Metacognition and Reading Comprehension: Age and Gender Differences

  • Svjetlana Kolić-Vehovec
  • Igor Bajšanski
  • Barbara Rončević Zubković


This chapter presents an overview of the authors’ work on age differences in children’s metacognition and reading comprehension during upper elementary and high school (9–17-years old) in Croatia, with an emphasis on gender differences. The focus was placed on upper elementary school as a crucial period for the development of metacognition in the domain of reading comprehension. In the first and the second part we draw on the literature supporting the developmental effects on metacognition and reading skill, as well as gender differences in reading comprehension. In the third part the results of several studies conducted by the authors are presented, followed by discussion on obtained age and gender differences. The findings indicated that the importance of metacognition for text comprehension intensified with age with a noticeable increase in this effect in the transition from lower to upper elementary school (after about 10 years of age). However, metacognition also played an important role in reading comprehension during high school. The pattern of age differences varied across components of metacognition. The effect of gender on metacognition in reading was mainly evident from the better performance of girls on the comprehension monitoring tasks. Finally, implications for education are discussed.


Reading Comprehension Text Comprehension Reading Strategy Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive Skill 
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. Ainley, M., Hillman, K., & Hidi, S. (2002). Gender and interest processes in response to literary texts: situational and individual interest. Learning and Instruction 12, 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander P. A., Graham, S., & Harris K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alloway, N., Freebody, P., Gilbert, P., & Muspratt, P. (2002). Boys, literacy and schooling: Expanding the repertoires of practice. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, T. H., & Ambruster, B. B. (1984). Studying. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Rosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1., pp. 353–395). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluating comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implication for metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 61–79). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1., pp. 657–679). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Berger, M., Yule, W., & Rutter, M. (1975). Attainment and adjustment in two geographical areas: II. The prevalence of specific reading retardation. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 510–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flannery, K. A., Liederman, J., Daly, L., & Schultz, J. (2000). Male prevalence for reading disability is found in a large sample of Black and White children free from ascertainment bias. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Francis, N. (1999). Bilingualism, writing, and metalinguistic awareness: Oral-literate interactions between first and second languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 533–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garner, R., & Taylor, N. (1982). Monitoring and understanding: An ivestigation of attentional assistance needs at different grade and proficiency levels. Reading Psychology, 3, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garner, R., & Kraus, C. (1982). Good and poor comprehenders’ differences in knowing and regulating reading behavious. Educational Reading Quarterly, 6, 5–12.Google Scholar
  15. Grabe, M., & Mann, S. (1984). A technique for the assessment and training of comprehension monitoring skills. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 131–144.Google Scholar
  16. Habib, M. (2000). The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: An overview and working hypothesis. Brain, 123, 2373–2399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kolić-Vehovec, S. (2002a). Self-monitoring and attribution training with poor readers. Studia Psychologica, 44, 57–68.Google Scholar
  18. Kolić-Vehovec, S. (2002b). Effects of self-monitoring training on reading accuracy and fluency of poor readers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2001). Konstrukcija upitnika strategijskog čitanja [The construction of Strategic Reading Questionnaire]. Psihologijske Teme, 10, 51–62.Google Scholar
  20. Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2003). Children’s metacognition as a predictor of reading comprehension. In G. Shiel & U. Ni Dhalaigh (Eds.), Other ways of seeing: Diversity in language and literacy (pp. 216–222). Dublin: Reading Association of Ireland.Google Scholar
  21. Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006a). Dobne i spolne razlike u nekim vidovima metakognicije i razumijevanja pri čitanju [Age and gender differences in some aspects of metacognition and reading comprehension]. Društvena Istraživanja, 15, 1005–1027.Google Scholar
  22. Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006b). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2007). Comprehension monitoring and reading comprehension in bilingual students. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Muranović, E. (2004). Evaluacija treninga recipročnog poučavanja strategija čitanja [Evaluation of reciprocal teaching training of reading strategies]. Suvremena Psihologija, 7, 95–108.Google Scholar
  25. Kolić-Vehovec, S., Pečjak, S., Ajdišek, N. & Rončević, B. (2008). Razlike med spoloma v (meta)kognitivnih in motivacijsko emocionalnih dejavnikih bralnega razumevanja [Gender differences in (meta)cognitive, emotional and motivational factors of reading comprehension]. Psihološka Obzorja, 17, 89–116.Google Scholar
  26. Kolić-Vehovec, S., Pečjak, S., & Rončević Zubković, B. (2009). Spolne razlike u (meta)kognitivnim i motivacijskim čimbenicima razumijevanja teksta adolescenata u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji [Gender differences in (meta)cognitive and motivational factors of text comprehension in adolescent in Croatia and Slovenia]. Suvremena Psihologija, 12, 229–242. Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lietz, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malicky, G. V., Juliebo, M. F., Norman, C. A., & Pool, J. (1997). Scaffolding of metacognition in intervention lessons. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 43, 114–126.Google Scholar
  30. Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V. J., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Myers, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oakhill, J. V., & Petrides, A. (2007). Sex differences in the effects of interest on boys’ and girls’ reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Executive summary. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paris, S. G., & DeBruin-Parecki, A. D. (1999). Metacognitive aspects of literacy. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky, & B. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 74–80). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  37. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5–22.Google Scholar
  39. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609–639). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Pazzaglia, F., De Beni, R., & Caccio, L. (1999). The role of working memory and metacognition in reading comprehension difficulties. In T. E. Scruggs, & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 13, pp. 115–134). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  41. Pazzaglia, F., De Beni R., & Cristante, F. (1994). Prova di metacompresione. [Metacomprehension test]. Firenze, Italia: Organizzazioni Speciali.Google Scholar
  42. Pečjak, S., Kolić-Vehovec, S., Rončević Zubković, B., & Ajdišek, N. (2009). (Meta)kognitivni i motivacijski prediktori razumijevanja teksta adolescenata u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji [(Meta)cognitive and motivational predictors of text comprehension of adolescents in Croatia and Slovenia]. Suvremena Psihologija, 12, 257–270.Google Scholar
  43. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long term, and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rončević Zubković, B. (2008). Uloga radnog pamćenja i strategijskog procesiranja u razumijevanju pri čitanju kod djece [The role of working memory and strategic processing in children’s reading comprehension]. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Zagreb, Croatia.Google Scholar
  47. Rutter, M., Caspi, A., Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Goodman, R., Maughan, B., Moffitt, T. E., Meltzer, H., & Carroll, J. (2004). Gender differences in reading difficulties: Findings from four epidemiology studies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2007–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sauver, J. L., Katusic, S. K., Barbaresi, W. J., Colligan, R. C., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2001). Boy/girl differences in risk for reading disability: Potential clues? American Journal of Epidemiology, 154, 787–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider, W., & Sodian, B. (1997). Memory strategy development: Lessons from longitudinal research. Developmental Review, 17, 442–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walczyk, J. J. (1994). The development of verbal efficiency, metacognitive strategies, and their interplay. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walczyk, J. J., Wei, M., Grifith-Ross, D. A., Goubert, S. E., Cooper, A. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Development of the interplay between automatic processes and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 867–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Winograd, P., & Johnston, P. (1980). Comprehension monitoring and the error detection paradigm. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 61–76.Google Scholar
  59. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Svjetlana Kolić-Vehovec
    • 1
  • Igor Bajšanski
  • Barbara Rončević Zubković
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Rijeka, CroatiaRijekaCroatia

Personalised recommendations