Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Metacognitive processes and associations to executive function and motivation during a problem-solving task in 3–5 year olds

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metacognition—knowledge, monitoring, and regulation of cognition—is key to learning and academic achievement. This is robustly supported for K-12 and higher education learners while empirical evidence in early childhood is encouraging but limited. To address these gaps in the literature, our first goal was to investigate early metacognition across two developmentally appropriate measures. Our second goal was to examine associations to executive function and motivation. Participants were 77 preschoolers, aged 3–5. Metacognition was measured using a metacognitive knowledge interview (declarative metacognition) and a metacognitive skills observational scale (procedural), both in the context of a problem-solving puzzle task. Executive function was assessed with the Head Toes Knees Shoulder measure and motivation was operationalized as persistence (time on task) on the puzzle. All children exhibited evidence of metacognitive knowledge and skills. Declarative and procedural metacognition were significantly and positively related to one another and to executive function and motivation, though to varying degrees. Controlling for language and age, metacognition significantly and positively predicted executive function and motivation. Metacognitive knowledge predicted executive function and metacognitive skills predicted motivation. Results contribute to psychology and education by reinforcing recent findings that metacognition develops far younger than was originally thought, and explicating relations between and providing models for assessing early metacognition, executive function, and motivation. We propose that these skills are intentionally fostered in early childhood.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout this paper, when referring to procedural Mc, we will use the term “skills” rather than “behaviors.” Though skills are often referred to in relation to training whereas behaviors are referred to distinct from training or experience (e.g., Shamir et al. 2009), we use “skills” to indicate likely usefulness and to align with previous literature, procedural Mc is typically conceptualized as skills (Schneider and Lockl 2008; Veenman et al. 2006).

  2. Originally, our sample included an additional 19 2-year-olds; however, 9 of these children were unable to complete any assessment and another three were only able to partially complete the assessments. Thus, we concluded that the tasks (never before used with children under 3) were not developmentally appropriate for 2-year-olds due to the verbal and time demands. We therefore excluded these participants.

  3. We collapsed the data across ages as associations were similar in children aged 3, 4, and 5.

  4. Because research that examines metacognition in children this young is limited, we do not have more specific benchmarks for categorization of or comparison to our findings. However, previous studies (Robson 2010; Whitebread 1999) have used the term “extensive” to refer to “frequently occurring” indicators of metacognitive behaviors such as found in this study thus, we have adopted that term.

References

  • Antonietti, A., Ignazi, S., & Perego, P. (2000). Metacognitive knowledge about problem-solving methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aşık, G., & Erktin, E. (2019). Metacognitive experiences: Mediating the relationship between metacognitive knowledge and problem solving. Education and Science, 44, 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahri, A., & Corebima, A. D. (2015). The contribution of learning motivation and metacognitive skill on cognitive learning outcome of students within different learning strategies. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14, 487–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berhenke, A, L. (2013). Motivation, self-regulation, and learning in preschool. (unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

  • Berhenke, A., Miller, A. L., Brown, E., Seifer, R., & Dickstein, S. (2011). Observed emotional and behavioral indicators of motivation predict school readiness in head start graduates. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bewick, K. C., Raymond, M. J., Malia, K. B., & Bennett, T. L. (1995). Metacognition as the ultimate executive: Techniques and tasks to facilitate executive functions. NeuroRehabilitation, 5, 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, C., & Razza, R. A. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, M, B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. The Guilford Press.

  • Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive Control, self-regulation, and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp. 65–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markham (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). Wiley.

  • Bryce, D., & Whitebread, D. (2012). The development of metacognitive skills: Evidence from observational analysis of young children’s behavior during problem-solving. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9091-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, D., Whitebread, D., & Szűcs, D. (2015). The relationships among executive functions, metacognitive skills and educational achievement in 5 and 7 year old children. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9120-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulos, V., & Gregoriadis, A. (2014). Development and evaluation of metacognition in early childhood education. Early Child

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Coughlin, C., Hembacher, E., Lyons, K. E., & Ghetti, S. (2015). Introspection on uncertainty and judicious help-seeking during the preschool years. Developmental Science, 18, 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cultice, J. C., Sommerville, S. C., & Wellman, H. M. (1983). Preschoolers’ Memory Monitoring: Feeling-of-Knowing Judgments. Child Development, 54, 1480–1486. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1129810

  • Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A., Carlson, S. M., & Beck, D. M. (2005). Preschool children’s performance in task switching on the dimensional change card Sort task: Separating the dimensions aids the ability to switch. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 689–729. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2802_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self–regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta–analysis on self–regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Follmer, D. J., & Sperling, R. A. (2016). The mediating role of metacognition in the relationship between executive function and self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J. K. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive functions and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 405–426. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.4.405-426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, O., MacKinnon, D. P., & Muniz, F. B. (2020). Extrinsic convergent validity evidence to prevent jingle and jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1707061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourlay, C., Mushin, I., & Gardner, R. (2020). Young children’s responses to teachers’ metacognitive questions. International Journal of Early Years Education., 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1742671.

  • Jeong, J. & Frye, D. (2020). Self-regulated learning: Is understanding learning a first step? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50 Part 2, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.007

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). Problem-solving procedures in children’s construction and representations of closed railway circuits. Archives de Psychologie, 47, 33–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T, L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. World Book Co.

  • Kreutzer, M, A., Leonard, S, C., & Flavell, J, H. (1975). An interview study of children’s knowledge about memory. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 40 (1 serial no. 159).

  • Louca-Papaleontiou, E., Melhuish, E., & Philaretou, A. (2012). Introspective abilities of preschool children. Asian Transactions on Basic and Applied Sciences, 2, 14–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, K. E., & Ghetti, S. (2013). I Don't want to pick! Introspection on uncertainty supports early strategic behavior. Child Development, 84, 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marulis, L. M., Kim, M. H., Grammer, J. K., Carrasco, M., Morrison, F. J., & Gehring, W. J. (2013, August). How does young children’s metacognitive knowledge relate to their error-related brain activity and academic achievement? Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Biennial Conference, Munich, Germany

  • Marulis, L. M. (2014). Conceptualizing and assessing metacognitive development in young children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

  • Marulis, L. M., Palincsar, A. S., Berhenke, A. L., Whitebread, D. (2016). Assessing Metacognitive Knowledge in Preschoolers: The Development of a Metacognitive Knowledge Interview (McKI). Metacognition and Learning, 11, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9157-7.

  • Marulis, L. M., Baker, S. T., & Whitebread, D. (2020). Integrating metacognition and executive function to enhance youngchildren’s perception of and agency in their learning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.017.

  • MacTurk, R. H. & Morgan, G, A. (Eds.). (1995). Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations, and applications. Ablex.

  • Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, F. J., & Grammer, J. K. (2016). Conceptual clutter and measurement mayhem: A proposal for a cross disciplinary approach to conceptualizing and measuring executive function. In J. A. Griffin, L. S. Freund, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Executive function in preschool age children: Integrating measurement, neurodevelopment and translational research (pp. 327–348) APA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, F. J., Ponitz, C. C., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self -regulation and academic achievement in the transition to school. In S. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 203–224). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12059-011.

    Chapter  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: Advances in research and theory (pp. 125–173). Academic Press.

  • Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259001100604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P, R., & Schunk, D, H. (2002). Motivation in education. Prentice Hall.

  • Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Connor, C. M., Jewkes, A. M., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learning and Instruction, 16, 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, G.L., Wellman, H.M., & Karabenick, J.D. (1985). Comprehension monitoring in preschool children. Child Development 56, 654–663. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129755

  • Robson, S. (2010). Self-regulation and metacognition in young children’s self-initiated play and reflective dialogue. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18, 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2010.521298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roebers, C. M., & Feurer, E. (2016). Linking executive functions and procedural metacognition. Child Development Perspectives, 10(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roebers, C. M., Cimeli, P., Röthlisberger, M., & Neuenschwander, R. (2012). Executive functioning, metacognition, and self-perceived competence in elementary school children: An explorative study on their interrelations and their role for school achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9089-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohwer, M., Kloo, D., & Perner, J. (2012). Escape from metaignorance: How children develop an understanding of their own lack of knowledge. Child Development, 83, 1869–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01830.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2008). Procedural metacognition in children: Evidence for developmental trends. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 391–409). Psychology Press.

  • Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9086-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, A., Mevarech, Z. R., & Gida, C. (2009). The assessment of meta-cognition in different contexts: Individualized vs. peer-assisted learning. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9032-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, P., & Dweck, C. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals among young children. Child Development, 65, 1723–1743. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiess, M., Roebers, C. M., & Meier, B. (2016). Development and longitudinal relationships between children's executive functions, prospective memory, and metacognition. Cognitive Development, 38, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E, L. (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. Science Press.

  • 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, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L, S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press.

  • Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1990.10885988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitebread, D. (1999). Interactions between children’s metacognitive abilities, working memory capacity, strategies and performance during problem-solving. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 489–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pasternak, D., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development of metacognition and self regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 3, 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1891/194589507787382043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., et al. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9033-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitebread, D., Almeqdad, Q., Bryce, D., Demetriou, D., Grau, V., & Sangster, C. (2010). Metacognition in young children: Current methodological and theoretical developments. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 233–258). Springer.

  • Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory factor analysis to understand executive control in preschool children: I. latent structure. Developmental Psychology, 44, 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T., Nelson, J. M., Clark, C. A. C., Chevalier, N., & Espy, K. A. (2011). The structure of executive function in 3-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 436–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C., & Pintrich, P. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self- regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (Ed.). (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4.

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. (pp. 299–315). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876428.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the preschool children, their families, and their teachers at the College Lab School for their time and effort in making this research possible. We would also like to acknowledge Conor Carroll for helpful feedback and suggestions on the original manuscript and Beverly Radjewski for her careful scoring and coding which greatly benefitted this research and the current paper.

This research—and the writing of the manuscript—was funded by generous support provided to the first author by the American Psychological Association (APA) Divisions 7 and 15 Early Career Grant; Connecticut College Research Matters Grant and the Holleran Center Margaret Sheridan Community Learning Grant. In addition, this work was supported in part by a Connecticut College ConnSSHARP grant provided to the second author.

The authors declare that they do not have any potential conflicts of interests either financial or relationships. All procedures performed in this study that involved human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Connecticut College Institutional Review Board. Lastly, informed consent was obtained from the children’s parents or guardians and child assent was obtained from all individual participants who were included in this study.

Portions of the research presented in this paper was presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Biennial Metacognition SIG Conference, Nijmegen, The Netherlands in August 2016, the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference, Austin, Texas in April 2017, and the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Biennial Conference, Tampere, Finland in August 2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Martha Bennett ‘73 Associate Professor of Human Development, Connecticut College, 121 Bolles House, 270 Mohegan Avenue, New London, CT, 06320, USA

    Loren M. Marulis

  2. Montessori Discovery School, Elementary Teacher in Training, 218 Dudley Street, Norwich, CT, 06360, USA

    Lindsey J. Nelson

Authors
  1. Loren M. Marulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lindsey J. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loren M. Marulis.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Wedgits© problem-solving task

Contextual task to elicit metacognition (knowledge and skills) and motivation (persistence)

figure a

Researcher instructions:

  1. 1.

    Make sure the camera is pointed at the child and recording; make sure that you will not block the camera when you sit down.

  2. 2.

    Show the child the blocks and the design on the first card. Say, “First, I want you to make the blocks look exactly like the blocks in this picture. Can you make the blocks look like this picture?”

  3. 3.

    Let the child work until finished. Help child as needed or if asked on this practice puzzle only (model 0).

  4. 4.

    Say, “You did a great job with that! Show the child the design on the second card (model 1). Now, I want you to make the blocks look exactly like this picture.”

  5. 5.

    Let the child work without helping. Stop the child at 4:00 if still working.

  6. 6.

    If child takes less than 4 min to finish puzzle 2 (most children), SKIP TO STEP 7. Otherwise, say, “We are out of time. If we had more time, would you want to work more on this one (hold up first picture) or this one (hold up second picture)?” “Why?” Record child responses.

  7. 7.

    Now show the child the design on the third card (model 2). Say, “You did a great job with that one, too! Let’s do another one. Make the blocks look exactly like this picture.”

  8. 8.

    Let the child work without helping. Stop the child at 4:00 if he/she is still working.

  9. 9.

    Tell the child, “We are out of time. If you had more time to work, would you like to keep trying this one (hold up the picture of the last completed puzzle) or build this other one again (hold up the last picture)? Record child response. “Why?” Record child response.

  10. 10.

    Continue in this way until child is unable to complete successfully complete the puzzle (i.e., it looks exactly like the model picture) in 4 min or less.

Appendix 2: Metacognitive Knowledge Interview (McKI)

Assessment tool to measure metacognitive knowledge

Once the Wedgits© puzzle task is complete, tell child: “Thank you for working on the puzzles! I would like to talk to you about the puzzles you just did and about your thinking. My job is to learn about how kids learn and think and I have a few questions for you, Okay?” Once child assents, say: “Thank you. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers; I only want to know what you think. Just give your best answer.” (If they don't agree, try to prod them by saying that ‘I really need your help and want to learn about how kids think'.)

1. “Do you think you did a good job, an okay job or not so good of a job on the puzzles?” Circle child’s response. If they say they did a good job, ask “What did you do to help you do a good job?” If they answer okay or not so good, ask “What do you think would have helped you do an even better job?

2. “Did you think anything was hard?” If no, ask: “Why not?” If yes, ask “Why?

3. “Will the puzzle be harder/easier when you’re older? Why?”

4. “Would these puzzles be hard for another kid your age? Why/why not?”

5. “How did you know if you were getting the puzzles right?”

Show child the 'alien' finger puppet and say: “I have a friend to show you. This puppet’s name is Gogi and she or he (use same gender as the child) is from another land. (She or he) does not go to a school like yours or have a teacher like yours and doesn't know anything about puzzles like the ones you just did. Will you help Gogi learn about these kind of puzzles?” Wait for child to assent and say: “Thank you.” (If they don't agree, prompt once by indicating that Gogi would really like to learn about these puzzles.)

6. “Would these puzzles be easier for Gogi or you? Why?”

7. “What should Gogi do if (she or he) is having trouble with the puzzle?”

8. “Would it be helpful for Gogi to talk to (herself or himself) about the puzzle while doing the puzzle? Why would/wouldn’t that be a helpful thing to do?

“Gogi has some questions for you about puzzles like this one. Okay?” Have Gogi ‘speak’ directly to the child and ask the following:

9. “Would the puzzle be easier with bigger or smaller pieces? Why?”

10. “Would the puzzle be easier with more or less pieces? Why?”

11. “If all of the puzzle pieces were the same color, like in this picture (show the Wedgits© booklet of all-purple Wedgits©) would the puzzle be easier? If yes, ask: “Why?” If no, ask, “Why not?”

12. “If I think about how the pieces would fit together before I try, would the puzzle be easier? If yes, ask: “Why?” If no, ask, “Why not?”

13. “If I gather (demonstrate) the pieces I need first and then build the puzzle, would it be easier? Why/Why not?”

14. “What if you were watching TV while you were building it, would it be easier? Why? /Why not?”

15. “If I close my eyes while I do the puzzle, will it be easier? If yes, ask: “Why?” If no, ask, “Why not?”

“Thank you for sharing all of your ideas and how you think with Gogi!

Appendix 3

Table 3 MetaSCoPE (Metacognitive Skills in Constructional Play Engagement) Coding Scheme Assessment tool to measure metacognitive skills, adapteda for Wedgits© problem-solving task
Full size table

Appendix 4: Wedgits© Time on Task

Assessment tool to measure motivation (time-on-task / persistence)

Instructions: Watch the video to determine which puzzle is to be coded (Coders should code the last puzzle; in other words, the puzzle that the child works on for 4 min without finishing)

  1. 1.

    Record the starting time as right after saying “Can you make the blocks look like the blocks in this picture?”. The ending time should be 4 min later. However, record the ending time as when you hear the beeping of the phone timer alarm on the video.

  2. 2.

    Time on Task is coded using the computer timer (on the video software). When the child goes off-task, pause the video and record the amount of time in the “Time intervals off task” column until they return back to being on-task (for example, if they go off-task at 6:05, and then back on task at 6:15, record “6:05–6:15” in the “Time intervals off task” column).

  3. 3.

    Next, calculate total amount of seconds (out of a possible 240) and record in column 1.

  4. 4.

    Then do the same again and record in column 2.

  5. 5.

    Last, average your two scores and record in column 3.

On task is coded when visual, physical, and / or verbal attention is on the task (for example, the child may be holding the puzzle pieces / blocks but looking at something in the distance, which would be off-task because the physical attention is not intentional). On-task indicators include looking for where a piece goes, thinking about the task (either a verbalization such as “I wonder how I can do this”; or non-verbally such as resting their hand on their face with a concentrated look or a distinct pause with an intent stare [could be at the puzzle or in the air, etc.] and a look of being perplexed or trying to figure something out with an absence of other actions / off task indicators), or asking the experimenter for help (e.g., “Does this go here?”). Overall, “on task” refers to behavior that is indicative of cognitive engagement with the task.

Off task is coded when the child’s visual, physical, and / or verbal attention is off the task. Off task indicators include looking around the room at toys, touching other objects in the room, using the task objects in a way other than related to building the puzzle (e.g., pretend play, for example, using the model card as a “credit card”, or explicitly (i.e., articulated) building something other than the intended picture (for example, they say “I don’t want to build that one, I’m going to build a pyramid instead” or “I’m not going to build that one”). The deviation from building the goal puzzle is indicated by either a present statement (e.g., “I am making a house!”) or a retrospective statement (e.g., “Look what I made!”). A behavior that is off task would also be a child putting the puzzle pieces around on their head, distracted by others in the room or talking to the experimenter about anything other than the task or a strategy related to the task (for example: “My Dad told me to organize the pieces first when I work on a puzzle”) for 3 s or more. In addition, if a child drops blocks or falls out of their chair, this is not considered off task unless it is NOT in the “service of performing the task”. In other words, if they are retrieving a piece in order to continue building the puzzle, it is on task. If they see something on the ground that distracts their attention to something that is not in the service of the goal of building the puzzle, then, they are off task. Similarly, if they fall out of their chair, that is on task unless they become distracted by the incident for more than 3 s and do not get back to the task at hand (unless they are having trouble getting back up, etc. This is for distracted attention-physical, verbal, or visual).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marulis, L.M., Nelson, L.J. Metacognitive processes and associations to executive function and motivation during a problem-solving task in 3–5 year olds. Metacognition Learning 16, 207–231 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09244-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09244-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation