Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlates of metacognitive control in 10-year old children and adults

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metacognitive control is an important factor for successful learning and has been shown to increase across childhood and adolescence. Only few studies have attempted to investigate the cognitive processes and psychological mechanisms that subserve metacognitively-based control and the development thereof. Accordingly, the aim of the current study was to gain an insight into the cognitive and psychological correlates that relate to metacognitively-based control processes. Specifically, we were interested in two measures of metacognitive control: learners’ ability to self-regulate their study time in a study time allocation paradigm, as well as the efficiency with which they allocated their study time. It was of particular interest to explore the relation between declarative metamemory and procedural metacognitive skills. In addition, we assessed learners’ general cognitive and executive abilities. We tested a group of 10-year olds and a group of adults. Surprisingly, and in contrast to previous studies, the current study does not support a relation between declarative metamemory and procedural skills, or executive functions and intelligence and procedural skills. We interpret our results in line with a dual systems view of metacognitive abilities and further speculate whether procedural skills might become increasingly independent and automated with age.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Based on recommendations provided by two reviewers and the editor we decided to focus on declarative metamemory, executive functions and intelligence and to leave these questionnaires out.

References

  • Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. doi:10.1037/a0022086.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71–82. doi:10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116(4), 953–970. doi:10.1037/a0016923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcomb, F. K., & Gerken, L. A. (2008). Three-year-old children can access their own memory to guide responses on a visual matching task. Developmental Science, 11, 750–760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00725.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäumler, G. (1985). Farbe-Wort-Interferenztest nach J. R. Stroop (FWIT). Hogrefe: Göttingen.

  • Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Executive functions after age 5: Changes and correlates. Developmental Review, 29(3), 180–200. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D. F. (1985). The role of conceptual knowledge in the development of organization in children’s memory. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Basic processes in memory development: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 103–142). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, D., Whitebread, D., & Szűcs, D. (2014). The relationships among executive functions, metacognitive skills and educational achievement in 5 and 7 year-old children. Metacognition and Learning, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9120-4.

  • Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development. Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demetriou, A. (1988). The neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Destan, N., Hembacher, E., Ghetti, S., & Roebers, C. M. (2014). Early metacognitive abilities: the interplay of monitoring and control processes in 5-to 7-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 213–228. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allocation of study time: differential and sufficient aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47(2), 274–296. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90033-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Aging and deficits in associative memory: what is the role of strategy production? Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 597–607. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.597.

  • Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2), 288–307. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1975). Metamemory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED115405.pdf.

  • Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2012). Mechanisms of social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 287–313. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghatala, E. S. (1986). Strategy-monitoring training enables young learners to select effective strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 43–54. doi:10.1080/00461520.1986.9653023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghatala, E. S., Levin, J. R., Pressley, M., & Goodwin, D. (1986). A componential analysis of the effects of derived and supplied strategy-utility information on children’s strategy selections. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(1), 76–92. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(86)90052-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamil, T., Ly, A., Morey, R. D., Love, J., Marsman, M., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). Default “Gunel and Dickey” Bayes factors for contingency tables. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved from http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/submitted/JamilEtAlGunelDickeySubm.pdf.

  • Janowsky, J. S., Shimamura, A. P., & Squire, L. R. (1989). Memory and metamemory: comparisons between patients with frontal lobe lesions and amnesic patients. Psychobiology, 17(1), 3–11. doi:10.3758/BF03337811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys, H. (1961). The theory of probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentridge, R. W., & Heywood, C. A. (2000). Metacognition and awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2), 308–312. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., Paulus, M., Sodian, B., & Proust, J. (2016). Young children’s sensitivity to their own ignorance in informing others. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0152595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 296–298. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Ackerman, R. (2010). Metacognition and mindreading: judgments of learning for self and other during self-paced study. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 251–264. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.010.

  • Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Adiv, S., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2014). The effects of goal-driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning. A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 386–403. doi:10.1037/a0031768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krikorian, R., Bartok, J., & Gay, N. (1994). Tower of London procedure: a standard method and developmental data. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16(6), 840–850. doi:10.1080/01688639408402697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modelling: A practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2003). Metakognitive Überwachungs-und Selbstkontrollprozesse bei der Lernzeiteinteilung von Kindern. [Metacognitive monitoring and self-control processes for children’s allocation of study time]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17(3/4), 173–183. doi:10.1024//1010-0652.17.3.173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3),349–363. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.131.3.349.

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2013). Metacognition and control of study choice in children. Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 19–46. doi:10.1007/s11409-013-9094-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(4), 530–542. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–141). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, M., Tsalas, N., Proust, J., & Sodian, B. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring of oneself and others: developmental changes in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122, 153–165. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.12.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petermann, F., & Petermann, U. (2007). Hamburg Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder - IV (HAWIK-IV). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proust, J. (2013). The philosophy of metacognition: Mental agency and self-awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roebers, C. M., & Feurer, E. (2016). Linking executive functions and metacognition. Child Development Perspectives, 10(1), 39–44. doi: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(3), 151–173. doi:10.1007/s11409-012-9089-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, D. L., Harbluk, J. L., & McLachlan, D. R. (1984). Retrieval without recollection: an experimental analysis of source amnesia. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(5), 593–611. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90373-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlagmüller, M., Visè, M., & Schneider, W. (2001). Zur Erfassung des Gedächtniswissens bei Grundschulkindern: Konstruktionsprinzipien und empirische Bewährung der Würzburger Testbatterie zum deklarativen Metagedächtnis. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 33(2), 91–102. doi:10.1026//0049-8637.33.2.91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2008). Procedural metacognition in children: Evidence for developmental trends. In Handbook of metamemory and memory (Vol. 14, pp. 391–409). Mahwa: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Vogel, K. (1987a). Zusammenhänge zwischen Metagedächtnis, strategischem Verhalten und Gedächtnisleistung im Grundschulalter: Eine entwicklungspsychologische Studie. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 19(2), 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1987b). The effects of intelligence, self-concept, and attributional style on metamemory and memory behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10(3), 281–299. doi:10.1177/016502548701000302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, N., Boldt, A., Bang, D., Yeung, N., Heyes, C., & Frith, C. D. (2014). Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 186–193. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2), 313–323. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimamura, A. P. (2008). A neurocognitive approach to metacognitive monitoring and control. In Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 373–390). New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souchay, C., & Isingrini, M. (2004). Age related differences in metacognitive control: role of executive functioning. Brain and Cognition, 56(1), 89–99. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsalas, N., Paulus, M., & Sodian, B. (2015). Developmental changes and the effect of self-generated feedback in metacognitive controlled spacing strategies in 7-year-olds, 10-year-olds, and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 140–154. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucha, O., & Lange, K. W. (2004). Turm von London: Deutsche version, TL-D. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Aster, M., Neubauer, A., & Horn, R. (2006). WIE: Wechsler Intelligenztest für Erwachsene. Frankfurt am Main: Harcourt Test Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 159–176. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2004.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs domain-specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 187–209. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00025-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804. doi:10.3758/BF03194105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30–43. doi:10.1080/00220671.1990.10885988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. S. B. (1975). Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition, 3(2), 141–154. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(74)90017-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, H. S. E., & Schneider, W. E. (2010). Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction. Sterling: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., Dolan, R. J., & Blakemore, S. J. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(1), 264–271. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, Leopoldstr.13, 80802, Munich, Germany

    Nike Tsalas, Beate Sodian & Markus Paulus

Authors
  1. Nike Tsalas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beate Sodian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Paulus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nike Tsalas.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (grant number 4699104).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsalas, N., Sodian, B. & Paulus, M. Correlates of metacognitive control in 10-year old children and adults. Metacognition Learning 12, 297–314 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9168-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9168-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation