Abstract
Six- to nine-year-old children participated in a training experiment concerning study and recall of categorized items. Explicit feedback given during training sessions was devoted to emphasize the relationship between strategy use and recall performance. Verbal descriptions of the contents of these training sessions were asked before a delayed post-test, given two weeks later.
It appears from the results that: (1) The degree of understanding of the information provided by training with explicit feedback, as indicated by subjects’ verbal descriptions, is a good predictor of strategy maintenance on the post-test. Explicit feedback provides subjects with information about the relationship between procedures and results. However, only those subjects who were able to re-elaborate this information were able to construct more permanent metacognitive knowledge; (2) Such a form of cognitive re-elaboration appears to be necessary for acquired metacognitive knowledge to have a regulatory effect on subsequent behavior; and (3) The level of a subject’s prior metacognitive knowledge seems to be one of the determinants in the ability to efficiently integrate new metacognitive knowledge by re-elaboration of metacognitive experiences.
Résumé
Quatre-vingt-dix enfants âgés de six à neuf ans ont participé à une expérience d’entraînement concernant l’étude et le rappel d’items catégorisables. Au cours des sessions d’entraînement, les sujets reçoivent un feed-back explicite dont la fonction est de mettre en évidence l’importance de la relation entre utilisation d’une stratégie de mémorisation et performance de rappel. Deux semaines après l’entraînement, les sujets sont soumis à un post-test précédé, pour certains d’entre eux, d’une demande de description des sessions d’entraînement.
Les résultats montrent que: 1) Le degré de compréhension de l’information qu’apportent l’entraînement et le feed-back, tel qu’en témoignent les verbalisations des sujets, est un excellent prédicteur du maintien de la stratégie lors du post-test. Le feed-back explicite donne à tous les sujets une information concernant la liaison entre procédures et résultats. Cependant, seuls les sujets qui ré-élaborent cette information sont en mesure de construire un savoir métacognitif plus permanent en termes de liaison entre but et moyens; 2) Une telle forme de ré-élaboration cognitive semble être nécessaire pour que le savoir métacognitif acquis exerce un effet régulateur sur les conduites ultérieures; et, 3) Le niveau de savoir métacognitif préalable à l’entraînement semble déterminant dans la capacité des sujets à acquérir un nouveau savoir métacognitif par la ré-élaboration des expériences métacognitives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asarnow, J.R., & Meichenbaum, D. (1979). Verbal rehearsal and serial recall.Child Development, 50, 1173–1177.
Benzécri, J.P. (1973).L’Analyse des données. T.I: La taxinomie (pp. 153–206). Paris: Dunod.
Black, M.M., & Rollins, H.A. (1982). The effects of instructional variables on young children’s organization and free recall.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 1–19.
Borkowski, J.G., Levers, S., & Gruenenfelder, T.M. (1976). Transfer of mediational strategies in children: The role of activity and awareness during strategy acquisition.Child Development, 47, 779–786.
Borkowski, J.G., Peck, V.A., Reid, M.K., & Kurtz, B.E. (1983). Impulsivity and strategy transfer: Metamemory as mediator.Child Development, 54, 459–473.
Brown, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bousfield, A.K., & Bousfield, W.A. (1966). Measurement of clustering and of sequential constancies in repeated free recall.Psychological Reports, 19, 935–942.
Cavanaugh, J.C., & Borkowski, J.G. (1979). The metamemory-memory connection: Effects of strategy training and maintenance.Journal of General Psychology, 101, 161–174.
Flavell, J.H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In P. Dickson (Ed.),Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35–60). New York: Academic Press.
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. 3–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Juan, J. (1982). Classification ascendante hiérarchique selon les voisins réciproques.Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données, 2.
Keeney, F.J., Cannizzo, S.R., & Flavell, J.H. (1967). Spontaneous and induced verbal rehearsal in a recall task.Child Development, 38, 953–966.
Kennedy, B.A., & Miller, D.J. (1976). Persistent use of verbal rehearsal as a function of information about its value.Child Development, 47, 566–569.
Kreutzer, M.A., Leonard, 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).
Melot, A.M. (1990). Contrôle des conduites de mémorisation et métacognition.Bulletin de Psychologie, no spécial. “Les processus de contrôle dans la résolution de tâches complexes: Développement et acquisition”,44, 138–146.
Melot, A.M., & Corroyer, D. (1986).L’enfant et la mémoire: L’élaboration des conduites de mémorisation intentionnelle. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
Melot, A.M., & Corroyer, D. (1992). Organization of metacognitive knowledge: A condition for strategy use in memorization.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1, 23–38.
Paris, S.G. (1978). Coordination of means and goals in the development of mnemonic skills. In P. Ornstein (Ed.),Memory development in children (pp. 259–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S.G., Newman, R.S., & McVey, K.A. (1982). Learning the functional significance of mnemonic actions: A microgenetic study of strategy acquisition.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 490–509.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J.G., & O’Sullivan, J.T. (1985). Children’s metamemory and the teaching of memory strategies. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. MacKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.),Metacognition, cognition and human performance (pp. 111–153). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J.R. (1980). The development of mental imagery retrieval.Child Development, 51, 558–560.
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.
Pressley, M., & Mac Fayden, J. (1983). Mnemonic mediator retrieval at testing by preschool and kindergarten children.Child Development, 54, 474–479.
Ringel, B.A., & Springer, C.J. (1980). On knowing how well one is remembering: The persistence of strategy use during transfer.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 322–333.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989).Memory development between 2 and 20. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wellman, H.M. (1978). Preschoolers’ understanding of memory-relevant variables.Child Development, 48, 1720–1723.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Melot, AM. The relationship between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences: Acquisition and re-elaboration. Eur J Psychol Educ 13, 75–89 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172814
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172814