Search

Various instruments for assessing metacognitive skills and strategy use exist. Off-line self-reports are questionnaires and interviews administered either before or after task performance, while on-line measures are gathered during task performance through thinking aloud or observation. Multi-method studies in reading have shown that off-line methods suffer from serious validity problems, whereas the validity of on-line methods is adequate. Little is known, however, about the validity of methods for assessing metacognition in mathematics. Five instruments were administered to 30 secondary-school students: two prospective questionnaires (MSLQ and ILS) before a mathematics task, two on-line methods (observation and thinking aloud) concurrent to the mathematics task, and a task-specific retrospective questionnaire after the mathematics task. Mathematics performance was assessed by a posttest and GPA. Results confirm that prospective questionnaires have poor convergent and predictive validity in mathematics. Although the retrospective questionnaire does slightly better than prospective questionnaires, the validity of both on-line methods stands out. It is concluded that on-line instruments should be preferred over off-line instruments for the assessment of metacognitive skillfulness in mathematics.

Teaching and assessing metacognitive activities are important educational objectives, and teachers are calling for efficient instruments. The advantages of questionnaires in measuring metacognitive activities are obvious, but serious validity issues appear. For example, correlations of questionnaire data with think-aloud measures are generally moderate to low. An explanation may be that these questionnaires are not constructed in line with the metacognitive activities measured by the think-aloud method. In the present study, a questionnaire is constructed based directly on a taxonomy for coding think-aloud protocols. Twenty ninth-graders studied a text while thinking aloud, after which they immediately received the questionnaire. The overall correlation between the questionnaire and the think-aloud protocols (r?=?0.63) was promising. However, scale and item analyses clearly demonstrate some new validity issues. Comparing the questionnaire and the think-aloud results, the students seem to report overt metacognitive activities corresponding more with their behavior reported in the protocols than covert ones. In-depth explorations are presented.

Studies about metacognition, intelligence and learning have rendered equivocal results. The mixed model assumes joint as well as independent influences of intelligence and metacognition on learning results. In this study, intelligence was measured by standard tests for reasoning, spatial ability and memory. Participants were 13-year-old school students. Measures of metacognitive activity were gathered by analyses of thinking-aloud protocols within two task domains, i.e., history and physics. Prior knowledge and learning results were measured by tests constructed by the researchers. The results showed that metacognitive activity did not relate to learning results in either task domain. For history, the learning result was only determined by prior knowledge. For physics, intelligence influenced the learning result via prior knowledge, but the effect of execution activity, i.e., exercise, appeared more important. It is possible that "learning by doing", i.e., exercise, is a powerful mean for promoting the application of knowledge in physics. (Contains 5 tables and 4 figures.)

This study shows the results of a two-year longitudinal study where the same participants were followed for two consecutive years as they enter secondary school (aged 12-14 years). The main issue was to investigate the development of both the quantity and the quality of metacognitive skills. Another issue was to establish whether the development of metacognitive skillfulness is intelligence-related or relatively intelligence-independent. Finally, the generality vs. domain-specificity of developing metacognitive skillfulness was investigated. Thirty-two secondary school students participated in this study. While thinking aloud they performed two different tasks representing two different domains: A text-studying task for history and a problem-solving task for math. Participants' intellectual ability, metacognitive skillfulness and learning performance were assessed. Results show a quantitative as well as a qualitative growth in metacognitive skillfulness. Furthermore, results of both years show that metacognitive skillfulness contributed to learning performance (partly) independent of intellectual ability. A parallel development of metacognitive and intellectual ability was found. Finally, metacognitive skills predominantly appear to be general. Domain-specific metacognitive skills, however, played a substantial, but minor role as well in both years. Instructional implications are being discussed. (Contains 5 tables.)

The first objective of this study was to establish the relation between intellectual ability and metacognitive skillfulness as predictors of learning performance in young students (aged 12 years). Furthermore, the generality vs. domain-specificity of metacognitive skillfulness was investigated. Thirty-two first-year secondary-school students participated in this study. While thinking aloud they performed two different tasks representing two different domains: A text-studying task for history and a problem-solving task for mathematics. Participants' intelligence, metacognitive skillfulness and learning performance were assessed. Results show that metacognitive skillfulness contributed to learning performance (partly) independent of intellectual ability. Results also show that metacognitive skills predominantly appear to be general. Domain-specific metacognitive skills, however, played a substantial, but minor role as well.

This article describes the construction of a hierarchical taxonomy of metacognitive activities for the interpretation of thinking-aloud protocols of students in secondary education, who studied texts on history and physics. After testing an initial elaborate taxonomy on a restricted number of protocols by multiple raters, it appeared that the interrater correspondence was well below par. The categories in the taxonomy were too highly specified. Categories were combined and tested on new protocols in a cyclic fashion. The revised taxonomy was then used for coding 16 history protocols and 16 physics protocols. Frequencies of occurrence of metacognitive activities were obtained, as well as judgements of the quality of the metacognitive activities of the participants. There is a reasonable correlation between the frequency method and the quality method for coding thinking-aloud protocols. Also, there is a substantial covariation of the number of metacognitive activities across both tasks. (Contains 2 tables and 6 figures.)