Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: general or domain-specific?

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the structure of metacognitive knowledge in fifth grade pupils and its relation to school achievement. Since the structure of metacognitive knowledge is controversially discussed with little empirical evidence for either its domain specificity or its domain transferability, the debate remains somewhat hypothetical up to date. In theory it is assumed that the development of metacognitive knowledge begins highly domain and situation-specific and becomes more flexible and domain-transcending with practice and experience (Borkowski et al. 2000). As standardized measures to assess metacognitive knowledge of students in the age group under investigation were missing, newly developed instruments were applied to assess the domain-specific metacognitive knowledge in reading and mathematics as well as domain-transcending metacognitive knowledge. The influences of domain-specific and general metacognitive knowledge on school achievement in the two domains were analyzed. While findings on the structure of metacognitive knowledge indicate some degree of domain specificity, they also point out a strong relation between general metacognitive knowledge and domain-specific metacognitive knowledge. The cross-sectional relation between metacognitive knowledge and academic achievement were relatively low. Implications for future research will be discussed.

Résumé

L’objet de l’étude était l’exploration de la structure du savoir métacognitive des élèves de cinquième classe et sa relation aux compétences scolaires. Concernant la structure du savoir métacognitive il y a une discussion plutôt hypothétique qu’empirique. D’un part le savoir est considéré restreint à un domaine, d’autre part il est considéré transférable aux différents domaines. En théorie, le savoir métacognitive commence à se développer dans un domaine et dans une situation particulière, en utilisant ce savoir et avec l’expérience il devient plus flexible et finalement peut être transféré à d'autres domaines (Borkowski et al. 2000). Manquant des instruments standardisés pour des élèves de cinquième classe (système éducatif allemand), des nouveaux tests étaient appliqués pour mesurer le savoir métacognitive non seulement aux domaines de la lecture et des mathématiques mais encore le savoir métacognitive générale. L`influence du savoir métacognitive spécifique et générale sur les compétences des élèves en lecture et aux mathématiques était analysée. S’agissant de la structure du savoir métacognitive, les analyses indiquent un certain degré de spécificité de domaine même s’il y soit une relation forte entre le savoir métacognitive générale et celui-ci des deux domaines. Entre le savoir métacognitive et les compétences scolaires (la lecture et les mathématiques) il n’y a qu’une faible relation. Certaines implications pour des prochaines recherches seront discutées.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We used structural equation models with sum scores (which are identical to person parameter estimates derived from IRT-scaling) as indicators of metacognitive knowledge for the respective domains because testing a path model of the latent variables within Conquest (IRT) is not possible.

References

  • Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Development Review, 15, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., Albano, J., Freygang, T., & Scott, B. (2006). Relations between intelligence and the development of metaconceptual knowledge. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artelt, C. (2000). Strategisches Lernen. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artelt, C., Beinicke, A., Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2009). Diagnose von Strategiewissen beim Textverstehen. Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 41(2), 96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, K. L. Bauserman, K. Kinnucan-Welsch, & C. C. Block (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 61–79). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-reguled learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Zeidner, M. Boekaerts, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417–450). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J. G., Milestead, M., & Hale, C. (1988). Components of childrens metamemory. In F. E. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Memory development: Universal changes and individual differences (pp. 73–100). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–42). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desoete, A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: How you test is what you get. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can offline metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 188–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 13(2), 101–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: what can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision (KFT 4-12+R). Göttingen: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., & Flavell, J. H. (1992). An interview study of children's knowledge about memory. In T. O. Nelson (Ed.), Metacognition: Core readings (pp. 283–304). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonde (Eds.), Child psychology. A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259–286). Ann Arbor: Edward Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2002). Der Einsatz von Lernstrategien in einer konkreten Lernsituation bei Schülern unterschiedlicher Jahrgangsstufen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 45(Beiheft), 240–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, G., & Sandmann, A. (2003). Lernstrategien und Domänenwissen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211(4), 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingel, K., Neunhausen, N., Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (In Press). Metakognitive Wissen in der Sekundarstufe: Konstruktion und Evaluation domänenspezifische Messverfahren. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik

  • Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2007). Knowledge about the mind: Links between theory of mind and later metamemory. Child Development, 78(1), 148–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2007). Using a multitrait-multimethod analysis to examine conceptual similarities of three self-regulated learning inventories. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G. (2002). When is metacognition helpful, debilitating or benign? In M. Izaute, P. Chambres & P. J. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function and use. (pp. 105–120). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary educational psychology, 8(3), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive stills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18, 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: Exhausting within- and between study analyses of think-aloud data. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 262–296). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). WLST 7-12: Würzburger Lesestrategie-Wissenstest für die Klassen 7-12. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind Brain, and Education, 2(3), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In B. L. Schwartz & T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 224–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Memory development between 2 and 20. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition: Implications for the Buros Symposium. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 297–322). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive variability. Developmental Science, 10(1), 104–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, K. J., & Satterly, D. J. (1990). The development and inter-relationship of metacognitive components among primary school children. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 10(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (1999). Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacognitive skills during the acquisition of expertise. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs domain-specifity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M., Adams, R., & Wilson, M. (1998). ACER ConQuest: Generalised item response modelling sotware manual. Camberwell, Melbourne: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Research, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Nora Neuenhaus & Cordula Artelt

  2. Departement of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Klaus Lingel & Wolfgang Schneider

Authors
  1. Nora Neuenhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cordula Artelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Klaus Lingel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wolfgang Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nora Neuenhaus.

Additional information

Nora, Neuenhaus. Department of Educational Research, University of Bamberg, Wilhelmsplatz 3, Room E 035, 96045 Bamberg, Germany. e-mail: nora.neuenhaus@uni-bamberg.de; Web site: http://www.uni-bamberg.de/en/bildungsforschung/staff/nora_neuenhaus/

Current themes of research:

Metacognition. Development of metacognitive knowledge. Reading and comprehension.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Artelt, C. & Neuenhaus, N. (2010). Metakognition und Leistung. In W. Bos, E. Klieme & O. Köller (Eds.), Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und Kompetenzentwicklung. Münster: Waxmann.

Lingel, K., Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (in press). Metakognitives Wissen in der Sekundarstufe: Konstruktion und Evaluation domänenspezifischer Messverfahren. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik.

Cordula, Artelt. Department of Educational Research, University of Bamberg, Wilhelmsplatz 3, Room E 023, 96045 Bamberg, Germany. e-mail: cordula.artelt@uni-bamberg.de; Web site: http://www.uni-bamberg.de/en/bildungsforschung/staff/cordula_artelt/

Current themes of research:

Metacognition. Competence development. Self-regulated learning. Methods of large scale assessment.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Schneider, W. & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42, 149–161.

Brunner, M., Artelt, C., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2007). Coaching for the PISA test. Learning and Instruction, 17, 111–122.

Artelt, C. (2005). Cross-cultural approaches to measuring motivation. Educational Assessment, 10(3), 231–255.

Artelt, C., Schneider, W., Schiefele, U., Baumert, J., & Stanat, P. (2001). Facets of reading literacy and reading comprehension. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Fribourg, CH.

Klaus Lingel. Department of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 10, 97070 Würzburg, Germany. e-mail: lingel@uni-wuerzburg.de; Web site: http://www.i4.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de

Current themes of research:

Metacognitive knowledge. Mathematics.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Lingel, K., Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (in press). Metakognitives Wissen in der Sekundarstufe: Konstruktion und Evaluation domänenspezifischer Messverfahren. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik.

Wolfgang Schneider. Department of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 10, 97070 Würzburg, Germany. e-mail: schneider@psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de; Web site: http://www.i4.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de

Current themes of research:

Memory development. Development of metamemory and metacognition. Precursors of reading and spelling. Longitudinal research on cognitive development.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Schneider, W., Kron-Sperl, V., & Hünnerkopf, M. (2009). The development of young children’s memory strategies: New longitudinal evidence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 70–99.

Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the impacts of phonological awareness, visual-spatial working memory, and preschool quantity-number competencies on mathematics achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 4-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 516–531.

Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Early development of quantity-number-word linkage as a precursor of mathematical school achievement and mathematical difficulties: Findings from a German 4-year longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 19, 513–526.

Schwenck, C., Bjorklund, D.F., & Schneider, W. (2009). Developmental and individual differences in maintenance of a selective memory strategy. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1034–1050.

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.

Preparation of this paper was supported by grants SCHN 315/36-1 and AR 301/8-1 from the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of its Priority Research Program “Competence Models for Assessing Individual Learning Outcomes and Evaluating Educational Processes” (SPP 1293).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K. et al. Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: general or domain-specific?. Eur J Psychol Educ 26, 163–178 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0040-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0040-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation