Cross-Country Generalizability of the Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Students’ Strategy Use and Reading Competence

Abstract

Background/Context

Because metacognitive knowledge includes knowledge about adequate learning strategies, and because an effective use of learning strategies is associated with higher levels of performance, substantial relationships can be assumed between metacognitive knowledge, strategic behavior, and performance. However, such a pattern of results is rarely found in the research literature. In part, this may be due to inadequate indicators of strategy use.

Purpose of study

Prior research showed that high scores on self-reported strategy use were only mirrored in high levels of performance when students had sufficient metacognitive knowledge. To test the cross-country generalizability of the relationship between metacognitive knowledge, strategy use, and reading competence, we analyzed data from the PISA 2009-study, in which similar measures of metacognitive knowledge as well as of students’ strategy use were used.

Research Design

The study uses a cross-sectional correlational design. It draws on representative samples of fifteen-year-old students from 34 OECD countries taking part in the PISA 2009 study. The relations between students’ reading competence scores, their metacognitive knowledge as well as their self-reported use of learning strategies were analyzed. We used correlations, mediation, as well as moderator regression analyses to predict students’ reading competence.

Findings/Results

Results showed consistently moderate to high correlations between meta-cognitive knowledge and reading competence. There were also lower, but still significant, relationships between strategy use and both reading competence and metacognitive knowledge. Testing a “mediator model” with strategy use as a mediator resulted in small but significant effects of strategy use as mediator. Assuming that metacognitive knowledge might be a necessary precondition for effective strategy use, the study tested whether it served as a moderator. Results confirmed this moderator effect for many but not all countries. However, across all countries, there was a consistently high effect of metacognitive knowledge on reading competence, independent of the level of self-reported use of strategies.

Conclusions/Recommendations

The results are very similar across countries. Taken together, the findings suggest that metacognitive knowledge as measured by a test tapping declarative, conditional and relational strategy knowledge is an important predictor of students’ reading competence, and contributes significantly to our understanding of what helps students to become better readers. Metacognitive knowledge captures the prerequisite of adaptive strategic processing of texts. Increasing students’ knowledge in this domain is a promising approach when it comes to fostering self-regulated reading.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aiken

L. S.

, & West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Artelt

(2000). Strategisches Lernen [Strategic learning]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

Artelt

, Baumert

, Julius-McElvany

, & Peschar

(2003). Learners for life. Student approaches to learning. Results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: OECD.

Artelt

, Beinecke

, Schlagmüller

, & Schneider

(2009). Diagnose von Strategiewissen beim Textverstehen [Diagnosing knowledge of strategies in text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41, 96–103.

Artelt

, & Neuenhaus

(2010). Metakognition und Leistung [Metacognition and performance]. In Bos

, Klieme

, & Köller

(Eds.), Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und Kompetenzentwicklung (pp. 127–146). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

Artelt

, Neuenhaus

, Lingel

, & Schneider

(2012). Entwicklung und wechselseitige Effekte von metakognitiven und bereichsspezifischen Wissenskomponenten in der Sekundarstufe [Development and reciprocal effects of metacognitive and domain-specific knowledge components in secondary school]. Psychologische Rundschau, 63(1), 18–25.

Artelt

, Schiefele

, & Schneider

(2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 363–384.

Baron

R. M.

, & Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bempechat

, Jimenez

N. v.

, & Boulay

B. A.

(2002). Cultural-cognitive issues in academic achievement: New directions for cross-national research. In Porter

A. C.

& Gamoran

(Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 117–149). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

10.

Best

D. L.

, & Ornstein

P. A.

(1986). Children's generation and communication of mnemonic organizational strategies. Developmental Psychology, 22, 845–853.

11.

Borkowski

J. G.

, Milstead

, & hale

(1988). Components of children's metamemory: Implications for strategy generalization. In Weinert

F. E.

& Perlmutter

(Eds.), Memory development: Universal changes and individual differences (pp. 73–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Brown

A. L.

(1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In Glaser

(Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Butler

, Cartier

S.C.

, Schnellert

, Gagnon

& Giammarino

(2011). Secondary students' self-regulated engagement in reading: Researching self-regulation as situated in context. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53, 73–105

14.

Campione

J. C.

, & Armbruster

B. B.

(1985). Acquiring information from texts: An analysis of four approaches. Thinking and learning skills. In Segal

J. W.

, Chipman

S. F.

, & Glaser

(Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (pp. 317–359). hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Cavanaugh

J. C.

, & Perlmutter

(1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11–28.

16.

Collins Block

, & Pressley

(2002). (Eds.). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

17.

Dunlosky

, & Metcalfe

(2009). Metacognition (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Flavell

J. H.

, Miller

P. H.

, & Miller

S. A.

(2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

19.

Goswami

(2008). Cognitive development: The learning brain (2nd ed.). hove, England: Psychology Press.

20.

hacker

D. J.

, Dunlosky

, & Graesser

(Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

21.

Heine

S. J.

, Lehmann

D. R.

, Markus

H. R.

, & Kitayama

(1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766–794.

22.

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

23.

Kintsch

(1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Kreutzer

M. A.

, Leonard

, & Flavell

J. H.

(1975). An interview study of children's knowledge about memory. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40(1), 1–60.

25.

McNamara

D. S.

(Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

26.

National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. (National Institute of Child health and human Development, NIH, DHHS). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

27.

Nelson

T. O.

, & Narens

(1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In Bower

G. H.

(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125–141). New York, NY: Academic Press.

28.

OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: OECD.

29.

OECD. (2010a). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: OECD.

30.

OECD. (2010b). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn. Student engagement, strategies and practices. Paris, France: OECD.

31.

OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 [Technical report]. Paris, France: OECD.

32.

Paris

S. G.

, & Byrnes

(1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In Zimmerman

B. J.

& Schunk

D. H.

(Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice (pp. 169–200). New York, NY: Springer.

33.

Paris

S. G.

, & Stahl

(2005). Children's reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

34.

Perry

N. E.

, & Winne

P. H.

(2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of students' self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 211–228

35.

Pieschl

(2007). To calibrate or not to calibrate? Conditions and processes of metacognitive calibration during hypermedia learning (Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Münster, Germany). Retrieved from urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-14569461694

36.

Pintrich

P. R.

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

37.

Pintrich

P. R.

, Smith

D. A. F.

, Garcia

, & McKeachie

W. J.

(1991). The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: NCRIPTAL, The University of Michigan.

38.

Pressley

(2002). Comprehension strategies instruction. In Block

C. C.

& Pressley

(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford Press.

39.

Schlagmüller

, & Schneider

(2007). WLST 7-12. Würzburger Lesestrategie Wissenstest für die Klassen 7 bis 12 [Wurzburg knowledge of reading strategies test for Grades 7 to 12]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

40.

Schneider

(2010). Metacognition and memory development in childhood and adolescence. In Salatas Waters

& Schneider

(Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 54–81). New York: Guilford Press.

41.

Schneider

, & Artelt

(2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42, 149–16.

42.

Schneider

, & Lockl

(2008). Procedural metacognition in children: Evidence for developmental trends. In Dunlosky

& Bjork

R. A.

(Eds.), A handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 391–410). New York: Psychology Press.

43.

Schneider

, & Pressley

(1997). Memory development between two and twenty (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

44.

Schraw

, & Moshman

(1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.

45.

van de vijver

, & Leung

(1997) Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In Berry

J. W.

, Poortinga

Y. H.

, & Pandey

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 1: Theory and method (pp. 257–300). Needham heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

46.

Weinstein

C. E.

(1987). Learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI). Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing Company.

47.

Wild

K.-P.

, Schiefele

, & Winteler

(1992). LIST: Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium [A procedure for assessing study learning strategies]. In Krapp

(Ed.), Arbeiten zur empirischen Pädagogik und pädagogischen Psychologie (vol. 20). Neubiberg, Germany: Gelbe Reihe.

48.

Winne

P. H.

(2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276.

49.

Winne

P. H.

, & Hadwin

A. F.

(1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In hacker

D. J.

, Dunlosky

, & Graesser

A. C.

(Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

50.

Winne

P. H.

, & Perry

N. E.

(2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts

, Pintrich

P. R.

, & Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.