Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Metacognitive knowledge in children at early elementary school

Abstract

In metacognition research, many studies focused on metacognitive knowledge of preschoolers or children at the end of elementary school or secondary school, but investigations of children starting elementary school are quite limited. The present study, thus, took a closer look at children’s knowledge about mental processes and strategies in early elementary school aiming to extend findings on the respective age period. Therefore, at first, a new test that can be administered in group settings and that assesses a broad concept of children’s metacognitive knowledge in early elementary school was evaluated. Furthermore, analyses on the structure of metacognitive knowledge were carried out in cross-sectional as well as longitudinal analyses. In a longitudinal design, the new test instrument was administered to 870 children at the end of first grade and again one year later (N = 720). Item Response models were used to evaluate the construct validity of the test. Test characteristics were checked based on different fit statistics, test fairness, and discriminant validity. In summary, the test exhibited good psychometric properties. Analyses on the dimensionality of the assessed metacognitive knowledge revealed that different strategies seemed to form rather distinct dimensions of metacognitive knowledge. However, these dimensions showed a rather homogeneous development from first to second grade. Impacts of the findings on theoretical considerations and on the theoretical understanding of metacognitive knowledge and further analyses with metacognitive competence data are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The test was developed under the direction of K. Lockl and S. Ebert as part of a subproject (headed by S. Weinert) within the interdisciplinary research group BiKS.

References

  1. Adams, R. J., & Wu, M. L. (Eds.). (2002). PISA 2000. Technical Report. Paris: OECD.

  2. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.

  3. Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1–37. doi:10.1006/drev.1995.1001.

  4. Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., Albano, J., Freygang, T., & Scott, B. (2006). Relations between intelligence and the development of metaconceptual knowledge. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 51–67. doi:10.1007/s11409–006–6586–8.

  5. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

  6. Annevirta, T., & Vauras, M. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in primary grades: a longitudinal study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 257–282. doi:10.1007/BF03173029.

  7. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363–383. doi:10.1007/BF03173188.

  8. Artelt, C., Beinicke, A., Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2009). Diagnose von strategiewissen beim textverstehen [assessing knowledge about reading strategies]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41(2), 96–103. doi:10.1026/0049–8637.41.2.96.

  9. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman. doi:10.2466/pms.1984.59.1.159.

  10. Belmont, J. M., & Borkowski, J. G. (1988). A group-administered test of children’s metamemory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(3), 206–208. doi:10.3758/BF03337288.

  11. Bjorklund, D. F. (2005). Children’s thinking: Cognitive development and individual differences. Belmont: Thomson.

  12. Borkowski, J. G., Peck, V. A., Reid, M. K., & Kurtz, B. E. (1983). Impulsivity and strategy transfer: Metamemory as mediator. Child Development, 54(2), 459–473. doi:10.2307/1129707.

  13. 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: Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.

  14. Cattell, R. W. R., & Osterland, J. (1997). Grundintelligenztest Skala 1 (CFT 1) (5th ed.). Hogrefe: Göttingen.

  15. Cavanaugh, J. C., & Borkowski, J. G. (1980). Searching for metamemory-memory connections. A developmental study. Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 441–453. doi:10.1037/0012–1649.16.5.441.

  16. DeMarie, D., Miller, P. H., Ferron, J., & Cunningham, W. R. (2004). Path analysis tests of theoretical models of children’s memory performance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5(4), 461–492. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0504_4.

  17. Ebert, S. (2014). Longitudinal relations between theory of mind and metacognition and the impact of language. Journal of Cognition and Development, in press.

  18. Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 341–349. doi:10.1037/1040–3590.8.4.341.

  19. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Erlbaum Publishers.

  20. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430–457. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5.

  21. Ercikan, K. (2006). Developments in assessment of student learning and achievement. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 929–953). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  22. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.34.10.906.

  23. Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–34). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  24. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive Development (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

  25. Fox, A. V., & Bäumer, T. (2006). Test zur Überprüfung des Grammatikverständnisses: TROG-D: Handbuch. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner.

  26. Fritz, K., Howie, P., & Kleitman, S. (2010). “How do I remember when I got my dog?” the structure and development of children’s metamemory. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 207–228. doi:10.1007/s11409–010–9058–0.

  27. Ganzeboom, H. B., de Graaf, P. M., Treiman, D. J., & de Leeuw, J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21, 1–56. doi:10.1016/0049–089X(92)90017–B.

  28. Grammer, J. K., Purtell, K. M., Coffman, J. L., & Ornstein, P. A. (2011). Relations between children’s metamemory and strategic performance: time-varying covariates in early elementary school. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(1), 139–155. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.001.

  29. Hasselhorn, M. (1994). Zur Erfassung von Metagedächtnisaspekten bei Grundschulkindern [on the measurement of metamemory aspects in children]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 26(1), 71–78.

  30. Heller, K., & Geisler, H. J. (1983). Kognitiver Fähigkeits-Test für 1. bis 3. Klassen (KFT 1–3). Beltz: Weinheim.

  31. Joyner, M. H., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1997). Metamemory development. In N. Cowan (Ed.), The development of memory in childhood (pp. 275–300). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.

  32. Justice, E. M. (1985). Categorization as a preferred memory strategy: developmental changes during elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1105–1110. doi:10.1037/0012–1649.21.6.1105.

  33. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. London: The Guilford Press.

  34. Krebs, S., & Roebers, C. M. (2010). Primary school children’s strategic regulation, monitoring, and control skills during test-taking: The role of retrieval processes and scoring scheme. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 325–340. doi:10.1348/000709910X485719.

  35. Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., Flavell, J. H., & Hagen, J. W. (1975). An interview study of children’s knowledge about memory. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40(1), 1–60. doi:10.2307/1165955.

  36. Kurtz, B. E., & Borkowski, J. G. (1984). Children’s metacognition: exploring relations among knowledge, process, and motivational variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37(2), 335–354. doi:10.1016/0022–0965(84)90008–0.

  37. Kurtz, B. E., Reid, M. K., Borkowski, J. G., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (1982). On the reliability and validity of children’s metamemory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19(3), 137–140. doi:10.3758/BF03330211.

  38. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99. doi:10.1111/j.1551–6708.1987.tb00863.x.

  39. Levin, J. R., Yussen, S. R., De Rose, T. M., & Pressley, M. (1977). Developmental changes in assessing recall and recognition memory capacity. Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 608–615. doi:10.1037/0012–1649.13.6.608.

  40. Lingel, K., Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (2010). Metakognitives Wissen in der Sekundarstufe: Konstruktion und Evaluation domänenspezifischer Messverfahren. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56, 228–238.

  41. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.

  42. Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2006). Precursors of metamemory in young children: the role of theory of mind and metacognitive vocabulary. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 15–31. doi:10.1007/s11409–006–6585–9.

  43. Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2007). Knowledge about the mind: links between theory of mind and later metamemory. Child Development, 78(1), 148–167. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2007.00990.x.

  44. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Chrostowski, S. J. (Eds.). (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill: Boston College.

  45. McArdle, J., & Cattell, R. B. (1994). Structural equation models of factorial invariance in parallel proportional profiles and oblique confactor problems. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29(1), 63–113.

  46. Millsap, R. E. (2010). Testing measurement invariance using item response theory in longitudinal data: an introduction. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 5–9. doi:10.1111/j.1750–8606.2009.00109.x.

  47. Myers, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.70.5.680.

  48. Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2011). 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.

  49. O’Sullivan, J. T. (1993). Preschoolers’ beliefs about effort, incentives, and recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55(3), 396–414. doi:10.1006/jecp.1993.1022.

  50. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: a program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239–1252. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.76.6.1239.

  51. Pohl, S., & Carstensen, C. (2012). NEPS technical report - Scaling the data of the competence tests (NEPS Working Paper No. 14). Bamberg: University of Bamberg, National Educational Panel Study.

  52. Pohl, S., Gräfe, L., & Rose, N. (2013). Dealing with omitted and not reached items in competence tests - Evaluating approaches accounting for missing responses in IRT models. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0013164413504926.

  53. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: how can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 99–113. doi:10.1007/s11409–006–7263–7.

  54. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: what it is and what education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(8), 857–867. doi:10.1016/0883–0355(89)90069–4.

  55. Roebers, C. M., Schmid, C., & Roderer, T. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring and control processes involved in primary school children’s test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 749–767. doi:10.1348/978185409X429842.

  56. 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. doi:10.1007/s11409–012–9089–9.

  57. Saß, S., Wittwer, J., Senkbeil, M., & Köller, O. (2012). Pictures in test items: effects on response time and response correctness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 70–81. doi:10.1002/acp.1798.

  58. Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). WLST 7–12 - Würzburger Lesestrategie-Wissenstest für die Klassen 7–12. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

  59. Schlagmüller, M., Visé, M., & Schneider, W. (2001). Zur Erfassung des Gedächtniswissens bei Grundschulkindern: Konstruktionsprinzipien und empirische Bewährung der Würzburger Testbatterie zum deklarativen Metagedächtnis [Assessing metamemory in elementary school children: construction and evaluation of the Würzburg Metamemory Test]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 33(2), 91–102. doi:10.1026//0049–8637.33.2.91.

  60. Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: an integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. Mac Kinnon, & T. G. Wallers (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 57–109). New York: Academic.

  61. Schneider, W. (1986). The role of conceptual knowledge and metamemory in the development of organizational processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42(2), 218–236. doi:10.1016/0022–0965(86)90024-X.

  62. Schneider, W. (1989). Zur Entwicklung des Meta-Gedächtnisses bei Kindern. Bern: Huber.

  63. Schneider, W., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). Memory. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Cognition, perception, and language: Vol. 2. Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., pp. 467–521). New York: Wiley.

  64. Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2008). Procedural metacognition in children: evidence for developmental trends. In J. Dunlosky & B. Bjork (Eds.), A handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 391–409). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  65. Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between 2 and 20. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  66. Schneider, W., Kron, V., Hünnerkopf, M., & Krajewski, K. (2004). The development of young children’s memory strategies: First findings from the Würzburg longitudinal memory study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(2), 193–209. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.004.

  67. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136.

  68. Sodian, B., Schneider, W., & Perlmutter, M. (1986). Recall, clustering, and metamemory in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(3), 395–410. doi:10.1016/0022–0965(86)90001–9.

  69. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of the mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  70. Steyer, R., Eid, M., & Schenkmezger, P. (1997). Modeling true intraindividual change: true change as a latent variable. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2(1), 21–33.

  71. Swanson, H. L. (1992). The relationship between metacognition and problem solving in gifted children. Roeper Review, 15(1), 43–48. doi:10.1080/02783199209553457.

  72. Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (2001). Test scoring. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  73. van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Schneider, W. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: a study of German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 305–324. doi:10.1007/BF03173117.

  74. Vautier, S., & Pohl, S. (2009). Bipolarity of latent change in STAI scores. Psychological Assessment, 21, 187–193. doi:10.1037/a0015312.

  75. Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (1999). Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacognitive skills during the acquisition of expertise. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 509–523. doi:10.1007/BF03172976.

  76. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Busato, V. V. (1994). Metacognitive mediation in learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(1), 93–106.

  77. 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.

  78. Von Maurice, J., Artelt, C., Blossfeld, H.-P., Faust, G., Rossbach, H.-G., & Weinert S. (2007). Bildungsprozesse, Kompetenzentwicklung und Formation von Selektionsentscheidungen im Vor- und Grundschulalter: Überblick über die Erhebungen in den Längsschnitten BiKS-3-8 und BiKS-8-12 in den ersten beiden Projektjahren. Bamberg: University of Bamberg.

  79. Walker, C. M., & Beretvas, S. N. (2003). Comparing multidimensional and unidimensional proficiency classifications: Multidimensional IRT as a diagnostic aid. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(3), 255–275. doi:10.1111/j.1745–3984.2003.tb01107.x.

  80. Weinert, F. E., & Schneider, W. (1999). Individual development from 3 to 12: Findings from the munich longitudinal study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  81. Wellman, H. M. (1977). Preschoolers’ understanding of memory-relevant variables. Child Development, 48(4), 1720–1723. doi:10.2307/1128544.

  82. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariances of psychological instruments: applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10222–009.

  83. Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10–18. doi:10.1111/j.1750–8606.2009.00110.x.

  84. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.

  85. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. (1997). ConQuest: Generalised item response modelling software, Draft Release 2. Camberwell: ACER.

  86. Yussen, S. R., & Bird, J. E. (1979). The development of metacognitive awareness in memory, communication, and attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28(2), 300–313. doi:10.1016/0022–0965(79)90091–2.

  87. Zwick, R., Thayer, D., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical bayes approach to mantel-haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(1), 1–28. doi:10.1111/j.1745–3984.1999.tb00543.x.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study presented is conducted in the subproject “Analysis of the relationship between acquisition and cognitive development, and acquisition of self-regulative skills and characteristics of adult-child interaction” (Prof. Dr. Sabine Weinert), focusing on educational and psychological research questions. The subproject is part of the larger interdisciplinary research group BiKS, funded by the German Research Foundation. We would like to thank all participating children and their parents as well as all students engaged in data collection for their most active cooperation.

Author information

Correspondence to Kerstin Haberkorn.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 The 15 items of the metacognitive knowledge test. All items were read aloud to the children by the test examiner. For each item, the children were asked which option might be better for performing a given task or whether they thought both options were equally good
Table 6 Item parameters for the metacognitive knowledge test in first and second grade. The Rasch model was estimated by constraining the mean of the latent ability to be zero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haberkorn, K., Lockl, K., Pohl, S. et al. Metacognitive knowledge in children at early elementary school. Metacognition Learning 9, 239–263 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9115-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Metacognitive knowledge
  • Test evaluation
  • Structure
  • Longitudinal design