ArticlePDF Available

Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries10.12738/estp.2016.5.0137

Authors:

Abstract

Learning strategies, such as memorization and elaboration strategies, have received both support and repudiation. The 2009 international PISA reading, science, and mathematics achievement test and survey of 15 year-olds in 65 countries was used. The findings indicated that self-reported use of learning strategies, which involve compensatory approaches like memorization, across a global sample was not strongly associated with higher achievement. However, metacognitive strategies which involve an awareness of thinking, as measured by the appropriate use of strategies within a context, were related to greater achievement. Although there were differences across gender and student SES, metacognitive strategies remained a significant predictor of achievement when controlling for SES and gender, and were on par with SES in predicting achievement. This study provides insight that may be particularly beneficial for males and lower SES students who underachieve in reading.
Received: February 6, 2016
Revision received: May 17, 2016
Accepted: July 4, 2016
OnlineFirst: August 10, 2016
Copyright © 2016 EDAM
www.estp.com.tr
DOI 10.12738/estp.2016.5.0137 October 2016 16(5) 14851502
Research Article
KURAM VE UYGULAMADA EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Citation: Callan, G. L., Marchant, G. J., Finch, W. H., & German, R. L. (2016). Metacognition, strategies, achievement,
and demographics: Relationships across countries. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16, 1485–1502.
1 Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Educational Psychology Teachers College Muncie Indiana
47306-0001, United States. Email: glcallan@bsu.edu
2 Correspondence to: Gregory J. Marchant (PhD), Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Educa-
tional Psychology Teachers College Muncie Indiana 47306-0001, United States. Email: gmarchant@bsu.edu
3 Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Educational Psychology Teachers College Muncie Indiana
47306-0001, United States. Email: whfinch@bsu.edu
4 Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Educational Psychology Teachers College Muncie Indiana
47306-0001, United States. Email: rlgerman@bsu.edu
Abstract
Learning strategies, such as memorization and elaboration strategies, have received both support and
repudiation. The 2009 international PISA reading, science, and mathematics achievement test and survey
of 15 year-olds in 65 countries was used. The findings indicated that self-reported use of learning strategies,
which involve compensatory approaches like memorization, across a global sample was not strongly
associated with higher achievement. However, metacognitive strategies which involve an awareness
of thinking, as measured by the appropriate use of strategies within a context, were related to greater
achievement. Although there were differences across gender and student SES, metacognitive strategies
remained a significant predictor of achievement when controlling for SES and gender, and were on par with
SES in predicting achievement. This study provides insight that may be particularly beneficial for males and
lower SES students who underachieve in reading.
Keywords
Learning strategies • Student achievement • International data (PISA) • Demographics • Socio-economic status
Gregory L. Callan1
Ball State University
Gregory J. Marchant2
Ball State University
W. Holmes Finch3
Ball State University
Rachel L. German4
Ball State University
Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and
Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
1486
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
The factors inuencing student learning is a shared concern internationally. The role
of student demographics, the nature of their schools, and the wealth and inequality of
their countries are established factors in academic achievement (Marchant & Finch,
2016). Identifying factors that impede learning is not a difcult task. Factors such
as poverty, discrimination, and inequality all undermine efforts to educate children;
however, it is more difcult to identify feasible and efcient solutions to improve
learning outcomes or overcome disadvantages. Short of one-to-one instruction, the
strategies students employ when approaching learning tasks may be one factor that
could offset some of the other universal negatives.
A large body of research has examined the use of academic strategies, which entail
a variety of tactics that may facilitate achievement (Boss & Vaughn, 2002; Ward &
Traweek, 1993; Zimmerman, 2002). Although, multiple perspectives are discussed
within the literature, and the terminology may differ slightly across these perspectives,
some of the most common types of strategies include cognitive and metacognitive
strategies (Cantrell et al., 2010; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). It should
be noted that there are differences in the terminology and classication of academic
strategies. Many have also classied various academic strategies into two broad
categories of learning strategies and metacognitive strategies (PISA, 2009; Woolfolk,
2014). In particular, this perspective is consistent with the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA, 2009) which served as the primary data source for this
study. From this perspective, learning strategies may entail both cognitive strategies
and control strategies that are used to optimize students’ learning of content. Cognitive
strategies include a variety of actions but some popular strategies include memorization,
elaboration, or summarization (PISA, 2009; Pintrich et al., 1993; Woolfolk, 2014). A
common theme among these strategies is that they enhance learning by compensating
for limitations on one’s cognitive abilities. For example, one may choose to use a
memorization strategy, such as rote repetition or creating an acronym, because without
the support of such a strategy, the number of pieces of information to be remembered
would exceed or strain the learner’s memory capacity. Relatedly, another cognitive
strategy, elaboration, entails creating connections between prior learning and new
information, which supports learning by capitalizing on cognitive predispositions to
remember content that is connected to prior knowledge.
On the other hand, control strategies have been dened in multiple ways within
the literature; however, PISA (2009) describes control strategies as the actions that
students take to identify the key purpose of a task or identify the main concepts. From
this perspective, control strategies are considered to be within the larger category
of learning strategies because the identication of key information should enhance
learning (Gardner, Brown, Sanders, & Menke, 1992).
1487
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
In contrast to learning strategies, another class of strategies within the PISA, 2009
measures include metacognitive strategies, which help a learner “think about his or her
thinking” (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011). For example, a metacognitive strategy
to check one’s understanding of a paragraph immediately after reading the paragraph
might increase the reader’s awareness that he or she did not understand the text.
Similarly, one may summarize a paragraph into their own words to monitor how well
they understood the text. A primary benet of metacognitive strategies is that increased
awareness, especially when a learner is struggling, provides an opportunity for the
learner to take actions, such as utilizing learning strategies, to improve learning.
Learning Strategies, Metacognitive Strategies, and Achievement
Research has been relatively consistent in showing that metacognitive strategies are
related to achievement and learning across many content areas, but especially reading,
mathematics, and science. In addition, these ndings have been found throughout the
world, rather than merely in the United States. In Vietnam, increased metacognitive
strategies from repeated-reading led to better awareness of the utility of reading uency
(Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2010). Training in metacognitive strategies resulted in better
achievement in fractional mathematics in Nigeria (Onu, Eskay, & Igbo, 2012). In Israel,
high school students who were taught to use metacognitive strategies during math
performed better than peers who did not receive this training (Mevarech & Amrany,
2008). In addition, primary school children in Great Britain who performed the best
at addition and subtraction, reportedly used more advanced metacognitive strategies
(Throndsen, 2011). High school students who were better at comprehending geometric
proofs were found to use more metacognitive strategies (Yang, 2012). When taught to
eighth graders in Israel, meta-strategic knowledge, which is described as explicit general
knowledge about thinking strategies, had dramatic short-term and long-term effects
on scientic inquiry learning (Ben-David & Zohar, 2009). In that study, the effect was
stronger for low-achieving students. In the United States, two measures of metacognitive
strategies were signicant predictors of middle school students’ achievement levels in
science (Sperling, Richmond, Ramsay, & Klapp, 2012). Measures of metacognitive
awareness during mathematical problem solving predicted achievement performance
in mathematical problem solving tasks as well as standardized test scores (Callan &
Cleary, 2014). The use of metacognitive prompts during science instruction resulted in
an increase in students’ scientic knowledge and creative strategies for solving problems
(Peters & Kitsantas, 2010). Thus, across many cultures, countries, and academic subjects,
increased use of metacognitive strategies has been consistently linked to positive learning
outcomes; however, ndings have been more variable regarding learning strategies.
In general, much of the research in the United States has indicated that more frequent
use of learning strategies is related to increased learning (Pressley & Harris, 2006) and
1488
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
greater academic achievement (Robbins et al., 2004). However, the ndings within
other countries have been less consistent. For example, Chiu, Chow, and Mcbride-
Chang (2007) studied learning and metacognitive strategies across 34 countries and
found that although metacognitive strategies resulted in higher achievement, the use
of memorization learning strategies resulted in lower scores. In contrast, another study
found that learning strategies, such as elaboration, organization, and rehearsal, were all
signicant predictors of physics achievement in Turkey (Sezgin Selcuk, 2010).
Thus, it seems that learning strategies are not always benecial for all students.
Relatedly, research suggests that the deployment of learning strategies is dependent on
contextual factors such as the academic domain, the type of tasks, or the difculty of the
task (Callan & Cleary, 2014; Cleary & Chen, 2009; Hadwin, Winne, Stockley, Nesbit,
& Woszczyna, 2001). Some research also suggests that the use of learning strategies
may depend on demographic factors such as SES or gender. For example, students
from varying socio-economic groups utilize strategies differentially with greater
SES positively relating to more frequent strategy use (Akyol, Sungur, & Tekkaya,
2010; Jensen, 2009; Lipina & Colombo, 2009). Interestingly, most of this research
has examined individual differences in SES such as how one’s family SES inuence
strategy use. Less research has examined more macro level inuences on strategy use,
such as the collective socio-economic status (SES) of one’s country. Given that some
research has shown there to be differences in academic motivation and beliefs across
countries (Chiu & Chow, 2010), it is pertinent to consider whether students from higher
or lower SES countries utilize strategies differently, and if these differences in strategy
use account for unique variation in achievement after controlling for family SES.
In a related line of research, there is some evidence to suggest that males and females
may utilize learning and metacognitive strategies differently, with females being more
strategic than their male peers (Bembenutty, 2007; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
Given that there are persistent and signicant differences in academic achievement between
males and females in math and reading, and strategy use is related to achievement, it is
pertinent to examine how males or females utilize strategies. Some research has addressed
this issue. For example, Chuy and Nitulescu (2013) examined whether Canadian male and
female students utilized strategies differentially for reading tasks and found that females
tended to use learning strategies and metacognitive strategies more frequently than males.
That study, and much of the literature addressing gender differences in strategy use, has
focused on a single country, and research is needed to examine strategy use across a multi-
national sample of students. Moreover, if differences emerge in strategy use, it is important
to determine the extent to which variation in achievement is explained by such differences.
Research is needed to examine how metacognitive and particularly learning
strategies relate to academic achievement and gender internationally. Specically, it
1489
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
is important to understand if some types of strategies may be more useful than other
strategies because this could have important implications for instruction. In this study,
the authors examine the use of metacognitive and learning strategies across higher
and lower SES countries, if these strategies relate to achievement across countries,
and whether strategies account for unique variation after controlling for SES. In
addition, because the majority of research examining gender differences in strategy
use has focused on small sample sizes within the United States, we examine a cross
national sample to address whether males and females utilize different strategies.
Research Questions
The research questions to be addressed in this study are as follows:
1. Across countries, what is the relationship of metacognitive and learning strategies to
reading, math, and science achievement? Do metacognitive and learning strategies
account for unique variation in achievement while controlling for demographics,
including SES?
2. Does the SES of one’s country signicantly relate to the use of learning strategies
and metacognitive strategies? In particular, do students from the countries with the
15 highest and 15 lowest SES utilize learning strategies differently?
3. Are there gender differences in learning and metacognitive strategies that might
explain the traditional gender performance differences in reading and math?
Method
Participants
In the current study, we address the research questions above by examining
individual level data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
of 15-year-old’s achievement in reading, mathematics, and science from 63 countries.
A total of 475,460 students (50.3% female) were included in the study. Students are
weighted to be representative of their country and school.
Instrument
PISA is an international achievement test designed to determine students’ ability to
apply reading, science, and mathematics content to real-life situations. In addition to the
test, a survey is administered to collect demographic data. The 2009 administration of
PISA included two metacognitive indexes and three learning strategy use indexes (the
2009 PISA data is the most recent that contains these measures). Metacognitive strategies
was measured as knowledge of effective metacognitive strategies for text comprehension.
Students were presented with scenarios and then evaluated the quality and usefulness of
1490
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
strategies for reaching an intended goal. The ratings of the strategies were compared to
an optimal ratings developed by experts. Two metacognitive indexes were created: The
index of Understanding and Remembering and the index of Summarizing. Additionally
there were three learning strategy use indexes: The frequency of use of Memorization
Strategies, Elaboration Strategies, and Control Strategies. Student use of these strategies
was compared to ratings deemed effective by experts to create indexes. The index scores
for the two metacognitive and three learning strategy measures were entered into a principal
components analysis with Varimax rotation, and based on proportion of variance explained
and conceptual coherence, a 2-component solution was retained, accounting for 70 percent
of the variance (see Table 1). The rst component (Learning Strategies) contained the
three strategy indexes related to control, elaboration, and memorization, and the second
component (Metacognitive Strategies) contained the two metacognitive strategy indexes.
Table 1
Principal Components Analysis Results for PISA Learning Factors
Factors
Learning Metacognitive
Control strategies .85 .23
Elaboration strategies .80 -.01
Memorization strategies .80 -.09
Meta-cognitive summarizing .01 .85
Meta-understanding and remembering .05 .84
Data Analysis
The components were then entered into the subsequent analyses. In order to
ascertain the relationship of learning and metacognitive strategies to achievement
test scores, after controlling for demographic factors and SES, hierarchical
regression (HR) analysis was used. For each of the academic domains of Reading,
Math, and Science, HR was used in which the rst stage included SES, gender,
language spoken at home (language of exam or other language), and immigration
status (native born or immigrant). The second stage of the HR included the two
components described above. Of particular interest was the amount of additional
variance explained by learning and metacognitive strategies after controlling for
the demographic variables. Analyses were conducted across all 63 PISA countries,
as well as for the 15 wealthiest (based on GDP) collectively, and 15 poorest
collectively, and for each of these nations individually.
Results
Strategies Factors, Achievement, and Demographics
The Learning Strategies component demonstrated a weak correlation to achievement
(r = .02 for reading, r = -.03 for math, and r = -.01 for science). Although statistically
1491
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
signicant due to the large sample size (all p < .001), the practical implication for these
relations is near zero. The same cannot be said of the Metacognitive Strategies component,
which demonstrated a strong correlation to achievement across all subject areas even
though the measurement of Metacognitive Strategies was situated only within a reading
context (r = .50 for reading, r = .46 for math, and r = .48 for science; all p < .001).
The two components were also signicantly correlated to all of the demographic
variables (p < .001). As was true for the achievement variables, these relationships were
very weak. The Learning Strategies factor exhibited a very weak, positive relationship
with SES (r = .02), language at home (r = .02; more likely to use strategies when the
language spoken at home was the same as the achievement measure), and immigration
status (r = .02; native born more likely to use the strategies). In addition, there was
a weak, statistically signicant, negative relationship between gender and learning
strategies (r = -.07; males were slightly less likely to use the Learning Strategies). On
the other hand, Metacognitive Strategies displayed stronger correlations with most of
the demographic variables. The Metacognitive Strategies factor was related to SES
(r = .25), gender (r = -.13; males were signicantly less likely to use metacognitive
strategies), and language at home (r = -.09; less likely to use Metacognitive Strategies
when home language was the same as test). The correlation coefcient between
Metacognitive Strategies and immigration was negligible in value (r = .01).
Predicting Achievement with Learning and Metacognitive Strategy Compo-
nents and Demographics
Across all PISA nations, the demographic variables and the two strategy
components were signicant predictors (a = 0.05) of achievement for all three subject
areas (see Tables 2-4). The demographics accounted for approximately 28 percent of
the variance in the rst step of the multiple regressions (R2 = 0.28 for reading and
science, R2 = 0.29 for math), and the Learning Strategy components accounted for a
little less than half of that in the second step (R2 change = 0.14 for reading, 0.12 for
math, and 0.13 for science). The standardized β coefcients for the model across all
countries revealed a strong contribution by the Metacognitive Strategies component
(β = 0.39 for reading, β = 0.36 for math, and β = 0.38 for science), approaching that
of the SES index (β = 0.40 for reading, β = 0.43 for math, and β = 0.42 for science).
The relationship of demographics and strategies to achievement was similar for high
and low SES countries.
1492
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Table 2
Multiple Regression Results with Demographics (Step 1) and Learning Factors (Step 2) Predicting Reading
Achievement for 15 Highest and Lowest SES Countries
Standardized Beta Coefcients
Country Demo R2
Learning
Factors R2
Change
SES Gender Home
Lang
Immi-
gration
Learning
Strategies
Meta-
cognitive
Iceland .18 .13 .17 -.12 -.09 .01* .06 .44
Qatar .26 .11 .16 -.17 -.10 .35 .09 .35
Canada .13 .15 .24 -.10 -.05 -.01 .07 .39
Norway .18 .17 .20 -.18 -.11 -.02 .10 .41
Dubai (UAE) .29 .16 .28 -.16 -.06 .21 .01* .42
Finland .21 .18 .20 -.17 -.10 -.04 .07 .45
Australia .17 .20 .25 -.09 -.01 -.01 .09 .45
Sweden .21 .19 .25 -.14 -.11 -.04 .08 .44
Denmark .20 .19 .27 -.10 -.08 -.03 -.01* .45
Netherlands .14 .27 .24 -.06 -.00* -.02 -.02 .53
United King .17 .16 .28 -.07 -.08 .01 .07 .41
Belgium .21 .24 .28 -.04 -.03 -.05 -.01 .52
Luxembourg .23 .17 .34 -.11 -.04 -.01* -.00* .43
Germany .24 .20 .30 -.14 -.08 -.03 .03 .46
United States .20 .14 .35 -.08 -.01 .02 -.03 .39
High SES .19 .16 .32 -.09 -.03 .01 -.00 .41
Azerbaijan .12 .06 .25 -.16 .06 .01 .13 .22
Kyrgyzstan .27 .09 .32 -.23 .09 .04 .06 .32
Uruguay .27 .13 .38 -.17 -.03 -.00* .04 .38
Macao-China .13 .12 .15 -.18 -.29 .01 .17 .30
Hong Kong .13 .17 .16 -.14 -.18 -.04 .13 .40
Panama .26 .14 .36 -.12 -.12 -.02 .10 .39
Albania .23 .12 .31 -.23 -.02 .01 .13 .34
Colombia .19 .17 .31 -.07 -.03 -.00 -.01 .43
Brazil .19 .13 .31 -.12 -.04 -.04 .08 .37
Turkey .27 .14 .38 -.18 -.04 -.02 .05 .38
Tunisia .14 .09 .29 -.16 -.01 -.02 .10 .28
Mexico .20 .16 .30 -.12 -.10 -.05 .07 .41
Thailand .23 .11 .33 -.23 -.01 -.01 .18 .27
Peru .34 .10 .45 -.10 -.14 -.03 -.05 .32
Indonesia .19 .12 .26 -.26 .03 -.10 .08 .35
Low SES .18 .13 .30 -.16 -.03 -.02 .05 .37
All Countries .28 .14 .40 -.12 -.03 .00 .00 .39
Note. * = not signicant.
1493
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
Table 3
Multiple Regression Results with Demographics (Step 1) and Learning Factors (Step 2) Predicting Math
Achievement for 15 Highest and Lowest SES Countries
Standardized Beta Coefcients
Country Demo R2
Learning
Factors R2
Change
SES Gender Home
Lang
Immi-
gration
Learning
Strategies
Meta-
cognitive
Iceland .10 .16 .22 .14 -.05 .01* .08 .41
Qatar .29 .13 .18 .06 .09 .34 .07 .37
Canada .12 .14 .28 .17 .01 -.04 .03 .38
Norway .13 .14 .24 .12 -.11 -.02 .07 .38
Dubai (UAE) .26 .16 .29 .09 .10* .20 -.03 .41
Finland .09 .17 .21 .18 -.06 -.03 .03 .43
Australia .16 .17 .29 .16 .06 -.03 .09 .41
Sweden .17 .16 .29 .10 -.10 -.02 .07 .41
Denmark .16 .15 .27 .18 -.07 -.04 -.06 .41
Netherlands .16 .23 .26 .18 -.02 -.03 -.04 .50
United King .19 .13 .32 .19 -.06 .00* .04 .36
Belgium .22 .20 .30 .21 -.01 -.08 -.04 .47
Luxembourg .21 .14 .35 .20 -.03 -.02 -.02 .39
Germany .22 .19 .32 .17 -.07 -.01 .01 .45
United States .21 .12 .38 .17 -.02 .04 -.06 .36
High SES .19 .15 .34 .17 -.03 .02 -.03 .40
Azerbaijan .02 .06 .06 .10 -.06 -.02 .12 .24
Kyrgyzstan .22 .13 .33 .03 .08 .06 .06 .38
Uruguay .25 .14 .38 .12 -.02 .00* .01* .39
Macao-China .03 .12 .11 .12 -.09 -.02 .18 .29
Hong Kong .11 .17 .20 .14 -.14 -.07 .11 .40
Panama .21 .17 .35 .08 -.03 .00* .11 .43
Albania .12 .14 .28 .04 -.04 .01* .10 .34
Colombia .25 .18 .33 .23 -.02 .01 .01 .45
Brazil .19 .12 .33 .13 -.03 -.05 .04 .36
Turkey .24 .12 .43 .15 -.01 -.00 -.00* .36
Tunisia .18 .09 .38 .12 -.06 .23 .03 .29
Mexico .18 .18 .29 .14 -.07 -.05 .07 .43
Thailand .14 .10 .32 .07 .03 .02 .20 .24
Peru .34 .12 .46 .14 -.11 -.02 -.05 .34
Indonesia .14 .18 .29 .04 .01 -.07 .09 .43
Low SES .17 .13 .32 .10 -.05 .01 .03 .37
All Countries .29 .12 .43 .11 -.04 .01 -.04 .36
Note. * = not signicant.
1494
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Table 4
Multiple Regression Results with Demographics (Step 1) and Learning Factors (Step 2) Predicting Science
Achievement for 15 Highest and Lowest SES Countries
Standardized Beta Coefcients
Country Demo R2
Learning
Factors R2
Change
SES Gender Home
Lang
Immi-
gration
Learning
Strategies
Meta-
cognitive
Iceland .08 .18 .19 .14 -.07 .02* .05 .43
Qatar .26 .12 .16 -.06 -.02 .36 .08 .36
Canada .11 .15 .26 .13 -.06 -.02 .04 .39
Norway .14 .15 .23 .07 -.15 -.02 .08 -.38
Dubai (UAE) .26 .17 .27 -.05 -.06 .23 .01 .43
Finland .10 .19 .20 .08 -.10 -.04 .03 .46
Australia .15 .19 .27 .11 -.01 -.03 .08 .44
Sweden .17 .18 .26 .10 -.12 -.04 .05 .44
Denmark .17 .16 .27 .15 -.11 -.03 -.01 .42
Netherlands .15 .26 .26 .11 -.03 -.05 -.02 .53
United King .17 .16 .31 .12 -.09 .03 .06 .40
Belgium .20 .22 .28 .14 -.02 -.08 -.01 .49
Luxembourg .23 .16 .37 .14 -.03 -.02 .01* .41
Germany .23 .19 .31 .13 -.14 -.01 .04 .45
United States .19 .13 .36 .12 -.03 .02 -.04 .37
High SES .18 .15 .32 .12 -.05 .00 -.01 .41
Azerbaijan .07 .07 .18 -.04 .11 .01 .09 .27
Kyrgyzstan .18 .11 .28 -.06 .07 .08 .10 .35
Uruguay .25 .14 .38 .05 -.01 .02 .04 .39
Macao-China .06 .14 .12 .05 -.25 -.01* .18 .32
Hong Kong .09 .18 .16 .08 -.17 -.05 .13 .41
Panama .20 .18 .33 .05 -.09 .00* .08 .44
Albania .15 .15 .29 -.07 -.02 .02 .11 .38
Colombia .20 .19 .30 .14 -.01 -.01 .01 .45
Brazil .18 .13 .33 .05 -.03 -.03 .06 .37
Turkey .20 .17 .38 .02 -.04 -.01 .06 .43
Tunisia .12 .09 .32 .03 -.02 -.01 .07 .30
Mexico .18 .17 .31 .09 -.08 -.04 .07 .41
Thailand .14 .10 .30 -.04 -.00* -.01 .17 .27
Peru .20 .10 .43 .05 -.13 -.02 -.02 .33
Indonesia .11 .17 .26 -.03 .06 -.06 .12 .41
Low SES .15 .14 .30 .03 -.05 .00 .05 .38
All Countries .28 .13 .42 .03 .05 .09 -.02 .38
Note. * = not signicant.
Strategy Factors and Achievement in High and Low SES Countries
Demographics and the Metacognitive Strategy components signicantly predicted
achievement for students in both the high and low SES countries across the three
subject areas (see Tables 2-4). The Standardized β weights for both the SES index
1495
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
and for the Metacognitive Strategies component were slightly higher for students in
the higher rather than lower SES countries.
The students from the high SES countries scored an average of 84 to 104 points
higher than students from the lower SES countries across subject areas (see Tables
5 and 6). Students in low SES countries used Learning Strategies more (by 0.23
points), and students from high SES countries scored higher on the Metacognitive
Strategies factor (by 0.34 points). In other words, students from low SES countries
were more likely to use strategies that were not strongly related to achievement,
and less likely to use the strategies that are more strongly related to achievement.
The gender difference in Metacognitive Strategies was striking, with females scoring
signicantly higher on the metacognitive strategies component (p < .001), especially
in the higher SES countries (see Table 7).
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, Frequencies for High SES Countries
Scores Demographic % Factors
Country Math Reading Science SES Male Lang Cntry Learn Meta
Iceland 507 (86) 500 (93) 495 (92) .72 (.89) 50 97 94 -.30 (1.07) .02 (.99)
Qatar 368 (93) 372 (112) 379 (99) .51 (.91) 51 61 72 .66 (1.15) -.36 (1.04)
Canada 527 (83) 524 (87) 529 (86) .50 (.83) 50 85 88 -.10 (1.08) .23 (.99)
Norway 498 (80) 503 (88) 500 (85) .47 (.74) 49 93 95 -.45 (1.03) .11 (.97)
Dubai (UAE) 453 (94) 459 (104) 466 (101) .42 (.79) 51 50 55 .57 (.92) .12 (.99)
Finland 541 (77) 536 (83) 554 (85) .37 (.78) 50 96 97 -.37 (.93) .26 (.99)
Australia 514 (89) 515 (96) 527 (98) .34 (.75) 49 91 87 -.10 (1.07) .19 (1.02)
Sweden 494 (89) 497 (96) 495 (96) .33 (.81) 49 92 94 -.03 (.96) .01 (1.03)
Denmark 503 (82) 495 (81) 499 (88) .30 (.87) 50 96 95 -.21 (.90) .39 (.94)
Netherlands 526 (86) 508 (86) 522 (93) .27 (.86) 50 94 95 -.29 (.88) .21 (1.03)
United King 492 (83) 494 (92) 514 (95) .20 (.79) 49 94 93 -.01 (.93) .23 (.96)
Belgium 515 (101) 506 (99) 507 (102) .20 (.93) 51 78 91 -.23 (.90) .47 (1.00)
Luxembourg 489 (92) 472 (101) 484 (100) .19 (1.10) 49 11 81 .09 (.98) .08 (1.03)
Germany 513 (95) 497 (92) 520 (97) .18 (.90) 51 90 93 .14 (.90) .45 (1.01)
United States 487 (86) 500 (94) 502 (91) .17 (.93) 51 87 93 -.12 (1.15) -.01 (1.00)
High SES
Countries 497 (89) 501 (93) 509 (95) .22 (.90) 51 88 92 -.09 (1.00) .12 (1.00)
All Countries 454 (101) 461 (99) 463 (101) -.51 (1.21) 50 86 96 .00* (1.00) .00* (1.00)
1496
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, Frequencies for Low SES Countries
Scores Demographic % Factors
Country Math Reading Science SES Male Lang Cntry Learn Meta
Azerbaijan 431 (58) 362 (71) 373 (67) -.64 (.99) 51 93 98 .72 (1.16) -.77 (.95)
Kyrgyzstan 331 (75) 314 (95) 330 (84) -.65 (.93) 49 81 98 .52 (.99) -.74 (.92)
Uruguay 427 (86) 426 (96) 427 (91) -.70 (1.22) 47 98 98 -.00 (1.03) -.03 (.99)
Macao-China 525 (79) 487 (73) 511 (71) -.70 (.87) 51 89 81 -.37 (.89) -.05 (.92)
Hong Kong 555 (90) 533 (81) 549 (83) -.80 (1.02) 53 93 77 -.04 (.92) -.24 (1.01)
Panama 360 (77) 370 (96) 376 (85) -.81 (1.33) 50 94 95 .58 (1.02) -.34 (1.01)
Albania 377 (85) 385 (96) 391 (84) -.95 (1.04) 51 99 99 .65 (.80) .20 (.93)
Colombia 381 (71) 413 (83) 402 (76) -1.15 (1.27) 48 100 99 .38 (.99) -.18 (.99)
Brazil 386 (78) 412 (91) 405 (80) -1.15 (1.21) 47 99 99 .09 (.95) -.19 (.94)
Turkey 445 (89) 464 (79) 454 (76) -1.17 (1.22) 52 96 99 .22 (.84) -.12 (.94)
Tunisia 371 (72) 404 (81) 401 (76) -1.20 (1.31) 48 100 99 .35 (.95) -.23 (.88)
Mexico 419 (75) 425 (81) 416 (73) -1.22 (1.30) 49 97 98 .05 (1.00) .02 (.98)
Thailand 419 (74) 421 (69) 425 (74) -1.31 (1.19) 43 51 100 -.07 (.79) -.41 (.93)
Peru 365 (85) 370 (95) 369 (83) -1.31 (1.25) 51 95 99 .32 (.93) -.23 (.95)
Indonesia 371 (65) 402 (63) 383 (63) -1.55 (1.10) 50 36 99 .15 (.71) -.35 (.95)
Poor Countries 395 (80) 414 (83) 405 (79) -1.28 (1.21) 49 77 99 .14 (0.9) -.22 (1.0)
All Countries 454 (101) 461 (99) 463 (101) -.51 (1.21) 50 86 96 .00* (1.00) .00* (1.00)
Table 7
Metacognitive Component Means and Standard Deviations by SES and Gender
SES
Gender High Low
Male -.05 (1.01) -.32 (.95)
Female .28 (.99) -.14 (.97)
Discussion
In this study, we examined three primary research questions. First, we examined
the relationship of Metacognitive Strategies and Learning Strategies to reading,
math, and science achievement and whether Metacognitive Strategies and Learning
Strategies predicted achievement after controlling for SES. Second, we examined
how the use of Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Strategies compare across
countries with the highest and the lowest SES. Finally, we examined if there are
gender differences in Learning and Metacognitive Strategies that might explain the
traditional gender performance differences in reading and math.
Although researchers differ regarding whether they conceptualize metacognitive
strategies and learning strategies as distinct or inseparable categories of learning tactics,
in this study, we conceptualized them as unique categories. This was consistent with
general procedures for examining PISA data and was also further supported by factor
analytic results that indicated a two factor structure. In the current study, Metacognitive
Strategies entailed tactics that aid a learner’s “thinking about thinking,” such as checking
1497
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
one’s understanding of content (i.e., understanding and remembering) and summarizing
information into one’s own words (i.e., summarizing). In contrast, Learning Strategies
were conceptualized as both cognitive strategies (i.e., memorization & elaboration)
and control strategies. As opposed to Metacognitive Strategies, Learning Strategies are
useful for managing the cognitive demands of learning new information.
In regard to the relationship of Metacognitive and Learning Strategies with achievement
in reading, math, and science, we found that the self-reported use of Metacognitive
Strategies was signicantly related to achievement for all three academic subjects and
remained a signicant predictor of achievement for all three academic domains even
after controlling for SES. These ndings are consistent with the prior literature that has
shown metacognitive strategies to be strongly related to achievement for a variety of
academic subjects and across various countries (Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2010; Mevarech
& Amrany, 2008; Onu et al., 2012); however, our ndings contribute to the literature
because we explored the relations of Metacognitive Strategies and achievement across
a global population. Thus, our results, in conjunction with the prior literature, support
the notion that teaching students how to effectively utilize Metacognitive Strategies
should support their academic achievement in all core academic areas regardless of
their nation of origin or their SES.
In contrast, our results showed that Learning Strategies, such as memory
strategies, elaboration strategies, or control strategies, were not strongly associated
with higher achievement after controlling for SES. These ndings contrast a vast
body of research that has supported the use of Learning Strategies for students
within the United States (Cho & Ahn, 2003; Robbins et al., 2004; Tait & Entwhistle,
1996; Vrugt & Oort, 2008). Some prior research examining multi-national samples
has also indicated similar ndings that Learning Strategies may not be universally
effective for students from all countries (Chiu et al., 2007; Ghiasvand, 2010). Thus,
our ndings support this prior research but also contribute by examining a more
globally representative sample.
It is interesting that Metacognitive Strategies strongly predicted achievement but
Learning Strategies did not. It seems plausible that some recent research could shed light
on these ndings. In particular, research suggests that the use of learning strategies is
inuenced signicantly by contextual variables (Hadwin et al., 2001). That is, the learning
strategies that a student will employ depend greatly on factors such as the academic
domain (e.g., reading, math, science), the type of task within the domain (e.g., completing
math homework problems compared to studying for a math test), or even the difculty
level of that task (Callan & Cleary, 2014; Cleary & Chen, 2009). Interestingly, some
initial, albeit limited research suggests that contextualized measures of learning strategies
emerge as stronger predictors of achievement compared to decontextualized measures of
1498
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
learning strategies (Callan & Cleary, 2014; Cleary, Callan, Malatesta, & Adams, 2015).
Finally, it appears that metacognitive strategies may not be as contextually sensitive as
learning strategies (Van Der Stel & Veenman, 2008).
In the current study, the Learning Strategies were measured in relation to a broad
task, test-taking. Thus, it could be the case that students’ self-reported use of Learning
Strategies for test-taking in general was too broad, or generalized, to be meaningful to
their achievement within the domains of reading, mathematics, and science. In contrast,
Metacognitive Strategies were measured in relation to the context of reading. First, the
task of reading is essential to success in all three domains of reading, math, and science
compared to test-taking strategies, and therefore, it might be expected that Metacognitive
Strategies better related to achievement. Second, if metacognitive strategies are more
global in nature, the context in which metacognitive strategies are measured may not be
as important as the context in which learning strategies are measured. Thus, the authors
caution against an interpretation that learning strategies are unimportant or that they should
be ignored. Instead, further research is needed to better understand the most appropriate
ways to measure metacognitive and learning strategies; however, it is clear from our
ndings that metacognitive strategies are a signicant factor in student achievement.
Regarding our second research question to compare strategy use in high and low SES
countries, we found that use of Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Strategies did differ.
In particular, students in high SES countries tended to use Metacognitive Strategies more
frequently than their peers in low SES countries while students from low SES countries
tended to use Learning Strategies more frequently than their peers from high SES
countries. It is interesting that students from low SES countries tended to utilize strategies
that were not strongly related to success more often than their high SES peers. Moreover,
students from high SES countries not only utilized Metacognitive Strategies more often,
our data indicates that, even after controlling for individual SES, Metacognitive Strategies
were more strongly related to higher achievement in high SES countries. Although some
prior research has shown that family SES relates to the number and type of strategies that
students use while learning (Akyol et al., 2010; Lipina & Colombo, 2009), to the authors’
knowledge, no prior study has shown that the SES of one’s country relates to frequency of
learning strategy and metacognitive strategy use. Thus, our ndings contribute uniquely
to the literature in this regard. Although we did not address particular political or societal
ideologies, our ndings seem related to prior research indicating that academic motivation
may differ due to the beliefs and philosophies of one’s country (Chiu & Chow, 2010).
Furthermore, the authors speculate that it is also possible that countries of varying SES
levels may employ different curricula and pedagogical practices and these differences
may also impact how students are taught to learn. Further research to better understand
particular beliefs among high and low SES countries and how these beliefs may impact
the use of strategies would be particularly benecial.
1499
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
Our third objective was to determine if there were gender differences in learning
and metacognitive strategies. We found that females were signicantly more likely
to use both Learning Strategies and Metacognitive Strategies. Interestingly, this
difference was much more pronounced for Metacognitive Strategies than for Learning
Strategies. Moreover, the difference in Metacognitive Strategies interacted with the
SES of one’s country in that there was a larger difference between males and females
use of Metacognitive Strategies from high SES countries than in low SES countries.
The prior literature examining the use of learning strategies between males and
females has been mixed. That is, some of the prior literature has suggested that,
within the United States, females utilize a greater number of learning strategies
than males (Bembenutty, 2007), but other research has suggested that there is no
difference between males and females in the use of memorization, elaboration, and
control strategies (Ablard & Lipschultz; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). On
the other hand, the literature regarding metacognitive strategies and gender has been
more consistent within both the United States and international samples. Contrary to
our ndings, much of this literature has suggested there is no signicant difference
between males’ and females’ use of metacognitive strategies (Bembenutty, 2007;
Tang & Neber, 2008). Our ndings contrast this prior literature by showing that
within a global sample of students, females use signicantly more Metacognitive
Strategies than males. Given that metacognitive strategies are so strongly related to
achievement, our ndings suggest that under-achieving males, especially in poor
countries may benet from training in metacognitive strategies.
Our ndings are important and raise several questions for further research. First, more
research is needed to examine gender differences in both learning and metacognitive
strategies, especially to better understand why these differences may exist. Although
our ndings indicate that one possible factor that could inuence the use of strategies
is the collective SES of a country, more research is needed to better understand other
factors that could further explain this difference between genders. Doing so could have
important implications for underachieving males in low SES countries and low SES
families given that Metacognitive Strategies are so strongly related to achievement.
Limitations
There are some limitations regarding the current study that should be noted.
In particular, the current study does not address all of the potential learning and
metacognitive strategies that are available for students to engage or consider.
Moreover, the authors acknowledge the inherent limitations of self-report
questionnaire methodologies for measuring the types and frequency with which
students use learning and metacognitive strategies. Although other methodologies are
available, such as think-alouds, observations, microanalysis, or teacher ratings, the
1500
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
use of self-report questionnaires may be the only feasible measurement methodology
to examine massive sample sizes as was the case in the current study. Further research
that can collect more ne grained data regarding strategy use with other measurement
methodologies may be particularly important. In addition, further research should
also examine similar research questions regarding individual types of learning and
metacognitive strategies to determine the relationships of specic strategies with
achievement and gender.
Conclusions
Although SES and gender were strongly related to achievement and the use of
metacognitive strategies; “demography is not destiny” (Cavanagh, 2007). One role of
educational psychology in public policy is to point the way for possible improvements
in education. Our ndings indicate that the relations between metacognitive strategies
and achievement were as large as the relations between SES and achievement.
Although the directionality in regression analyses is always in question, and we also
do not suggest that metacognitive strategies alone can ameliorate all of the negative
effects of low SES, our ndings are encouraging because students can be taught to use
metacognitive strategies effectively (Perry, VandeKamp, & Mercer, 2000). Moreover,
there was a signicant difference between how males and females utilize learning
and metacognitive strategies. In light of a large achievement gap between males and
females in reading that has continued to widen in the last decade (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010), these results prompt the need for
further research to examine the role of metacognitive strategies as a means of closing
the reading achievement gap for males. Thus, our ndings are particularly important
for lower SES students and males underachieving in reading who less frequently
utilize metacognitive strategies appropriately.
References
Ablard, K., & Lipschultz, R. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students: Relations
to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90(1), 94–101.
Akyol, G., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2010). The contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use
to students’ science achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(1), 1–21.
Callan, G. L., & Cleary, T. J. (2014). Self-regulated learning (SRL) microanalysis for mathematical
problem solving: A comparison of a SRL event measure, questionnaires, and a teacher rating
scale. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 10789).
Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., Malatesta, J., & Adams, T. (2015). Examining the level of convergence
among self-regulated learning microanalytic processes, achievement, and a self-report
questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(5), 439–450. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/073428915594739
1501
Callan, Marchant, Finch, German / Metacognition, Strategies, Achievement, and Demographics: Relationships Across Countries
Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contributions of meta-strategic knowledge to scientic
inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1657–1682. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/09500690802162762
Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation of learning and academic delay of gratication: Gender and
ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586–616.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-553
Boss, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior
problems (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Rintamaa, M., Carter, J. C., Pennington, J., & Buckman, D. M. (2014). The
impact of supplemental instruction on low-achieving adolescents’ reading engagement. The Journal
of Educational Research, 107(1), 36–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753859
Cavanagh, S. (2007, December). Poverty’s effect on U.S. scores greater than for other
nations. Education Week, 27(15), 1, 13. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2007/12/12/15pisa.h27.html
Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2010). Culture, motivation, and reading achievement: High school
students in 41 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 579–592.
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W., & Mcbride-Chang, C. (2007). Universals and specics in learning
strategies: Explaining adolescent mathematics, science, and reading achievement across 34
countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(4), 344–365.
Cho, S., & Ahn, D. (2003). Strategy acquisition and maintenance of gifted and non-gifted young
children. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(4), 497–505.
Chuy, M., & Nitulescu, R. (2013). PISA 2009: Explaining the gender gap in reading through reading
engagement and approaches to learning. Research paper. Toronto: Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada (CMEC) and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC).
Gorsuch, G., & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading uency and comprehension using repeated
reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching Research, 14, 27–59.
Gardner, R., Brown, R., Sanders, S., & Menke, D. (1992). “Seductive details” and learning from
text. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
development (pp. 239–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J. C., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context
moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
477–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.477
Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and what
schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Lipina, S. J., & Colombo, J. A. (2009). Poverty and brain development during childhood: An
approach from cognitive psychology and neuroscience (Human Brain Development Series).
Washington, DC: APA Books.
Marchant, G. J., & Finch, W. H. (2016). Student, school, and country: The relationship of SES and
inequality to achievement. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science, 6(4), 187-196.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Amrany, C. (2008). Immediate and delayed effects of meta-cognitive instruction on
regulation of cognition and mathematics achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 3(2), 147–157.
Onu, V. C., Eskay, M., & Igbo, J. N. (2012). Effects of training in math metacognitive strategy on
fractional achievement of Nigerian schoolchildren. US-China Education Review, 3, 316–325.
1502
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., & Mercer, L. K. (2000, April). Investigating teacher-student interactions
that foster self-regulated learning. In N. E., Perry (Chair), Symposium conducted at the meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Peters, E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science
students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efcacy.
School Science and Mathematics, 110(8), 382–396.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. A. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to
classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Davis, H. L., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004).
Psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 261–288.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What
students know and can do — Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol.
1). Paris: OECD.
Sezgin Selcuk, G. (2010). Correlational study of physics achievement, learning strategies, attitude and
gender in an introductory physics course. Asia-Pacic Forum on Science Teaching and Learning,
11. Retrieved from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/download/v11_issue2_les/selcuk.pdf
Sperling, R. A., Richmond, A. S., Ramsay, C. M., & Klapp, M. (2012). The measurement and
predictive ability of metacognition in middle school learners. Journal of Educational Research,
105(1), 1–7.
Tait, H., & Entwistle, N. J. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies.
Higher Education, 31, 97–116.
Tang, M., & Neber, H. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated science learning in high-achieving
students: Differences related to nation, gender, and grade-level. High Ability Studies, 19(2),
103–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598130802503959
Throndsen, I. (2011). Self-regulated learning of basic arithmetic skills: A longitudinal study. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 558–578.
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic
achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition Learning, 30, 123–146.
Ward, L., & Traweek, D. (1993). Application of a metacognitive strategy to assessment, intervention,
and consultation: A think-aloud technique. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 469–485.
Woolfolk, A. (2014). Educational psychology: Active learning edition (12nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Yang, K. (2012). Structures of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy use for reading
comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 307–326.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (Vol. 2, pp. 1–27). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efcacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 51–59.
... A compreensão do conteúdo lido é considerada complexa, pois envolve os objetivos visados com a leitura, as circunstâncias em que ela ocorre e as características pessoais de quem a realiza, valendo-se da motivação para a tarefa, das estratégias de aprendizagem empregadas, entre outros (Callan, Marchant, Finch, & German, 2016). Além disso, o ambiente de aprendizagem e a prática leitora devem ser considerados, assim como características relacionadas ao texto (graus de dificuldade, vocabulário, gênero, apresentação, estrutura e conteúdo) (Álvarez-Cañizo, Cueva, Cuetos, & Suárez-Coalla, 2020;Viana, Cadime, Santos, Brandão, & Ribeiro, 2017). ...
... As atividades desempenhadas pelos professores, quando fundamentadas pelos pressupostos da Psicologia Educacional, indicam a necessidade de direcionar as práticas pedagógicas para desenvolver o interesse dos estudantes para a leitura e manter a sua qualidade motivacional (Callan et al., 2016;De Naeghel et al., 2014;Lim & Jung, 2019;Ferraz & Santos, 2021). Ao focar a cognição e a metacognição, aponta-se para os ganhos em ensinar estratégias de leitura que facilitam a compreensão dos materiais impressos ou digitais (Callan et al., 2016;Mak et al., 2016;Wu, 2014). ...
... As atividades desempenhadas pelos professores, quando fundamentadas pelos pressupostos da Psicologia Educacional, indicam a necessidade de direcionar as práticas pedagógicas para desenvolver o interesse dos estudantes para a leitura e manter a sua qualidade motivacional (Callan et al., 2016;De Naeghel et al., 2014;Lim & Jung, 2019;Ferraz & Santos, 2021). Ao focar a cognição e a metacognição, aponta-se para os ganhos em ensinar estratégias de leitura que facilitam a compreensão dos materiais impressos ou digitais (Callan et al., 2016;Mak et al., 2016;Wu, 2014). Esse tipo de recurso instrucional permite com que os estudantes selecionem e acessem os dispositivos de leitura com maior facilidade e eficiência (Ferraz & Santos, 2021). ...
Article
The ability to understand the content read is complex. It has implications for individuals' educational and social formation, depending on a series of socioeconomic, situational, motivational factors, among others. This reflective theoretical study outlines some possibilities of the contribution of Educational Psychology field to develop an understanding of reading from the discussion of researchers that investigated the antecedent aspects of performance in reading tests of the International Program for Student Assessment (PISA). It was evidenced that the socioeconomic and cultural aspects are notorious for school development, combined with teacher qualification, extracurricular activities, habits, and good environments for reading. Metacognitive strategies and the use of Information and Communication Technologies proved to be necessary. It is hoped that these reflections can expand the knowledge of professionals working in the psychoeducational area and encourage discussions and practices more consistent with reality.
... A compreensão do conteúdo lido é considerada complexa, pois envolve os objetivos visados com a leitura, as circunstâncias em que ela ocorre e as características pessoais de quem a realiza, valendo-se da motivação para a tarefa, das estratégias de aprendizagem empregadas, entre outros (Callan, Marchant, Finch, & German, 2016). Além disso, o ambiente de aprendizagem e a prática leitora devem ser considerados, assim como características relacionadas ao texto (graus de dificuldade, vocabulário, gênero, apresentação, estrutura e conteúdo) (Álvarez-Cañizo, Cueva, Cuetos, & Suárez-Coalla, 2020;Viana, Cadime, Santos, Brandão, & Ribeiro, 2017). ...
... As atividades desempenhadas pelos professores, quando fundamentadas pelos pressupostos da Psicologia Educacional, indicam a necessidade de direcionar as práticas pedagógicas para desenvolver o interesse dos estudantes para a leitura e manter a sua qualidade motivacional (Callan et al., 2016;De Naeghel et al., 2014;Lim & Jung, 2019;Ferraz & Santos, 2021). Ao focar a cognição e a metacognição, aponta-se para os ganhos em ensinar estratégias de leitura que facilitam a compreensão dos materiais impressos ou digitais (Callan et al., 2016;Mak et al., 2016;Wu, 2014). ...
... As atividades desempenhadas pelos professores, quando fundamentadas pelos pressupostos da Psicologia Educacional, indicam a necessidade de direcionar as práticas pedagógicas para desenvolver o interesse dos estudantes para a leitura e manter a sua qualidade motivacional (Callan et al., 2016;De Naeghel et al., 2014;Lim & Jung, 2019;Ferraz & Santos, 2021). Ao focar a cognição e a metacognição, aponta-se para os ganhos em ensinar estratégias de leitura que facilitam a compreensão dos materiais impressos ou digitais (Callan et al., 2016;Mak et al., 2016;Wu, 2014). Esse tipo de recurso instrucional permite com que os estudantes selecionem e acessem os dispositivos de leitura com maior facilidade e eficiência (Ferraz & Santos, 2021). ...
... Supporting metacognitive strategies during learning activities (e.g., reflecting on one's knowledge prior to or after a learning activity) can help students to think about their learning process [4]. Several prior studies have shown that greater use of metacognitive strategies is positively and strongly associated with higher academic achievement [6,42,63,66]. For example, in the 2009 PISA dataset of 15-year-old students across 65 countries, metacognitive strategies significantly predicted academic achievement when controlling for SES and gender [6]. ...
... Several prior studies have shown that greater use of metacognitive strategies is positively and strongly associated with higher academic achievement [6,42,63,66]. For example, in the 2009 PISA dataset of 15-year-old students across 65 countries, metacognitive strategies significantly predicted academic achievement when controlling for SES and gender [6]. ...
Conference Paper
As evidence grows supporting the importance of non-cognitive factors in learning, computer-assisted learning platforms increasingly incorporate non-academic interventions to influence student learning and learning related-behaviors. Non-cognitive interventions often attempt to influence students’ mindset, motivation, or metacognitive reflection to impact learning behaviors and outcomes. In the current paper, we analyze data from five experiments, involving seven treatment conditions embedded in mastery-based learning activities hosted on a computer-assisted learning platform focused on middle school mathematics. Each treatment condition embodied a specific non-cognitive theoretical perspective. Over seven school years, 20,472 students participated in the experiments. We estimated the effects of each treatment condition on students’ response time, hint usage, likelihood of mastering knowledge components, learning efficiency, and post-tests performance. Our analyses reveal a mix of both positive and negative treatment effects on student learning behaviors and performance. Few interventions impacted learning as assessed by the post-tests. These findings highlight the difficulty in positively influencing student learning behaviors and outcomes using non-cognitive interventions.
... Educators and researchers have increasingly drawn their attention to metacognition which has been acknowledged to be practically and theoretically important in learning in general (e.g., Callan et al., 2016;Coutinho et al., 2005;Flavell, 1979;Hartman, 2001;Lee & Mak, 2018;Tarricone, 2011) and in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) in particular (Zhang, 2010). It is seen as the most prominent predictor of learning (Wang et al., 1990), and as an essential tool to facilitate lifelong learning and flexibility in the changing society (Haukas et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Metacognition is has been shown to play an important role in students' academic success and in their language learning process in particular. Therefore, it should be fostered among language learners. The present study sought to explore metacognition including metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills among non-English-major university students in the Vietnamese context. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were employed to collect data in a convergent parallel design of mixed methods research. A total of 1,565 undergraduates from seven public universities completed the surveys, 13 of which participated in the interviews. The findings indicated a high level of consistency between two types of data and showed that the students had sound metacognitive knowledge of the self and the learning context. However, they lacked metacognitive knowledge of the language matters and the learning process and were not proficient in metacognitive skills (i.e., planning, monitoring, and evaluating). Moreover, there were significant differences in metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills in terms of gender and years of study. Metacognitive skills were significantly different in terms of marks in the previous English course. but not in terms of metacognitive knowledge among students. Accordingly, the study put forward several important implications at macro-, meso-, and micro-levels to contribute to the improvement of metacognition among English as a foreign language learners in the Vietnamese context as well as the other international English as a foreign language context. Resumen Se ha demostrado que la metacognición juega un papel importante en el éxito académico de los estudiantes y en su proceso de aprendizaje de idiomas en particular. Por lo tanto, debe fomentarse entre los estudiantes de idiomas. El presente estudio buscó explorar la metacognición, incluido el conocimiento y las habilidades metacognitivos entre estudiantes universitarios que no hablan inglés en el contexto vietnamita. Se emplearon cuestionarios y entrevistas semiestructuradas para recopilar datos en un diseño paralelo convergente de investigación de métodos mixtos. Un total de 1,565 estudiantes universitarios de siete universidades públicas completaron las encuestas, 13 de los cuales participaron en las entrevistas. Los hallazgos indicaron un alto nivel de consistencia entre dos tipos de datos y mostraron que los estudiantes tenían un sólido conocimiento metacognitivo de sí mismos y del contexto de aprendizaje. Sin embargo, carecían de conocimiento metacognitivo de los asuntos del lenguaje y del proceso de aprendizaje y no dominaban las habilidades metacognitivas (es decir, planificación, seguimiento y evaluación). Además, hubo diferencias significativas en el conocimiento y las habilidades metacognitivos en términos de género y años de estudio. Las habilidades metacognitivas fueron significativamente diferentes en términos de calificaciones en el curso de inglés anterior. pero no en términos de conocimiento metacognitivo entre los estudiantes. En consecuencia, el estudio presentó varias implicaciones importantes a nivel macro, meso y micro para contribuir a la mejora de la metacognición entre los estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera en el contexto vietnamita, así como en otros contextos internacionales de inglés como lengua extranjera.
... (Spada & Moneta, 2014). The literature on the existence of gender differences in the use of metacognitive strategies is inconclusive (Callan et al., 2016). To our knowledge, research on gender differences in the predictive value of metacognition does not exist as of today. ...
Article
Predictive models of academic achievement are used in various (often high stakes) applications, including selection and study orientation procedures for higher education. Considering the far-reaching consequences of their outcomes, these models should show as little bias for irrelevant factors as possible. While numerous studies have researched the impact of gender on the isolated individual predictors of academic achievement, no studies yet have explored how gender affects program-specific prediction models of academic achievement. As such, the present study examined whether prediction models exhibit gender differences in the accuracy of their predictions, and how such differences relate to the gender balance within a study program. Besides that, we developed gender-specific prediction models of academic achievement in order to examine how these models differ in terms of which predictors are included, and whether they make more accurate predictions. Data was examined from a large sample of first year students across 16 programs in an open access higher education system (N = 5,016). Results revealed interactions between gender and several predictors of academic achievement. While the models exhibited little difference in the accuracy of their predictions for male and female students, analyses showed that using gender-specific models substantially improved our predictions. We also found that male and female models of academic achievement differ greatly in terms of the predictors included in their composition, irrespective of the gender balance in a study program.
... Other motivation-related processes are also associated with science literacy achievement. These include students' projective self-assessments of their own abilities and their future aspirations (Lee and Stankov, 2018), perseverance and willingness to solve problems (Cutumisu and Bulut, 2017), and use of metacognitive strategies (Akyol et al., 2010;Callan et al., 2016). Interestingly, students' reading skills and reading strategies have also been associated with science achievement (Barnard-Brak et al., 2017;Caponera et al., 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
Filipino students’ performance in global assessments of science literacy has always been low, and this was confirmed again in the PISA 2018, where Filipino learners’ average science literacy scores ranked second to last among 78 countries. In this study, machine learning approaches were used to analyze PISA data from the student questionnaire to test models that best identify the poorest-performing Filipino students. The goal was to explore factors that could help identify the students who are vulnerable to very low achievement in science and that could indicate possible targets for reform in science education in the Philippines. The random forest classifier model was found to be the most accurate and more precise, and Shapley Additive Explanations indicated 15 variables that were most important in identifying the low-proficiency science students. The variables related to metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, social experiences in school, aspirations and pride about achievements, and family/home factors, include parents’ characteristics and access to ICT with internet connections. The results of the factors highlight the importance of considering personal and contextual factors beyond the typical instructional and curricular factors that are the foci of science education reform in the Philippines, and some implications for programs and policies for science education reform are suggested.
... Metacognition is defined as awareness and control of one's own cognitive system, or the ability to think and reflect on one's own behavior (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Metacognitive skills play an important role in successful learning (Callan et al., 2016). Therefore, metacognitive skills have been linked to academic success, leadership, and general well-being (Kontostavlou & Drigas, 2021;Safranj, 2019); as such, teaching metacognitive skills may improve academic performance and social and emotional well-being (Craig et al., 2020). ...
Article
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the online delivery of an affective curriculum for gifted and talented youth to gain further understanding of its effectiveness and perceived advantages and disadvantages of delivering affective curriculum online. Using convergent parallel mixed-methods design, we evaluated data from 38 secondary education students and 4 camp counselors to examine their experiences with the online delivery of an affective curriculum. We found the curriculum effectively increased students' self-perceptions, planning, and self-monitoring. Further, camp counselors generally perceived the online delivery to be effective and identified several benefits of online delivery, such as increased access and easier differentiating. Yet, they continued to prefer a face-to-face delivery where possible. Implications for practice are discussed.
... In general, these differences in objective metacognitive monitoring found in students from different countries in Ibero-America is consistent with findings which conclude that metacognitive performance is not a universal construct, and thus, its components and different indicators related to accuracy, performance, and the level of confidence individuals report can vary significantly from one culture to another. Among some plausible explanations are the mediation of various culturally-specific factors such as school influence, parental style, teaching model, preferences of the educational system, or the greater emphasis that a given culture can provide regarding training in the use of metacognitive learning strategies in its educational system (Callan et al., 2016), even when it is a comparison between cultures with the same language and with some cultural overlap, as was the case in the present study. This is also supported by research on Confucian-heritage cultures (CHCs) that share similar dialects and cultures across Asia and the Pacific Islands. ...
Article
Full-text available
A deeper understanding of what factors influence metacognition has never become more pressing than in today’s digital era, in which information flows constantly and quickly. To this end, the present study explored the role of culture in mediating how individuals experience metacognitive phenomena. For this purpose, the International Group on Metacognition (IGM) developed a rigorous standard international protocol to measure metacognition in Spanish-speaking university students (N = 1,461) in 12 cultures in Latin-America and Spain, employing both a subjective measure of metacognitive awareness (the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory [MAI]) and various metrics of objective metacognitive monitoring across three domains of learning—vocabulary, probabilities (mathematical reasoning), and paper folding (visual-spatial reasoning). Data were subsequently compared across the various cultures with subjective metacognitive awareness and the raw frequencies of the four mutually exclusive cells of the 2x2 performance/judgment array as outcomes. Results revealed significant differences regarding both macro-level components of subjective metacognitive awareness, knowledge and regulation of cognition. Further, significant and meaningful differences emerged for the raw frequencies of the four mutually exclusive cells as a function of culture, especially for vocabulary, in which differences among cultures emerged for all four cells. Implications for metacognitive research, theory, and practice are discussed.
Article
This systematic evidence synthesis examined the reported research on the effect of peer tutoring on metacognition in primary and secondary school students. A comprehensive search of multiple databases, including ERIC, Education source, British Education Index, ProQuest, Scopus, and Psych Info was conducted. The evidence synthesis included experimental studies on peer tutoring and metacognition from 1st January 1990 to 11th November 2022. The criteria for inclusion were the use of randomized controlled or quasi-experimental designs with a control/comparison group, implementation of the intervention in formal school educational settings with students aged 5–18 years old, and the use of peer tutoring as an intervention and metacognition as a measured outcome. Seven-hundred and eighteen studies were identified including 86 duplicate records. Six-hundred and thirty-two records were screened for inclusion and 630 were rejected as not meeting the selection criteria, leaving two studies for inclusion. Studies were assessed for quality using the Briggs appraisal tool for quasi-experimental/experimental studies. Despite the abundance of literature on the effects of peer tutoring on academic and social outcomes, this review highlighted the severe lack of published peer-reviewed research on the impact of peer tutoring on metacognition in school students.
Thesis
Full-text available
The current dissertation examined the validity of a context-specific assessment tool, called Self-regulated learning (SRL) microanalysis, for measuring self-regulated learning (SRL) during mathematical problem solving. SRL microanalysis is a structured interview that entails assessing respondents’ regulatory processes as they engage with a task of interest. Participants for this dissertation consisted of 83 eighth grade students attending a large urban school district in Midwestern USA. Students were administered the SRL microanalytic interview while completing a set of mathematical word problems to provide a measure of their real-time thoughts and regulatory behaviors. The SRL microanalytic interview targeted the SRL processes of goal-setting, strategic planning, strategy use, metacognitive monitoring, attributions, and adaptive inferences. In addition, students completed two questionnaires measuring SRL strategy use, and one questionnaire measuring self-esteem. The participant’s mathematics teacher completed a teacher rating scale of SRL for each participant. Mathematical skill was measured with three measures including a three item measure of mathematical problem solving skill completed during the SRL microanalytic interview, a fifteen item posttest of mathematical problem solving skill completed two weeks after the SRL microanalytic interview, and a standardized test of mathematics skill. The primary objectives of this dissertation were to compare the newly developed SRL microanalytic interview to more traditional measures of SRL including two self-report questionnaires measuring adaptive and maladaptive SRL and a teacher rating scale of SRL. In addition, the current dissertation examined whether SRL microanalysis would diverge from a theoretically unrelated construct such as self-esteem. Finally, the primary interest of the current dissertation was to examine the relative predictive validity of SRL microanalysis and SRL questionnaires. The predictive validity was compared across three related but distinct mathematics outcomes including a short set of mathematical problem solving items, a more comprehensive posttest of MPS problem solving skill, and performance on a standardized mathematics test. The results of this study revealed that SRL microanalysis did not relate to self-report questionnaires measuring adaptive or maladaptive SRL or teacher ratings of SRL. The SRL microanalytic interview diverged from the theoretically unrelated measure of self-esteem. Finally, after controlling for prior achievement and SRL questionnaires, the SRL microanalytic interview explained a significant amount of unique variation for all three mathematics outcomes. Furthermore, the SRL microanalytic protocol emerged as a superior predictor of all three mathematics outcomes compared to SRL questionnaires.
Article
Full-text available
The relationship of socioeconomic status (SES) and SES inequality to student achievement was explored using the 2009 PISA data for 65 countries. Student, school, and country level data were analyzed. School level SES emerged as the strongest predictor of student achievement (even more important than the students' own SES). When controlling for student SES, school SES, and school SES inequality, the SES inequality of the countries was more related to achievement than the mean SES of the countries. Among the higher SES countries, the relatively low SES and high SES inequality of the United States was more related to achievement. The educational policy implications from the findings were clear. Economics, in terms of SES and inequality, are related to student achievement. The SES of students and schools, and the SES inequality of a country provide a context for learning that needs further exploration and consideration by policymakers.
Article
Full-text available
The authors examined the impact of a supplemental reading course on 462 sixth-grade students’ reading engagement and performance as compared with 389 students in a control group. They further explored students’ cognitive strategy use through think aloud processes with a subset of students who participated in the intervention. Participating students reported significantly higher levels of strategy use, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as compared with the control group. Think aloud measures indicated students who participated in supplemental instruction exhibited higher levels of cognitive engagement at the end of the intervention than they exhibited at the start of the intervention. There was no significant impact on students’ reading performance as measured by a standardized test.
Article
Young children's strategy acquisition and maintenance were examined by comparing the recall, clustering, and study behaviors of children of different ages and intelligences. Three groups were included in the study: 5-year-old gifted children, 5-year-old nongifted children, and 7-year-old nongifted children. All were observed and measured on 5 consecutive days, with training on strategy use provided on the third day. Several differences among groups were found, generally favoring the gifted children in terms of performance and maintenance of strategies. In addition, the 5-year-old gifted children seemed to spontaneously use categorization strategies and clustered items in recall before training, while the 7-year-old children used categorization and clustering in recall after training. Implications for instruction for gifted students are discussed.
Article
This study examined the convergent and predictive validity of self-regulated learning (SRL) microanalytic measures. Specifically, theoretically based relations among a set of self-reflection processes, self-efficacy, and achievement were examined as was the level of convergence between a microanalytic strategy measure and a SRL self-report questionnaire targeting similar strategic behaviors. Using a sample of 49 college students, we found that SRL microanalytic self-reflection measures evidenced high inter-correlations and demonstrated medium to large relations with self-efficacy and achievement, respectively. Although non-significant relations were observed between a microanalytic strategy measure and a SRL self-report questionnaire, the microanalytic measure was shown to be a more robust predictor of future performance in the college course. Consideration for the types of scoring procedures used with microanalysis and the implications and limitations of our results are also discussed.
Article
The relation between achievement and self-regulated learning (SRL) is more complex than originally believed. In this study, 222 seventh-grade students (53% boys) described their use of SRL strategies and rated their achievement goals (mastery and performance). Students were high achievers, performing at or above the 97th percentile on an achievement test. However, they ranged widely in their use of SRL strategies, suggesting that SRL strategies are not necessary for high achievement. Reasons for variation in SRL were examined. Advanced reasoning was not related to SRL. Performance goal orientation was related to SRL only in conjunction with mastery goal orientation. Mastery goal orientation and gender were significantly related to SRL. As mastery goals increased, so did the use of SRL strategies. Girls reported greater use of SRL strategies (a) involving personal regulation or optimizing the environment and (b) when completing difficult homework or engaged in reading and writing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)