El estudio de la metacognición ha sido uno de los ámbitos de investigación más fructíferos de los últimos treinta años y su relevancia en diferentes campos de investigación teórica y aplicada es, en la actualidad, un hecho aceptado. El presente trabajo ofrece una revisión de los distintos procedimientos e instrumentos empleados para su evaluación. En él, tras una introducción centrada en aspectos conceptualesy de definición de la metacognición, se expondrán los distintos procedimientos que se han empleado con este objetivo, distinguiendo entre métodos individuales verbales, individuales no verbales y métodos basados en interacciones sociales. El artículo concluye señalando los principales problemas que aparecen en la evaluación de la metacognición y con algunas recomendaciones generales que parecen derivarse de la investigación actual para la valoración de los procesos metacognitivos.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguileraA. (2001). Shared Thinking: Concept and Assessment.European Journal of Psychology of Education, XVI (2), 281–296.
2.
AllalL.DucreyG. P. (2000). Assessment of-or in- the zone of proximal development.Learning and Instruction, 10, 137–152.
3.
AllenB. A.Armour-ThomasE. (1993). Construct validation of Psychology.Journal of Psychology, 127, 203–211.
4.
AndersonG.BealC. R. (1995). Children's recognition of inconsistencies in science texts: Multiple measures of comprehension monitoring.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 261–272.
5.
AstingtonJ.HarrisP.OlsonD. (1988). Developing theories of mind.Cambridge: CUP.
6.
BaerM.HollensteinA.HofstetterM.FuchsM.Reber-WyssM. (1993). How Do Expert and Novice Writers Differ in Their Knowledge of the Writing Process and Its Regulation (Metacognition) from Each Other, and What Are the Differences in Metacognitive Knowledge between Writers of Different Ages? Comunicación presentada en la5° Conf. EARLI, Aix-en-Provence, Francia, agosto-septiembre.
7.
BakerL.CerroL. C. (2000). Assessing Metacognition in Children and Adults. EnSchrawG.ImparaJ. C. (Eds.), Issue in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–145).Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
8.
BanajiM.DasguptaN. (1998). The Consciousness of Social Beliefs: A Program of Research on Stereotyping and Prejudice. EnYzerbytV. Y.LoriesG.DardenneB. (Eds.), Metacognition. Cognitive and Social Dimensions (pp. 156–170). Londres: Sage.
9.
BanduraA. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. A Social Cognitive Theory.Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Trad.cast.: Pensamiento y acción: fundamentos sociales. Barcelona: Martínez-Roca, 1987)
10.
BoekaertsM. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers and students.Learning and Instruction, 7 (2), 161–186.
11.
BorkowskiJ. G. (1985). Signs of intelligence: Strategy generalization and metacognition. EnYussenS. R. (Ed.), The Growth of Reflection in Children (pp. 105–144). Orlando: Academic Press.
12.
BrownA. L. (1978). Knowing When, Where and How to Remmember: A Problem of Metacognition. EnGlaserR. (Ed.), Advances In Instructional Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
13.
BrownA. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more misterious mechanisms. EnReinerF.KluweR. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
14.
CallejoM. L. (1994). La Resolución de Problemas en un Club Matemático.Madrid: Narcea/I.E.P.S.
15.
CampioneJ. C. (1987). Metacognitive components of instructional research with problem learners. EnWeinertF. E.KluweR. H. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 117–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
CassanyD. (1991). Describir el escribir. Cómo se aprende a escribir.Barcelona: Paidós.
17.
CastillaDELPinoC.Ruiz-VargasJ. M.AdarragaP.BelinchónM.VizcarroC. (1991). Aspectos cognitivos de la esquizofrenia.Madrid: Trotta.
18.
CavanaughJ. C.PermutterM. (1982). Metamemory: A Critical Examination.Child Development, 53, 11–28.
19.
CripeL. I. (1996). The Ecological Validity of Executive Function Testing. EnSbordoneR. J.LongC. L. (Eds.), Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing (pp. 171–202). Delray Beach, FL: CG Press/St Lucie Press.
20.
De CorteE.VerschaffelL.Op'-t-eyndeP. (2000). Self-regulation: A characteristic and a goal of mathematics education. EnBoekaertsM.PintrichP. R. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 687–726). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
21.
DencklaM. B. (1994). Measurement of Executive Function. EnLyonR. G. (Ed.), Frames of Reference for the Assessment of Learning Disabilities. New Views on Measurement Issues (pp. 117–142). Baltiore: Paul Brook.
22.
DesoeteA.RoeyersH.BuysseA. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in Grade 3.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34 (5), 435–449.
23.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.Psychological Review, 83, 215–251.
24.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
FeuersteinR. S. (2000). Dynamic cognitive assessment and the instrumental enrichment program: Origins and development. EnKozulinA.YaacovR. (Eds.), Experiencie of mediated learning: An impact of Feuerstein' theory in education and psychology. Advances in learning and instruction series (pp. 147–165). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
26.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognition monitoring.American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
27.
FlavellJ. H. (1981). Cognitive Monitoring. EnDickinsonW. P. (Ed.), Children's Oral Communication Skills (pp. 35–60). Nueva York: Academic Press.
28.
FritzA.FunkeJ. (1990). Superhirn troz Teilleistungsschwche? [)Mastermind pese a las dificultades de aprendizaje?].Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 53 (2), 146–162.
29.
GarcíaG. E.JiménezR. T.PearsonP. D. (1998). Metacognition. Childhood Biliguism, and Reading. EnHackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 193–219). New Jersey: LEA.
30.
GarnerR. (1988). Verbal-Report Data on Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies. EnWeinsteinC. E.GoetzE. T.AlexanderP. A. (Eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation (pp. 63–76). San Diego: Academic Press.
31.
GlosserG.GoodglassH. (1990). Disorders in executive control functions among aphasic and other brain-damaged patients.Journal of Clinical and Exp. Neuropsychology, 12, 485–501.
32.
GombertJ. E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development.Londres: Harvester Wheatsheaf. V.O.: 1990).
33.
GrantD. A.BergE. A. (2000). Test de Clasificación de Tarjetas de Wisconsin.Madrid: TEA.
34.
GrigorenkoE. L.SternbergR. J. (1998). Dynamic Testing.Psychological Bulletin, 124, 75–111.
35.
JusticeE. M.DornanT. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students.Adult Education Quarterly, 51 (3), 236–249.
36.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1995). Restricciones de la conciencia metalingüística.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 72, 33–50.
37.
KernsK.MateerC. A. (1996). Walking and Chewing Gum: the Impact of Attentional Capacity on Everyday Activities. EnSbordoneR. J.LongC. L. (Eds.), Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing (pp. 147–169). Delray Beach, FL: CG Press/St Lucie Press.
38.
LacasaP.MartínB.HerranzP. (1995). Autorregulación y relaciones entre iguales en tareas de construcción: un análisis de las situaciones de interacción.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 72, 7–94.
39.
León-carriónJ. L. (1997). Rehabilitation and Assessment: Old Tasks Revisited for Computerized Neuropsychological Assessment. EnLeón-CarriónJ.L. (Ed.), Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. Fundamntals, Innovations and Directions (pp. 47–61). Delray Beach, FL: GR/St Lucie Press.
40.
LezakM. D. (1993). Newer contributions to the neuropsychological assessment of executive functions.Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8 (1), 24–31.
41.
LidzC. S. (1991). Practitioner's Guide to Dynamic Assessment.Nueva York: Guilford.
42.
LidzC. S.ElliottJ. G. (2000). Introduction to dynamic asssessment. EnLidzC.EliottJ. G. (Eds.), Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice, 6 (pp. 3–13). Greenwich: JAI.
43.
MakiR. H.BerryS. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663–679.
44.
ManzoA. V.ManzoU. C.MckennaM. C. (1995). Informal Reading-Thinking Inventory.Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace and Co.
45.
MartíE. (1995). Metacognición: Entre la fascinación y el desencanto.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 72, 9–32.
46.
MateerC. A. (1997). Rehabilitation of Individuals with Frontal Lobe Impairment. EnLeón-CarriónJ.L. (Ed.), Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. Fundamentals, Innovations and Directions (pp. 285–300). Delray Beach, FL GR/St Lucie Press.
47.
McglynnS. M. (1998). Impaired Awareness of Deficits in a Psychiatric Context: Implications for Rehabilitation. EnHackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 221–248). New Jersey: LEA.
48.
MeichenbaumD. (1977). Cognitive behaviour modification: An integrative approach.Nueva York: Plenum.
49.
MeichenbaumD.BurlandS.GrusonL.CameronR. (1985). Metacognitive Assessment. EnYussenS. R. (Ed.), The Growth of Reflection in Children (pp. 3–30). Orlando: Academic Press.
50.
MorenoA. (1995). Autorregulación y solución de problemas: un punto de vista psicogenético.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 72, 51–70.
51.
NelsonT. O.KruglanskiA. W.JostJ. T. (1998). Knowing Thyself and Others: Progress in Metacognitive Social Psychology. EnYzerbytV. Y.LoriesG.DardenneB. (Eds.), Metacognition. Cognitive and Social Dimensions (pp. 70–89). Londres: Sage.
52.
OrrantiaJ.MoránM. C.GraciaA. D. (1997). Evaluación y Zona de Desarrollo Próximo: una aplicación a contenidos procedimentales.Cultura y Educación, 6–739–56.
53.
OrrantiaJ.MoránM. C.GraciaA. D. (1998). Evaluación estática versus evaluación dinámica.Estudios de Psicología, 61, 35–50.
OteroJ. (1998). Influence of Knowledge Activation and Context on Comprehension Monitoring of Science Texts. EnHackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 145–164). New Jersey: LEA.
56.
OwnsworthT. L.McfarlandK.YoungR. M. (2000). Development and standardization of the Self-regulation Skills Interview (SRSI): A new clinical assessment tool for acquired brain injury.Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14 (1), 76–92.
57.
PerkinsD. N.SalomonG. (1996). Learning Transfer. EnDe CorteE.WeinertF. E. (Eds.), Internl. Encyclopedia of Develop. and Instructional Psychology (pp. 483–487). oxford: Pergamon.
58.
PintrichP. L.WoltersC. A.BaxterG. P. (2000). Assessing Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning. EnSchrawG.ImparaJ. C. (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
59.
PondsR. W. H.M. (1998). Forgetfulness and cognitive aging. Prevalence, characteristics, and determinants.Maastricht: Neuropsych Publishers.
60.
PorteusS. D. (1992). Test de Laberintos.Madrid: TEA. (V.O.: 1950).
61.
PressleyM.Van EttenS.YokoiK.FreebernG.Van MeterP. (1998). The Metacognition of College Studentship: A Grounded Theory Approach. EnHackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 347–366). New Jersey: LEA.
62.
PuckettJ. M.ReevesL. M. (1993). Mechanisms of Everyday Cognition.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
63.
ReyA. (1994). Test de Copia de una Figura Compleja.Madrid: TEA. (V.O.: 1959).
64.
RivièreA. (1991). Objetos con mente.Madrid: Alianza.
65.
RogoffB. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context. Nueva York: Oxford University Press. (Trad.cast.: Aprendices del pensamiento: el desarrollo cognitivo en el contexto social.Barcelona: Paidós, 1993).
66.
SánchezE. (1993). Los textos expositivos. Estrategias para mejorar su comprensión.Madrid: Aula XXI/Santillana.
67.
SbordoneR. J. (1996). Ecological Validity: Some Critical Issues for the Neuropsychologist. EnSbordoneR. J.LongC. L. (Eds.), Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing (pp. 15–41). Delray Beach, FL: CG Press/St Lucie Press.
68.
SchneiderW. (1985). Developmental trends in the Metamemory-Memory Behavior Relationship: An Integrative View. EnForrest-PressleyD. L.MacKinnonF. E.Cary WallerT. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and Human Performance (pp. 57–109). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
69.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
70.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. EnSchoenfeldA. H. (Ed.), Handbook on Research on Mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Science and Mathematics (pp. 334–370). Nueva York: MacMillan Publishing.
71.
SchrawG. (2000). Assessing Metacognition: Implications of the Buros Symposium. EnSchrawG.ImparaJ. C. (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 297–321). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
72.
SchrawG.ImparaJ. C. (Eds.) (2000). Issues in the measurement of metacognition.Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
73.
SchunkD. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation.Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
74.
SchwartzB. L.MetcalfeJ. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. EnMetcalfeJ.ShimamuraA. L. (Eds.), Metacognition: knowing about knowing (pp. 93–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75.
SimonsP. R. (1996). Metacognition. EnDe CorteE.WeinertF. E. (Eds.), Intrnational Encyclopedia of Developmental and Instructional Psychology (pp. 436–441). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
76.
StankovL. (2000). Structural extensions of a hierarchical view on human cognitive abilities.Learning and Individual Differences, 12 (1), 35–51.
77.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Review of Meichenbaum, Burland, Gruson and Cameron's “Metacognitive Assessment”. EnForrest-PressleyD. L.MacKinnonF. E.Cary WallerT. (Eds.), Metacognition, Cognition and Human Performance (Vol. 1. Theoretical Perspectives, pp. 31–35). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
78.
StussD. T.VevineB. (2002). Adult clinical neuropsychology: Lessons from studies of the frontal lobes.Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 401–433.
79.
TroyerA. K.RichJ. B. (2002). Psychometric properties of a new metamemory questionnaire for older adults.Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57B (1), 19–27.
80.
TuckerC. M.PetersenS.HermanK. C.FennellR. S.BowlingB.PedersenT.VosmikJ. R. (2001). Self-regulation predictors of medication adherence among ethnically different pediatric patients with renal transplants.Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26 (8), 455–464.
81.
Van LeuvanP.WangM. C. (1997). An analysis od students' self-monitoring in first and second grade classrooms.Journal of Educational Research, 90, 132–143.
82.
Van MeterP.YokoiL.PressleyM. (1994). College student's theory of notetaking derived from their perceptions of notetakingJournal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.
83.
VeenmanM.ElshoutJ. J.MeijerJ. (1995). The Generality vs Domain-Specificity of Metacognitive Skills in Learning Across Domains.Learning and Instruction, 7, (2), 187–209.
84.
VygotskiL. S. (1979). La formación de los procesos psicológicos superiores.Barcelona: Crítica. V.O.: 1934).
85.
WardL.TraweekD. (1993). Application of a Metacognitive Strategy to Assessment, Intervention, and consultation: A Think-Aloud Tecnique.Journal of School Psychology, 31, 469–485.
86.
WellmanH. M. (1983). Metamemory Revisited. EnChiM. T. H. (Ed.), Trends in Memory Development Research (pp. 31–51). Basel: Karger.
87.
WellmanH. M. (1990). The child's theory of mind.Cambridge: MIT Press.
88.
WertschJ. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Trad. cast.: Vygotsky y la Formación Social de la Mente.Barcelona: Paidós, 1988)
89.
WinogradE. (1993). Memory in the Laboratory and Everyday Memory: Tha Case for Both. EnPuckettJ. M.ReeseH. W. (Eds.), Mechanisms of Everyday Cognition (pp. 55–70). Hillsdale: LEA.
90.
WongB. Y. L. (1991). The Relevance of Metacognition to Learning Disabilities. EnWongB. Y. L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 231–258). San Diego: Academic Press.
