Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 231–264

Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level

Article

Abstract

Due to new standards in fostering life-long learning at school, research has increasingly dealt with the promotion of self-regulated learning, resulting in a large number of intervention studies conducted at primary and secondary school. The current study aimed at investigating the impact of various training characteristics on the training outcomes, regarding academic performance, strategy use and motivation of students. Two meta-analyses were conducted separately, one for primary and one for secondary school level to allow for comparisons between both school levels. The meta-analyses included 49 studies conducted with primary school students and 35 studies conducted with secondary school students; analyzing 357 effect sizes altogether. The potential effects of training characteristics were investigated by means of meta-analytic multiple regression analyses. The average effect size was 0.69. For both school levels, effect sizes were higher when the training was conducted by researchers instead of regular teachers. Moreover, interventions attained higher effects when conducted in the scope of mathematics than in reading/writing or other subjects. Self-regulated learning can be fostered effectively at both primary and secondary school level. However, the theoretical background on which the training programme is based, as well as the type of instructed strategy led to differential effects at both school levels.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Review Self-regulated learning Metacognition Strategy training Primary school Secondary school 

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1–37.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129–154.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol.6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1–60). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 257–278.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, J. T. (2005). Policy on meta-analysis. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/journals/neu/meta-analysis_policy.pdf.
  6. Berkey, C. S., Hoaglin, D. C., Antczak-Bouckoms, A., Mosteller, F., & Colditz, G. A. (1998). Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2537–2550.Google Scholar
  7. Biemiller, A., Shany, M., Inglis, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1998). Factors influencing children’s acquisition and demonstration of self-regulation on academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 203–224). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.Google Scholar
  9. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231.Google Scholar
  10. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulated learning. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Brockwell, S. E., & Gordon, I. R. (2001). A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 825–840.Google Scholar
  12. Bronson, M. B. (2000). Supporting self-regulation in primary school children. In M. B. Bronson (Ed.), Self-regulation in early childhood (pp. 221–242). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18–37.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory and Practice, 41(2), 81–92.Google Scholar
  15. Cohn, L. D., & Becker, B. J. (2003). How meta-analysis increases statistical power. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 243–253.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, C. R., Marquis, A., King, J., & Moore, M. S. (1982). Emerging developmental issues in the structure and process of peer learning in classrooms. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, New York, March. [cited following Slavin, R.E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: a reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161–1167.]Google Scholar
  18. Cultice, J. C., Somerville, S. C., & Wellman, H. M. (1983). Preschoolers’ memory monitoring: Feeling-of-knowing judgements. Child Development, 54, 1480–1486.Google Scholar
  19. De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249–266.Google Scholar
  20. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Masui, C. (2004). The CLIA-model: A framework for designing powerful learning environments for thinking and problem solving. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 365–384.Google Scholar
  21. Dickersin, K. (1994). Research registers. In H. Cooper, & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 71–84). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Dignath, C., Büttner, 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.Google Scholar
  23. Dweck, C. S., & Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (pp. 643–691). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. EU Council. (2002). Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 on Lifelong Learning. Official Journal of the European Communities, July 9, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8.Google Scholar
  27. Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (1994). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 339–356). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Guthrie, J. T., Cox, K. E., Anderson, E., Harris, K., Mazzoni, S., & Rach, L. (1998). Principles of integrated instruction for engagement in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 177–199.Google Scholar
  29. Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E. (2000). Teachers’ coaching of learning and its relation to students’ strategic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 342–348.Google Scholar
  30. Hattie, J. A., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136.Google Scholar
  31. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 426–445.Google Scholar
  33. Heij, C., De Boer, P., Franses, , Kloek, T., & Van Dijk, H. K. (2004). Econometric methods with applications in business and economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Helmke, A. (1993). Die Entwicklung der Lernfreude vom Kindergarten bis zur 5. Klassenstufe. [Development of affective attitudes towards learning from kindergarten to grade five]. Zeitschrift fuer Paedagogische Psychologie, 7(2/3), 77–86).Google Scholar
  35. Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2004). Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine, 23, 1663–1682.Google Scholar
  36. Klieme, E., Artelt, C., & Stanat, P. (2001). Fächerübergreifende Kompetenzen: Konzepte und Indikatoren. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Leistungsmessung in Schulen (pp. 203–219). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  37. Kline, F. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruction in class settings: A research perspective. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 361–406). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and the metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281–310.Google Scholar
  39. Krapp, A. (1998). Entwicklung und Foerderung von Interessen im Unterricht [Development and promotion of interest in instruction]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 44, 185–201.Google Scholar
  40. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–26.Google Scholar
  41. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.Google Scholar
  42. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 51–69.Google Scholar
  45. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105–125.Google Scholar
  46. Overton, R. C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3(3), 354–379.Google Scholar
  47. Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
  48. Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.Google Scholar
  49. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1999). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: principles and practices for teacher preparation. Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing teachers to enhance student success in and beyond school (pp. 219-252). ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, AACTE.Google Scholar
  50. Perels, F., Gürtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005). Training of self-regulatory and problem-solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15, 123–139.Google Scholar
  51. Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examing features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1854–1878.Google Scholar
  52. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher–student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  53. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.Google Scholar
  55. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.Google Scholar
  56. Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Eductional Psychology, 76, 1–19.Google Scholar
  57. Robinson, J. A., & Kingsley, M. E. (1977). Memory and intelligence: Age and ability differences in strategies and organization of recall. Intelligence, 1(3), 318–330.Google Scholar
  58. Rojas-Drummond, S., Hernández, G., Velez, M., & Villagrán, G. (1998). Cooperative learning and the appropriation of procedural knowledge by primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 8, 37–62.Google Scholar
  59. Rustenbach, S. J. (2003). Metaanalyse. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Meta-analysis: An application-oriented introduction]. Göttingen: Huber.Google Scholar
  60. Schneider, W., & Sodian, B. (1997). Memory strategy development: Lessons from longitudinal research. Developmental Review, 17, 442–461.Google Scholar
  61. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.Google Scholar
  62. Schunk, D. H. (1994). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s mathematical skill acquisition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, USA, April.Google Scholar
  63. Schunk, D. H. (1996). Self-evaluation and self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 403 233), October.Google Scholar
  64. Schunk, D. H. (1997). Self-Monitoring as a motivator during instruction with elementary school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 035), March.Google Scholar
  65. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-Regulated Learning. From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  66. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.Google Scholar
  67. Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261–281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  68. Sipe, T. A., & Curlette, W. L. (1997). A meta-synthesis of factors related to educational achievement: A methodological approach to summarizing and synthesizing meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 25(7), 583–698.Google Scholar
  69. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161–1167.Google Scholar
  70. Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52–55.Google Scholar
  71. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.Google Scholar
  72. Spinath, B., & Spinath, F. (2005). Longitudinal analysis of the link between learning motivation and competence beliefs among elementary school children. Learning and Instruction, 15, 87–102.Google Scholar
  73. Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes and social relations. Baltimore, ND: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 340 098).Google Scholar
  74. Veenman, S., Kenter, B., & Post, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in Dutch primary classrooms. Educational Studies, 26(3), 281–302.Google Scholar
  75. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.Google Scholar
  76. 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.Google Scholar
  77. Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning & Instruction, 14, 89–109.Google Scholar
  78. Viechtbauer, W. (2006). MiMa: An S-Plus/R function to fit meta-analytic mixed-, random- and fixed effects models [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved November 21, 2006 from http://www.wvbauer.com/.
  79. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Waeytens, K., Lens, W., & Vandenberghe, R. (2002). ‘Learning to learn’: Teachers’ conceptions of their supporting role. Learning and Instruction, 12, 305–322.Google Scholar
  81. Waters, H. S., & Andreassen, C. (1983). Children’s use of memory strategies under instruction. In M. Pressley, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  82. Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-Regulation Interventions with a Focus on Learning Strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulated learning (pp.728-749). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  83. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  84. 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(4), 489–507.Google Scholar
  85. Whitebread, D. (2007). Towards a pedagogy for teaching thinking and developing metacognitive abilities in young children. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction. Budapest, Hungary, August.Google Scholar
  86. Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–77.Google Scholar
  87. Winne, P. H. (2005). A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33, 559–565.Google Scholar
  88. Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47.Google Scholar
  89. Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. (2000). Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for future research. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 750–768). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  90. Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner; which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313.Google Scholar
  91. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  92. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  93. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 85–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  94. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845–862.Google Scholar

Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis

  1. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1993). An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects following an extended intervention program in the high school science curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 11(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  2. Allsopp, D. H. (1997). Using classwide peer tutoring to teach beginning algebra problem-solving skills in heterogeneous classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 18(6), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashman, A. F., & Conway, R. N. (1993). Teaching students to use process-based learning strategies and problem solving strategies in mainstream classes. Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 73–92.Google Scholar
  4. Benito, Y. M., Foley, C. L., Lewis, C. D., & Prescott, P. (1993). The effect of instruction in question/answer relationships and metacognition on social studies comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 16(1), 20–29.Google Scholar
  5. Bimmel, P. E., van den Bergh, H., & Oostdam, R. J. (2001). Effects of strategy training on reading comprehension in first and foreign language. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(4), 509–529.Google Scholar
  6. Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–506.Google Scholar
  7. Bornas, X., & Servera, M. (1992). Cognitive training programs to reduce impulsivity-related achievement problems: The need of in-classroom interventions. Learning and Instruction, 2(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
  8. Cardelle Elawar, M. (1992). Effects of teaching metacognitive skills to students with low mathematics ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(2), 109–121.Google Scholar
  9. Cardelle Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
  10. Carriedo, N., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (1996). Main idea comprehension: Training teachers and effects on students. Journal of Research in Reading, 19(2), 128–153.Google Scholar
  11. Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Combined strategy and attributional training for seventh grade average and poor readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 19(2), 111–127.Google Scholar
  12. De Jager, B., Jansen, M., & Reezigt, G. (2005). The development of metacognition in primary school learning environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(2), 179–196.Google Scholar
  13. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can offline metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 188–200.Google Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., et al. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 306–315.Google Scholar
  15. Gallini, J. K., Spires, H. A., Terry, S., & Gleaton, J. (1993). The influence of macro and micro-level cognitive strategies training on text learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(3), 164–178.Google Scholar
  16. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 261–278.Google Scholar
  17. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.Google Scholar
  18. Hasselhorn, M., & Maehler, C. (1992). Kategorisierungstraining bei Grund- und Sonderschuelern (L): Zur Rolle metamemorialer Instruktionselemente (Training organizational strategies in learning disabled and normal children: The role of metamnemonic instruction). Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 3(3), 179–189.Google Scholar
  19. Hoek, D., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (1997). Effects of training in the use of social and cognitive strategies: An intervention in secondary mathematics in co-operative groups. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 3(4), 364–389.Google Scholar
  20. Hoek, D., van den Eeden, P., & Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 427–448.Google Scholar
  21. Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085–1109.Google Scholar
  22. Hohn, R. L., & Frey, B. (2002). Heuristic training and performance in elementary mathematical problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 374–380.Google Scholar
  23. Huffman, D. (1997). Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students’ problem-solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 551–570.Google Scholar
  24. Kernaghan, K., & Woloshyn, V. E. (1995). Providing grade one students with multiple spelling strategies: Comparisons between strategy instruction, strategy instruction with metacognitive information, and traditional language arts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 157–166.Google Scholar
  25. Kettmann Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  26. Klauer, K. J. (1993). Über den Einfluss eines Trainings zum induktiven Denken auf den Erwerb und die Nutzung der Lernstrategie des “Networking”. Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie, 25(4), 333–352.Google Scholar
  27. Klauer, K. J. (1996a). Teaching inductive reasoning: Some theory and three experimental studies. Learning and Instruction, 6(1), 37–57.Google Scholar
  28. Klauer, K. J. (1996b). Begünstigt induktives Denken das Lösen komplexer Probleme? Experimentelle Studien zu Leutners Sahel-Problem. [Does inductive reasoning promote complex problem-solving: Experimental studies on Leutner’s geography computer simulation.]. Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie, 43(1), 85–113.Google Scholar
  29. Klauer, K. J. (1998). Beguenstigt induktives Denken den Erwerb der Gedaechtnisstrategie des Kategorisierens? [Does inductive reasoning foster the acquisition of the memory strategy of clustering?]. Zeitschrift fuer Paedagogische Psychologie, 12(1), 73–84.Google Scholar
  30. Kolic-Vehovec, S. (2002). Self-monitoring and attribution training with poor readers. Studia Psychologica, 44(1), 57–68.Google Scholar
  31. Kramarski, B. (2004). Making sense of graphs: Does metacognitive instruction make a difference on students’ mathematical conceptions and alternative conceptions? Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 593–619.Google Scholar
  32. Loranger, A. L. (1997). Comprehension strategies instruction: Does it make a difference? Reading Psychology, 18(1), 31–68.Google Scholar
  33. Lucangeli, D., Galderisi, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1995). Specific and general transfer effects following metamemory training. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(1), 11–21.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 283–296.Google Scholar
  35. Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2003). The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students’ mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 449–471.Google Scholar
  37. Schober, B., & Ziegler, A. (2001). Das Muenchner Motivationstraining (MMT): Theoretischer Hintergrund, Foerderziele und exemplarische Umsetzung (The Munich motivational training: Theoretical background, aims and a first evaluation). Zeitschrift fuer Paedagogische Psychologie, 15(3–4), 168–180.Google Scholar
  38. Schreblowski, S., & Hasselhorn, M. (2001). Zur Wirkung zusaetzlicher Motivaenderungskomponenten bei einem metakognitiven Textverarbeitungstraining (On the effectiveness of a motive modification supplement to a metacognitive reading program). Zeitschrift fuer Paedagogische Psychologie, 15(3–4), 145–154.Google Scholar
  39. Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337–354.Google Scholar
  40. Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 57–71.Google Scholar
  41. Sovik, N., Heggberget, M., & Samuelstuen, M. (1996). Strategy-training related to children’s text production. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(2), 169–180.Google Scholar
  42. Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., & Rauhanummi, T. (1999). The role of metacognition in the context of integrated strategy intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Veenman, S., Beems, D., Gerrits, S., & Op de Weegh, G. (1999). Implementation effects of a training program for self-regulated learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(3), 148–159.Google Scholar
  44. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., Van Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E. (1999). Learning to solve mathematical application problems: A design experiment with fifth graders. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(3), 195–229.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, W. M., Blythe, T., White, N., Li, J., Gardner, H., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Practical intelligence for school: Developing metacognitive sources of achievement in adolescence. Developmental Review, 22(2), 162–210.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on students’ problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 233–262.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MuensterInstitute of Psychology VMuensterGermany
  2. 2.J.W. Goethe University of Frankfurt/ MainFrankfurt/ MainGermany

Personalised recommendations