Metacognitive Knowledge About and Metacognitive Regulation of Strategy Use in Self-Regulated Scientific Discovery Learning: New Methods of Assessment in Computer-Based Learning Environments

  • Hubertina Thillmann
  • Jill Gößling
  • Jessica Marschner
  • Joachim Wirth
  • Detlev Leutner
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


The aim of this chapter is to present new assessment methods for different aspects of metacognition that are relevant for self-regulated learning (SRL). In the theoretical part, two assumptions on the assessment of different aspects of metacognition are presented. Firstly, we argue that metacognitive knowledge about strategies and metacognitive regulation of strategies are two distinct components of metacognition that make different demands on their respective assessment method. Secondly, we argue that metacognitive knowledge about and metacognitive regulation of strategy use should be assessed with regard to the same strategies, in order to be able to relate both measures and to localize specific deficiencies. In the methods part, the theoretically driven development of two computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) for scientific discovery learning is presented. Based on these, two kinds of assessment methods are presented, a test format that intends to assess metacognitive knowledge about scientific discovery strategies and logfile-based measures that intend to assess metacognitive regulation of the use of these strategies during SRL with the CBLEs. In the empirical part, three studies are presented that investigated the test quality of these new assessment methods as well as the relationship between metacognitive knowledge about and metacognitive regulation of the same strategy. In sum, results speak in favor of a good test quality of the new assessment methods. Based on this, results revealed that the relationship between metacognitive knowledge about and metacognitive regulation of the actual use of the same strategy is moderated by current motivation. Finally, results are discussed with respect to the development of further instruments as well as with respect to approaches of SRL support.


Video Data Scientific Discovery Reading Strategy Metacognitive Knowledge Current Motivation 
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.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Artelt, C., Demmrich, A., & Baumert, J. (2001). Selbstreguliertes Lernen. [Self-regulated learning.]. In J. Baumert, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, P. Stanat, K.-J. Tillmann, & M. Weiß (Eds.), PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich [PISA 2000. School students’ basic competencies in the international comparison] (pp. 271–298). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalisation method affect learning? Metacognition & Learning, 3, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  9. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition & Learning, 1, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Code, J., Jamieson-Noel, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (2007). Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacognition & Learning, 2, 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Körkel, J., & Schneider, W. (1992). Domain-specific versus metacognitive knowledge effects on text recall and comprehension. In M. Carretero, M. Pope, R.-J. Simons, & J. I. Pozo (Eds.), Learning and instruction—European research in an international context (pp. 311–323). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Njoo, M., & De Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 821–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychologist, 8, 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from ­learning kits: gStudy traces of students’ self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pressley, M. (1995). What is intellectual development about in the 1990s? Good information processing. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Memory performance competencies. Issues in growth and development (pp. 375–404). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whilehurst (Eds.), Annals of child development (Vol. 4, pp. 80–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ramm, G., Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehmann, R., & Leutner, D. (Eds.). (2006). PISA 2003: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. [PISA 2003: Documentation of the assessment instruments]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  24. Rheinberg, R., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B.D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktueller Motivation in Lern- und Leistungssituationen [QCM: A questionnaire to assess current motivation in learning situations]. Diagnostica, 47, 57–66.Google Scholar
  25. Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). Würzburger Lesestrategiewissenstest für die Klassen 7-12 (WLST 7-12). [Wuerzburger reading strategy knowledge test for classes 7-12]. In M. Hasselhorn, H. Marx, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Deutsche Schultests. [German school tests]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  26. Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1987). The effects of intelligence, self-concept, and attributional style on metamemory and memory behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schneider, W., Schlagmüller, M., & Visé, M. (1998). The impact of metamemory and domain-specific knowledge on memory performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2006). Erfassung selbstregulierten Lernens mit Selbstberichtsverfahren [Assessing self-regulated learning with self-report methods]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 20, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thillmann, H., Künsting, J., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2009). Is it merely a question of “what” to prompt or also “when” to prompt? The role of point of presentation time in self-regulated learning. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploring a domain with a computer simulation: Traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad. In D. Towne, T. de Jong, & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 191–206). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis [Learning strategies and metacognition: Implications for research and practice] (pp. 77–99). Berlin: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  32. Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition & Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2000). Does motivation affect performance via persistence? Learning and Instruction, 10, 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wichmann, A., & Leutner, D. (2009). Inquiry learning: Multilevel support with respect to inquiry, explanations and regulation during an inquiry circle. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 23, 117–127.Google Scholar
  35. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.Google Scholar
  36. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in education theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-­regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando, FL: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wirth, J. (2008). Computer-based tests: Alternatives for test and item design. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 235–252). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  40. Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2006). Selbstregulation beim Lernen in interaktiven Lernumgebungen [Self-regulation of learning in interactive learning environments]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook learning strategies] (pp. 172–184). Göttingen: Hogrefe.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-­regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubertina Thillmann
    • 1
  • Jill Gößling
    • 2
  • Jessica Marschner
    • 1
  • Joachim Wirth
    • 1
  • Detlev Leutner
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Research on Learning and InstructionRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Department of Instructional PsychologyDuisburg-Essen UniversityEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations