Metacognitive Knowledge in Young Children: Development of a New Test Procedure for First Graders

  • Kathrin Lockl
  • Marion Händel
  • Kerstin Haberkorn
  • Sabine Weinert


Declarative metacognition, that is, explicit knowledge about memory, comprehension, and learning processes, has been found within many studies to be related to memory development and strategy use (Schneider, 2015). Given its importance in the educational context, the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) aims at assessing metacognitive knowledge over the life span. Considering metacognitive knowledge in a longitudinal perspective allows for investigating how metacognitive knowledge evolves and how its development is influenced by other competencies. The present chapter describes the development and evaluation of a new test instrument on metacognitive knowledge that is appropriate for first graders. Comparable with tests for other educational stages investigated in the NEPS, the newly constructed instrument consists of several scenarios that refer to different aspects of strategy knowledge. In the process of test development, an item pool of 20 scenarios was established and pretested in a pilot study with 195 first graders in a group setting. Various criteria were taken into account in the selection of items for the final instrument. The 10 scenarios in the final test covered a wide range of difficulties, and the test exhibited good reliability. The selected items showed good item-fit as well as appropriate item characteristic curves and item total correlations. Moreover, differential item functioning analyses have revealed that the final test was fair for the considered subgroups. In summary, the final instrument demonstrates good psychometric properties and thus serves as an important tool to describe metacognitive knowledge and to analyze its relevance within the educational context.


Item Response Theory Prospective Memory Pair Comparison Item Total Correlation Test Instrument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716 – 722.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, J. M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1996). Development of metacognitive concepts about thinking in gifted and nongifted children: Recent research. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 305 – 325.Google Scholar
  3. Annevirta, T., & Vauras, M. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in primary grades: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 257–282. doi:10.1007/ BF03173029Google Scholar
  4. Artelt, C., Beinicke, A., Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2009). Diagnose von Strategiewissen beim Textverstehen. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41(2), 96 – 103.Google Scholar
  5. Artelt, C., Neuenhaus, N., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2012). Entwicklung und wechselseitige Effekte von metakognitiven und bereichsspezifischen Wissenskomponenten in der Sekundarstufe. Psychologische Rundschau, 63, 18–25. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000106Google Scholar
  6. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., & Stanat, P. (2002). Leseleistungen deutscher Schülerinnen und Schüler im internationalen Vergleich (PISA): Ergebnisse und Erklärungsansätze. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 5(1), 6 – 27.Google Scholar
  7. Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (2015). Cross-country generalizability of the role of metacognitive knowledge for students’ strategy use and reading competence. Teachers College Record, 117(1), 1 – 32.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3 – 38. doi:10.1007/BF01326548Google Scholar
  9. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1Google Scholar
  10. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carstensen, C. H. (2013). Linking PISA competencies over three cycles—results from Germany. In M. Prenzel, M. Kobarg, K. Schöps, & S. Rönnebeck (Eds.), Research Outcomes of the PISA Research Conference 2009 (pp. 199 – 213). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Cavanaugh, J. C., & Borkowski, J. G. (1980). Searching for metamemory-memory connections: A developmental study. Developmental Psychology, 16, 441–453. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.16.5.441Google Scholar
  13. Cavanaugh, J. C., & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child Development, 53(1), 11 – 28.Google Scholar
  14. Ebert, S. (2011). Was Kinder über die mentale Welt wissen—Die Entwicklung von deklarativem Metagedächtnis aus der Sicht der “Theory of Mind.” Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  15. Ebert, S. (2015). Longitudinal relations between theory of mind and metacognition and the impact of language. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 559–586. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2014.926272Google Scholar
  16. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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, 207–228. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9058-0Google Scholar
  19. Gräfe, L. (2012). How to deal with missing responses in competency tests ? A comparison of data- and model-based IRT approaches (Unpublished master’s thesis). Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.Google Scholar
  20. Haberkorn, K., Lockl, K., Pohl, S., Ebert, S., & Weinert, S. (2014). Metacognitive knowledge in children at early elementary school. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 239–263. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9115-1Google Scholar
  21. Händel, M., Artelt, C., & Weinert, S. (2013). Assessing metacognitive knowledge: Development and evaluation of a test instrument. Journal of Educational Research Online, 5(2), 162 – 188.Google Scholar
  22. Hasselhorn, M. (1994). Zur Erfassung von Metagedächtnisaspekten bei Grundschulkindern. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 26(1), 71–78.Google Scholar
  23. Hasselhorn, M. (2006). Metakognition. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (3rd ed., pp. 480 – 485). Weinheim: Beltz PVU.Google Scholar
  24. Joyner, M. H., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1997). Metamemory development. In N. Cowan (Ed.), The development of memory in childhood (pp. 275 – 300). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Justice, E. M. (1985). Categorization as a preferred memory strategy: Developmental changes during elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1105–1110. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1105Google Scholar
  26. 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), 1 – 60.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2006). Precursors of metamemory in young children: The role of theory of mind and metacognitive vocabulary. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 15–31. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6585-9Google Scholar
  29. Lockl, K., & Schneider., W. (2007). Knowledge about the mind: Links between theory of mind and later metamemory. Child Development, 78, 148–167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00990.xGoogle Scholar
  30. Masters, G. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–173.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 125 – 173). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Neuenhaus, N. (2011). Metakognition und Leistung. Eine Längsschnittuntersuchung in den Bereichen Lesen und Englisch bei Schülerinnen und Schülern der fünften und sechsten Jahrgangsstufe. Bamberg: Opus.Google Scholar
  33. Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2011). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: General or domain specific ? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 163 – 178. doi:10.1007/s10212-010-0040-7Google Scholar
  34. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293 – 316. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8Google Scholar
  35. Pohl, S., & Carstensen, C. H. (2012). NEPS technical report—Scaling the data of the competence tests. (NEPS Working Paper No. 14). Bamberg: University of Bamberg, National Educational Panel Study.Google Scholar
  36. Pohl, S., Gräfe, L., & Rose, N. (2014). Dealing with omitted and not reached items in competence tests—Evaluating approaches accounting for missing responses in IRT models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(3), 423 – 452.Google Scholar
  37. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). Der Würzburger Lesestrategie-Wissenstest für die Klassen 7 bis 12 (WLST 7-12). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  39. Schlagmüller, M., Visé, 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.Google Scholar
  40. Schneider, W. (1986). The role of conceptual knowledge and metamemory in the development of organizational processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 218 – 236. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(86)90024-XGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00041.xGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider, W. (2015). Memory development from early childhood through emerging adulthood. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.Google Scholar
  43. Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2006). Entwicklung metakognitiver Kompetenzen im Kindesund Jugendalter. In W. Schneider, & B. Sodian (Eds.), Kognitive Entwicklung. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Serie Entwicklungspsychologie (pp. 721 – 767). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  44. Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between 2 and 20. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Schneider, W., Schlagmüller, M., & Vise, M. (1998). The impact of metamemory and domain-specific knowledge on memory performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 91 – 103. doi:10.1007/BF03172815Google Scholar
  46. Schwarz, G. E. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136Google Scholar
  47. Sodian, B., Schneider, W., & Perlmutter, M. (1986). Recall, clustering, and metamemory in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 395–410. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(86)90001-9Google Scholar
  48. Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., & Blöte, A. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills at the onset of metacognitive skill development. Instructional Science, 33(3), 193 – 211.Google Scholar
  49. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3 – 14. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0Google Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Weinert, F. E., & Schneider, W. (1999). Individual development from 3 to 12: Findings from the Munich longitudinal study. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  52. Weinert, S., Artelt, C., Prenzel, M., Senkbeil, M., Ehmke, T., & Carstensen, C. H. (2011). Development of competencies across the life span. In H.-P. Blossfeld, H.-G. Roßbach, & J. von Maurice (Eds.), Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14. Education as a lifelong process: The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) (pp. 67 – 86). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  53. Wellman, H. M. (1977). Preschoolers’ understanding of memory-relevant variables. Child Development, 48(4), 1720 – 1723.Google Scholar
  54. Wellman, H. M., & Hickling, A. (1994). The minds “I”: Children’s conception of the mind as an active agent. Child Development, 65, 1564–1580. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994. tb00836.xGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1997). ACER Conquest: Generalised item response modelling software. Melbourne: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  56. Yussen, S. R., & Bird, E. J. (1979). The development of metacognitive awareness in memory, communication, and attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 300–313. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(79)90091-2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathrin Lockl
    • 1
  • Marion Händel
    • 2
  • Kerstin Haberkorn
    • 1
  • Sabine Weinert
    • 1
  1. 1.BambergDeutschland
  2. 2.NürnbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations