck, J. (1988). Developmental aspects of the feeling of knowing. Developmental Psychology, 24, 654–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, J. C., & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: a critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, L. T., Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy. Psychology and Aging, 12, 50–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cultice, J. L., Somerville, S. C., & Wellman, H. M. (1983). Preschooler’s memory monitoring: FOK judgments. Child Development, 54, 1480–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, A., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. (2011). Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allocation of study time: differential and sufficient aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 274–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J & Ariel, R. (2011). Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. In B. Ross (Ed), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 103–140.

  • Dunlosky, J., Ariel, R., & Thiede, K. W. (2011). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation. In P. A. Higham & J. P. Leboe (Eds.), Constructions of remembering and metacognition: Essays in Honour of Bruce Whittlesea (pp. 182–198). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Older and younger adults use a functionally identical algorithm to select items for restudy during multi-trial learning. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 52, 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249–276). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect people’s self-paced study and yield “labor-and-gain” effects. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory and Cognition, 32, 779–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, B. (2008). Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Memory and Cognition, 36, 815–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, B. (2010). Ending on a high note: adding a better end to difficult study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1548–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H., Frederichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Keener, M. C. (2010). Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. In J. Dunlosky & R. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of memory and metacognition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebb, D. O. (1949). Organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth, S. L., & Sandberg, J. F. (2000). How American children spend their time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, Y.-C., Davis, E. S., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2005). Neural correlates of actual and predicted memory formation. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1776–1783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M., Scholnick, E. K., Travers, S. H., & Johnson, J. W. (1976). Relations among memory, memory appraisal, and memory strategies. Child Development, 47, 648–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, W. L., & Weaver, C. A. (1997). Enhanced metamemory at delays: why do judgments of learning improve over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1394–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, D. R., & Metcalfe, J. (2003). Delaying judgments of learning affects memory, not metamemory. Memory and Cognition, 31, 918–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2002). Metacognition research: An interim report. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 261–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knouse, L. E., Anastopoulos, A. D., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Isolating metamemory deficits in the self-regulated learning of adults with AD/HD. Journal of Attention Disorders.

  • Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma’ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 131(2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Shitzer-Reichert, R. (2002). Metacognitive judgments and their accuracy: Insights from the processes underlying judgments of learning in children. In P. Chambres, M. Izaute, & P.-J. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function, and use (pp. 1–17). New York: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N. (2005). The effectiveness of study and the region of proximal learning. International Dissertation Abstracts (UMI No. 3174827).

  • Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 609–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2002). Developmental trends in children’s feeling-of-knowing judgments. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 326–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markmann, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don’t understand: a preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, G., & Cornoldi, C. (1993). Strategies in study time allocation: why is study time sometimes not effective? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 122, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masur, E. F., McIntyre, C. W., & Flavell, J. H. (1973). Developmental changes in apportionment of study time among items in a multitrial free recall task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 131, 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2010). Desirable difficulties and studying in the Region of Proximal Learning. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 15, 174–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2010). People’s study time allocation and its relation to animal foraging. Behavioral Processes, 83, 213–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 132, 530–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Finn, B. (2009). Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and adults’ vocabulary learning. Memory and Cognition, 37, 1077–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive-science based program to enhance study efficacy in a high and low-risk setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 743–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, E. K., & Lange, G. (1977). The accuracy with which children judge the composition of their free recall. Child Development, 48, 381–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 128–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect”. Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, P. A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 270–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., Ghatala, E. S., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Test monitoring in young grade school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 96–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reder, L. M. (1988). Strategic control of retrieval strategies. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 227–259). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Effect of the difficulty of prior items on the magnitude of judgments of learning for subsequent items. The American Journal of Psychology, 117, 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roebers, C. M., von der Linden, N., Schneider, W., & Howie, P. (2007). Children’s metamemorial judgments in an event recall task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 117–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheck, P., & Nelson, T. O. (2005). Lack of pervasiveness of the underconfidence-with-practice effect: boundary conditions and an explanation via anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 134, 124–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Vise, M., Lockl, K., & Nelson, T. O. (2000). Developmental trends in children’s memory monitoring: evidence from a judgment-of-learning task. Cognitive Development, 15, 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (2011). Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states: Retrieval, behavior, and experience. Memory & Cognition, 39, 737–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2005). Metacognitive control: children’s short-term versus long-term study strategies. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2005). Metacognitive control: Children's short-term versus long-term study strategies. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W. (1999). The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 6, 662–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1. Problems of general psychology including the volume thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), New York: Plenum Press.

  • Weaver, C. A., & Keleman, W. L. (1997). Judgments of learning at delays: shifts in response patterns or increased metamemory accuracy? Psychological Science, 8, 318–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, H. M. (1977). Tip of the tongue and feeling of knowing experiences: a developmental study of memory monitoring. Child Development, 48, 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, H. M. (1978). Knowledge of the interaction of memory variables: a developmental study of metamemory. Developmental Psychology, 14, 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, H. M., Collins, J., & Glieberman, J. (1981). Understanding the combination of memory variables: developing conceptions of memory limitations. Child Development, 52, 1313–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S. (1921). Psychology: A study of mental life. NY: Henry Holt and Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Worden, P. E., & Sladewski-Awig, A. (1982). Children’s awareness of memorability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Demian Vanderputten, Lisa Son, Umrao Sethi, Mike Serra, Camille Williams, Ljubica Chatman, Matthew Greene and the children, principal, teachers and parents of P.S. 75, The Emily Dickenson School, for their help. The research reported here was supported by James S. McDonnell Foundation Grant 220020166 and the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305H060161 to Janet Metcalfe and Lisa Son at Columbia University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Janet Metcalfe

  2. Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

    Bridgid Finn

Authors
  1. Janet Metcalfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bridgid Finn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet Metcalfe.

Additional information

Author Note

Janet Metcalfe, Department of Psychology, Columbia University; Bridgid Finn, Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis. This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through CASL grant #R305H030175, and by Grant 220020166 from the James S. McDonnell Foundation. The authors are entirely responsible for the content of this article. We also thank Lisa Son, David Miele, Barbie Huelser, and the anonymous reviewers. Correspondence should be addressed to Janet Metcalfe, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027. Email: jm348@columbia.edu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Metcalfe, J., Finn, B. Metacognition and control of study choice in children. Metacognition Learning 8, 19–46 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9094-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9094-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation