The Development of Metacognitive Monitoring and Control in Second Graders: A Short-Term Longitudinal Study
Abstract
Although metacognition is considered a central aspect of self-regulated learning and is often linked to learning outcomes, little is known about the intraindividual development and factors that lead to developmental improvement over time. This longitudinal study investigated 2nd graders’ (N = 119, aged 8–9 years) metacognitive monitoring and control abilities in the context of spelling. Children were tested at the beginning (T1) and at the end of their 2nd school year (T2). The study focused on the development of monitoring and control, their interplay at both measurement points and across time, and the cross-sectional and longitudinal impact of 1st-order task performance (here, spelling) on the 2 metacognitive processes. Results revealed substantial developmental progression in most monitoring and control measures. Monitoring and control were interrelated cross-sectionally only at T2, but longitudinally, control predicted monitoring. Interestingly, earlier spelling performance predicted not only later spelling, but also later monitoring and control abilities. The findings indicate that earlier domain-specific skills in the 1st-order task (i.e., spelling) are 1 of several possible driving forces for metacognitive development.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Roebers & Spiess (2017) found significant reductions in overconfidence in children during 2nd grade.
“Investigating the development of monitoring longitudinally, Roebers & Spiess (2017) also found significant reductions in overconfidence in children during 2nd grade.”
From Longitudinal associations between executive functions and metacognitive monitoring in 5- to 8-year-olds (2022) · cites this paper as Roebers & Spiess (2017)
Cites
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282 · cited 3× · see citing works
“This study seems to confirm the assumption that metacognition is a driving force for cognitive development (Flavell, 1979; Kuhn, 2000).”
BackgroundHandbook of Metacognition in Education
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009) · doi:10.4324/9780203876428 · Cited by 1,509 · see citing works
Efklides, A. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538645 · Cited by 1,211 · see citing works
A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions
Nelson, T. O. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109 · Cited by 976 · see citing works
The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543058004375 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kälin, S., & Roebers, C. M. (2022) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-022-09306-x · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationvan Loon, M., & Roebers, C. M. (2024) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-024-09400-2 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“…debate, with some research arguing for a close connection (showing that higher task performance often correlates with enhanced metacognition, e.g., Roebers & Spiess, 2017 ), whereas other research suggests that these are dissociable (Howard et al., 2010; Scott et al., 2014 ) and should be…”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Roebers, C. M., & Spiess, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognition and Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-09-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 110-128
- ISSN
- 1524-8372
- 1532-7647
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 5
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review