Metacognition-Based Reading Intervention Programs Among Fourth-Grade Hungarian Students



This chapter provides a summary of two metacognition-based reading intervention studies among fourth graders. Since several studies suggested and documented the usefulness of teaching reading strategies, our research can be considered as an application of metacognition theory in Hungarian elementary school reading education. Our studies have the following characteristics: (a) brief intervention programs, (b) being embedded in school subjects, (c) addressing both declarative and procedural elements of metacognition in reading. Ecological validity was a central issue in these studies. In the first study, reading and mathematics training programs were applied simultaneously. In the second study, a new reading intervention program was developed aiming at gradually introducing different reading strategies and awareness of the use of strategies. The results suggest that in Grade 4 Hungarian elementary school students benefited from the explicit training of reading strategies.


  1. Adamikné, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). A magyar olvasástanítás története [The history of reading education in Hungary]. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
  2. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almasi, J. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Báthory, Z. (1992). Tanulók, iskolák, különbségek – Egy differenciális tanításelmélet vázlata [Students, schools and differences – An outline of a differential theory of instruction]. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
  6. Brand-Gruwel, S., Aarnoutse, C. A. J., & Van den Bos, K. P. (1998). Improving text comprhension strategies in reading and listening settings. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., & Connel, M. L. (1988). Metacognition: On the importance of understanding what you are doing. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), Research agenda for mathematics education: The teaching of mathematical problem solving (pp. 93–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Testing and refining the Direct and Inferential Mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988) Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cs. Czachesz, E., & Vidákovich, T. (1994). Melyik módszer? Öt olvasástanítási módszer összehasonlító vizsgálata [Which method? A comparative study of five reading instruction methods]. ÉKP Hírek, 6–7, 6–12.Google Scholar
  14. Csíkos, C. (2003). How many buses are needed? Hungarian students’ achievement on ‘problematic’ word problems. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Csíkos, C. (2005a). A metacognition-based training program in grade 4 in the fields of mathematics and reading. Paper presented at the 11th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  16. Csíkos, C. (2005b). Metakognícióra alapozott fejlesztő kísérlet 4. osztályos tanulók körében a matematika és az olvasás területén [A metacognition-based training program in grade 4 mathematics and reading.]. Magyar Pedagógia, 105, 127–152.Google Scholar
  17. Csíkos, C. (2008). A large scale 3-year longitudinal study on Jacobs and Paris’ IRA questionnaire among 3rd-5th grade students. Paper presented at the 3rd Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 (Metacognition), Ioannina, Greece.Google Scholar
  18. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297–323). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elley, W. B. (Ed.). (1994). The IEA study of reading literacy: Achievement and instruction in thirty-two school system. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  21. Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the development of? Human Development, 14, 272–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  24. Gaskins, I. W. (1994). Classroom applications of cognitive science: Teaching poor readers how to learn, think, and problem solve. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 129–156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gaultney, J. F. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge and metacognition on the acquisition of a reading comprehension strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 142–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, K., Bowman, H., & Myers, J. (1999). Tasks, texts and contexts: A study of reading and metacognition in English and Irish primary classrooms. Educational Studies, 25, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.Google Scholar
  30. Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  31. Kentridge, R. W., & Heywood, C. A. (2000). Metacognition and awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 308–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. In F. E. Weinert, & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2000). Conscious and unconscious metacognition: A rejoinder. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1992): Effects of two cooperative conditions on peer-group discussions, reading comprehension, and metacognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B., & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Molnár, E. K. (2006). Olvasási képesség és iskolai tudás [Reading ability and school-based learning]. In K. Józsa (Ed.), Az olvasási képesség fejlődése és fejlesztése (pp. 43–60). Budapest: Dinasztia Tankönyckiadó.Google Scholar
  37. Myers II, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagy, J. (2007). Kompetencia alapú kritériumorientált pedagógia [Competency-based and criterion-referenced education]. Szeged, Hungary: Mozaik Kiadó.Google Scholar
  39. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1992). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In T. O. Nelson (Ed.), Metacognition. Core readings (pp. 117–129). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  41. Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Application, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  43. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote read(ing) with your mind. In T. L. Harris & E. J. Cooper (Eds.), Reading, thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar
  44. Pap-Szigeti, R., Zentai, G., & Józsa, K. (2006). A szövegfeldolgozó képességfejlesztés módszerei [Methods for improving abilities through text processing]. In K. Józsa (Ed.), Az olvasási képesség fejlődése és fejlesztése (pp. 235–258). Budapest: Dinasztia Kiadó.Google Scholar
  45. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: IRA.Google Scholar
  48. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schellings, G., Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third-grader’s think-aloud protocols. Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16, 549–568.Google Scholar
  50. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steklács, J., & Csíkos, C. (2007). Improving students’ reading comprehension by means of developing reading strategies. Results from a Hungarian experiment. Paper presented at the 12th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  52. Steklács, J., & Csíkos, C. (2009). Developing reading strategies among 4th grade students in Hungary. The New Mexico Journal of Reading, 19(3), 15–19.Google Scholar
  53. Thorndike, R. L. (1973). Reading comprehension education in fifteen countries: An empirical study. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. van den Bos, K. P., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Aarnoutse, C. A. J. (1998). Text comprehension strategy instruction with poor readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 471–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2008). Relation between intellectual ability and metacognitive skillfulness as predictors of learning performance of young students performing tasks in different domains. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Kraayenoord, C., & Schneider, W. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: A study of German students in Grade 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs. domain-specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical modelling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walczyk, J. J. (1995). Testing a compensatory-encoding model. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q, & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wood, K. D. (2001). Literacy strategies across the subject areas. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations